Curse

Burst Cancel · Sep 10, 2007, 05:02 PM // 17:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by SotiCoto

Thanks to Burst Cancel for that delightful wall of text. *Yawn*

You'll note that the majority of the wall comes from quotes. As such, your sarcasm is entirely misdirected.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SotiCoto

The failure of the GW:EN PvE skills is that they aren't profession-specific like the Sunspear and Kurzick / Luxon ones. Therefore they aren't really catered for any particular style of play... and are therefore inadequate substitutes for class-specific skills.
I mean... for my assassin, there is nothing he can take advantage of with his high Critical Strikes or rapid hits. Drunken Master would be nice, but the conditions aren't quite as favourable as those of Critical Agility (plus Sunspear title higher than Dwarven title)...
Likewise... spells don't do enough damage for elementalists.... aren't quite annoying enough (with a few Asuran exceptions) for Mesmers... don't heal or purge effectively for Monks..... etc.
They're general-purpose skills..... whereas builds are usually catered to VERY specific roles. I don't want to drag some general-arse skill into my specialist build....

The fact that they aren't class-specific is also what makes them powerful. For example, "I am Unstoppable!" is an incredible running skill, and I don't have to take warrior to use it, unlike Balanced Stance. That means I can easily run it on a Spellbreaker/Storm Djinn monk runner - and without any attribute investment. Then there's "You move like a Dwarf!", which is an unconditional shout KD + cripple, which again doesn't require a specific class or attribute investment. Or Dwarven Stability, which combines with various other stances from any profession to make them broken (see Dwarven Stability + Serpent's Quicknes, for example).

Not being class-specific simply means that you can and must find your own uses for them. Certainly, some of the skills serve no real purpose, but others are actually quite powerful, and are strictly better than their normal counterparts (Low Blow has a huge damage bonus - equal or better than nearly any other attack skill in the game).

Quote:

Originally Posted by TabascoSauce

I am afraid that your idea of "everybody wins = boring" is the way MMOs are being made today, and is to be accepted, not feared.

(emphasis added)

On what basis is it to be accepted? Your say-so?

I prefer games that force you to get better at them - for this reason, I typically spend a lot of time with competitive games, because the difficulty is necessarily dynamic. Games that allow lazy, unskilled playing typically stagnate into grindfests where the goal of the game is no longer to play, but rather, to simply look the coolest, have the most money, etc. Granted, some people prefer those kinds of games (e.g., anyone playing standard Korean MMOs like Ragnarok Online), but I personally don't consider those to be real games.

Uber Mass · Sep 10, 2007, 05:12 PM // 17:12

seriously unrealistic difficulty? i want HM to get more challenged and this is difficult?

xArcaeus · Sep 10, 2007, 05:22 PM // 17:22

That's a very good point, Tabasco. The problems people are having is that they expect the MMO to operate like the old school games -- you get the standard equipment at first, but you get stronger as you get more experience, better weapons, and ultimately win due to a combination of a more powerful character and *usually* getting more skilled in the game as you play more.

GW however was designed to be almost the opposite though, and is blatantly apparent in the harder areas of the game. I have no problem with everyone winning, I actually encourage it (ressurect the good PUGs), but they must understand that this game isn't like any others. If you want to be more powerful and beat everything just because you've merely gotten to that level, well, that's for EQ and WoW players to enjoy. But to require enhanced player skill and strategy in certain areas w/o giving them the BFG9000, well that's what GW thrives at. That's the challenge it presents, and reduces the grind for those who have better ideas/strategies. Nobody mastered pinball the first time they played it, neither should we expect a newbie to beat an Elite mission the first time through, just because they've unlocked it. If people can accept that they'll have to actually work hard to beat a mission/quest by their own merit, it'll be that much more rewarding when they have.

darktyco · Sep 10, 2007, 05:57 PM // 17:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by xArcaeus

That's a very good point, Tabasco. The problems people are having is that they expect the MMO to operate like the old school games -- you get the standard equipment at first, but you get stronger as you get more experience, better weapons, and ultimately win due to a combination of a more powerful character and *usually* getting more skilled in the game as you play more.

GW however was designed to be almost the opposite though, and is blatantly apparent in the harder areas of the game. I have no problem with everyone winning, I actually encourage it (ressurect the good PUGs), but they must understand that this game isn't like any others. If you want to be more powerful and beat everything just because you've merely gotten to that level, well, that's for EQ and WoW players to enjoy. But to require enhanced player skill and strategy in certain areas w/o giving them the BFG9000, well that's what GW thrives at. That's the challenge it presents, and reduces the grind for those who have better ideas/strategies. Nobody mastered pinball the first time they played it, neither should we expect a newbie to beat an Elite mission the first time through, just because they've unlocked it. If people can accept that they'll have to actually work hard to beat a mission/quest by their own merit, it'll be that much more rewarding when they have.

Pretty nice post. I think many players are used to the console "RPG" mindset: got stomped by a boss? Well go grind monsters for an hour, gain a few levels, then come back and win without changing strageties.

I love GW because I love thinking about builds. Single character builds, team builds, AFK LB point farming builds (

), you name it. A lot of the areas in the game that are challenging at first can become much easier by analyzing and thinking up a new build. If you are not capable of doing that or learning how to, you shouldn't be able to beat certain areas, otherwise it will be too easy for others. Should people be able to beat the original Mario Bros the first time they play it, without having to get better at it?

PS- I want to point out that your dig against EQ and WoW are incorrect. Even when you hit the level cap in those games, to beat dungeons you have to put in a LOT of time and must usually have very good team coordination- players of those games definitely don't get a free pass for being max level!

wolfwing · Sep 10, 2007, 05:59 PM // 17:59

Any tips for handling the mega patrols? Especially in Slavers Exile, I try the hit and run technique, but since so many have ressurect and the second you vanish they just kill the frozen soil, it seems a bit of a war of attrition.

Mineria · Sep 10, 2007, 07:26 PM // 19:26

Quote:

Isn't one of the major points in playing a Role-playing type of game creating and playing a UNIQUE character??!!

Yes, and that is what I play with.

Quote:

To me, having areas of an RPG came that require specific builds to be successful (such as the Magni tournament) is not a sign of a challenging game but a sign of poor design choices.

Im still trying to find my own way to kill Magni.

Quote:

Just because Anet has now given us the Powerstone of Courage, doesn't mean we should be required to use it.

I thought the powerstone was made for n00bs...
Never used one,hopefully never will.

To the OP.

If I go all the way to 60%DP, and can't make it, I just resign and try again.
But if you observe while you play, and remember what happens and why it does, you get an idea how you can do it the next time.
This is how WoW is played when you enter an instance with your raid, without having a boss-mod and without having a guide for how it is done.
Those who know what I'm talking about, know that is why GW is great.
You don't need to spend weeks to learn, how to get through a dungeon in GW.

MSecorsky · Sep 10, 2007, 09:05 PM // 21:05

You're not taking enough mesmers. Period. EotN seems to be the most mesmer friendly of all the GWs hands down. I personally like to run an Illusion build and take Gwen along as a Dominatrix (with Dunk and Koss... ah, the stories Koss tells...) and I'll round this off with Lina, Devona, Cynn and Eve.

You can dungeon crawl with this group or go dino-hunting and come home from pretty much anything at +10%.

Hanok Odbrook · Sep 10, 2007, 10:00 PM // 22:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

Except here's the problem: even if the game provided you ways to make fire damage effective against fire-resistant enemies, you wouldn't think to take those additional support skills with you in a cold-oriented area. Why would you bother to account for fire-resistant enemies in an area where all the enemies are weak to fire?

In other words, you've failed to grasp the crux of your own argument - rapidly changing enemy conditions that force different combinations of skills. It isn't a matter of making fire effective against fire - it's a matter of having to make fire effective against cold, fire, lightning, etc. within the same area.

I didn't quite get across what I meant here (The minute for having to leave for work was fast approaching). It's not just a matter of making a Pyro more effective based on someone else having Water Magic skills, but having a system in place that would give the party a limited opening during a battle that would maximize the Pyro's attacks against a Fire Resistant creature, thereby at least giving that player some effectiveness in a battle instead of just having to hang back because they would otherwise be next to useless in this fight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

This is just handwaving, really. First of all, your analogy is incorrect. The players are always David, because we are strictly weaker than the monsters - we cannot be level 30, we do not do 200+ damage per hit, and we do not have innate abilities like knockdown immunity. The right analogy would be David beating Goliath with a slingshot, or beating him with an assault rifle. Seen this way, you begin to realize the issue - if David can do it with a slingshot, it must necessarily be child's play if he has the rifle.

We all know the weaker David was able to defeat the stronger Goliath using a relatively weak weapon because he used the proper tactics and know how. What I was trying to point out here (again not doing the best job), is that in GW, even using the proper tactics does not make up for a weaker build. Does it help, yes, but in the end as everyone is telling the OP, you have to have the right build to go along with the right tactics. Therefore David probably wouldn't win a fight against Goliath if they met in an EotN Dungeon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

Such bonuses already exist - it's called synergy. Some skills create conditions that are required for other skills.

That's what I said, we do have currently have bonuses inherent in the system, just as Smiting Monks get that bonus against undead. I am just looking for more refinement and a more global effect to this whole system. Like I said, the current Lead-Off Hand-Dual chain for an Assassin as is would be condisered the low level base synergy, with the damage and rewards that the particular skills used being unchanged. However, what I am looking for is further buffs and bonuses to go along with that base level given by the skills when players are more "creative" with the skills they choose to chain and how many different party members can continue an attack chain going.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

You haven't avoided the problem of making the game really easy for people with overpowered builds. If the weakest builds can do it (albeit slowly), then by definition the strongest builds will steamroll it.

The situation you've presented results in an entirely trivial game - everyone wins eventually, and the only difference between good and bad builds is how quickly you win. It would be similar to running a marathon where you're allowed to take breaks as often as you like, and for as long as you like. Everyone would finish the marathon eventually, and the better runners would just finish faster. What is the point in that?

If something is challenging for the best builds and the best players, chances are very good that it is entirely impossible for the worst builds and players. If that were not the case, then there must necessarily be no differences between the best and the worst - which is an entirely different issue dealing with skill variety and balance.

That wouldn't necessarily be true. Again, I haven't really had the chance to really get a lot of the details down on how this new system would really work, as I am still working and refining how I feel in game combat should be, but the changes to the monsters would negate a potentially overpowered build in and of itself. Essentially, one player would no longer be able to spike a monster to death within a matter of seconds. In order to bring a monster down, the player would have to work in concert with his teammates in order to win. Without using proper tactics, and good chains of attack, on top of individual skill damage outputs, a party would not be able to defeat a mob, and would themselves in the long run end up being defeated, so not everyone would win after all. This system would just make it harder for both players and monsters to be killed, but not entirely eliminate that possibilty. Yes, a stronger team with many potential attack chains will win battles faster than a weaker party with minimal potential, but this system would still at least give that weaker party a better fighting chance as long as they are using the right tactics. The better runners still finish faster and the weaker runners still bring up the rear, but what I am looking for is to change the course a bit to give the better runners more of an obstacle, yet still allow those weaker runners to finish the race.

Hanok Odbrook

Black Ops Ranger · Sep 10, 2007, 10:17 PM // 22:17

1) Since GW is meant to be played with actual people instead of henchman/heroes its not exactly ANET's fault the AI is to stupid to keep you alive. (I'm not stating what happens I'm just saying what GW was designed as)

2) You obviously don't have enough Rangers on your side. My guildies and I never seem to have much problem with any areas in the normal parts of the game (i.e. non-elite areas) because for the first time we ever do anything its usually with 2 to 3 human rangers and at least one hero ranger. Since Barrage Rangers are able to have the damage of Nukers and sustain, have higher armor against Elemental damage and are able to fend off physical damage for a time (i.e. Throw Dirt, Whirling Defense), and are able to run away to res easily, Rangers pwn all the campaigns fairly easily.

Spazzer · Sep 10, 2007, 10:19 PM // 22:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

On what basis is it to be accepted? Your say-so?

I prefer games that force you to get better at them

Why do you play MMORPGs? You should be playing things like Trackmania.

Guild Wars, even in pvp, will never give you the impression that you need to get better at the game. That's why pvp died.

genofreek · Sep 10, 2007, 10:31 PM // 22:31

Quote:

That's why pvp died.

Oh God. End of thread. Mod, close this please?

Antheus · Sep 10, 2007, 11:27 PM // 23:27

Quote:

PS- I want to point out that your dig against EQ and WoW are incorrect. Even when you hit the level cap in those games, to beat dungeons you have to put in a LOT of time and must usually have very good team coordination- players of those games definitely don't get a free pass for being max level!

Heh... There must be another EQ and WoW that I have played. Or better yet, the ones I ran the macro in through everything.

The only thing that is true - they take a lot of time. Skill however, is not required.

Chrono Re delle Ere · Sep 11, 2007, 12:04 AM // 00:04

I did not read any of the posts of this topic, just the main one and I just have something to say:

untill you will keep using 3 sf aganist destroyers and in all dungeons like many people do, I bet you will fail. Eles are not the unique damage dealers. I mean, am I the unique man in all gw that used a smiting monk in "undead based dungeons"? I think so. Till people won't try new things, I bet they will have problems with the game.

BradNess · Sep 11, 2007, 12:57 AM // 00:57

Do what I did when I found a dungeon to be very difficult. Change something up on your hero's skill bars, maybe they need better equipment, runes, weapons, brains ect. Grind your way to R4 in the new titles so you can get consumeables such as the Powerstone of Courage, and the armor of Salvation.

Some dungeons you can do with 3 SF ele's in your group very easily, others are next to impossible, and need a more balanced scheme to roll through. It is a Roll playing game, but a lot of ppl look past the fact that there is a ton of Strategy involved in just about all aspects of Guild Wars.

A great strategy that not many ppl learn, use, or even look at is patience! Take your time and watch what groups of bad guys are doing, where they are moving before you aggro them. While watching, get skills ready on your hero's, like the SF ele's, you can buff them up before aggro to be ready for a long battle. Learn from your mistakes and recalculate and retool how you can overcome the obstacle, your lucky Guild Wars is die and respawn and not die and GAME OVER restart the whole bloody thing.

Remember Rome was not built in a day, and going through balls out in every dungeon trying to beat it in 5min won't work either.

Take your time, and have fun.

Crom The Pale · Sep 11, 2007, 01:35 AM // 01:35

I find that far to many people today give up far to soon. I was on a simple quest today and after one person hit 23%dp they quit and mapped out, soon after the entire party left. I took hench and heros and completed the quest with no problems.

On the tougher dungeons people need to learn to adapt to what they are facing there, weather this means setting up a new team/hero/party build or just diff tactics.

To those that believe once you hit 60% dp you should just resign because its impossible to win.....

[IMG][/IMG]

.........................Relentless Pursuit of Victory.............Courage will prevail

Shoitaan · Sep 11, 2007, 02:04 AM // 02:04

There's far to many pages of this so I didnt read it all. I'll jut throw in my 2c here:

Me and my sister play with heroes. We're not hardcore players, quite frequently we stop playing gw's for a month or two because of Uni/Work/something fun came out on the XBOX360.

Everything we've tackled went down after the second attempt (occaisionally the second full attempt ie restart the dungeon with different builds). We're yet to try Slaver's Exile but thats about it. We've done about half the dungeons now with no difficulty. I'm a long time Magic: The Gathering player so I LOVE having to quit on a dungeon and try with a new build. Thats what GW's is about - at least to us!
I've been using the almost same e/q since factions and I still dominate everything by simply changing my build around.
Its my opinion that too many people use cookie cutter builds or 'standardised' groups (ie war war monk monk ele ele etc) and then cry when their faces get smashed. If you treat GW's like every other RPG or MMO you've played then you're doing something wrong. YOU. Not the game. I can't talk about Slavers Exile having never been (yet!) but there's nothing EOTN added thats any harder than anything already in the game. Some areas require slightly more thought with pulling, other areas require somewhat different builds. Thats about it.

All that being said, me = mesmer and my sister = monk. Maybe support classes just have a better time of adapting their builds? Maybe having a human healer makes all the difference? I cant say. All I can say is this, even if it comes out rude: EOTN is not hard, quit whining and take a mesmer with you. He'll help you dry your tears.

Burst Cancel · Sep 11, 2007, 02:13 AM // 02:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hanok Odbrook

We all know the weaker David was able to defeat the stronger Goliath using a relatively weak weapon because he used the proper tactics and know how. What I was trying to point out here (again not doing the best job), is that in GW, even using the proper tactics does not make up for a weaker build. Does it help, yes, but in the end as everyone is telling the OP, you have to have the right build to go along with the right tactics. Therefore David probably wouldn't win a fight against Goliath if they met in an EotN Dungeon.

This is a question of degree. David could win with an assault rifle, and he could win with a slingshot, but can he win with a toothpick? How about just his bare hands? Basically, my point is that you have to draw the line somewhere - and as I stated earlier, this line is what currently determines area difficulty in GW. The hardest areas can only really be beaten with the assault rifle, and the easiest ones can be beaten with just his bare hands. Your idea is really no different, except that you want to give David a chance even when he's using his bare hands - that means using the assault rifle should be even easier.

Furthermore, I'd like to point out that GW is actually pretty build lenient - it's just that most people aren't good enough players to win with sub-optimal builds. Hence the advent of cookie-cutter: proven builds that take minimal skill to run.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hanok Odbrook

That's what I said, we do have currently have bonuses inherent in the system, just as Smiting Monks get that bonus against undead. I am just looking for more refinement and a more global effect to this whole system. Like I said, the current Lead-Off Hand-Dual chain for an Assassin as is would be condisered the low level base synergy, with the damage and rewards that the particular skills used being unchanged. However, what I am looking for is further buffs and bonuses to go along with that base level given by the skills when players are more "creative" with the skills they choose to chain and how many different party members can continue an attack chain going.

I would say that your proposed system is actually more restrictive, or at least more hand-holding than GW's current system. As the GW skills are right now, there aren't that many explicit synergies - some of the best skill combos required some thought to come up with, and certain synergies aren't apparent until you put a handful of skills together, rather than just two or three. By reducing the system to just "use skill of type A, then type B, then type C, in order to get bonus D", I submit that you're really just dumbing things down and forcing people to play according to those rules.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hanok Odbrook

That wouldn't necessarily be true. Again, I haven't really had the chance to really get a lot of the details down on how this new system would really work, as I am still working and refining how I feel in game combat should be, but the changes to the monsters would negate a potentially overpowered build in and of itself. Essentially, one player would no longer be able to spike a monster to death within a matter of seconds. In order to bring a monster down, the player would have to work in concert with his teammates in order to win. Without using proper tactics, and good chains of attack, on top of individual skill damage outputs, a party would not be able to defeat a mob, and would themselves in the long run end up being defeated, so not everyone would win after all. This system would just make it harder for both players and monsters to be killed, but not entirely eliminate that possibilty. Yes, a stronger team with many potential attack chains will win battles faster than a weaker party with minimal potential, but this system would still at least give that weaker party a better fighting chance as long as they are using the right tactics. The better runners still finish faster and the weaker runners still bring up the rear, but what I am looking for is to change the course a bit to give the better runners more of an obstacle, yet still allow those weaker runners to finish the race.

This system can't succeed without making the build mostly irrelevant - at which point you've arrive at the level playing field of competitive games and you might as well not let people choose their own tools, since they're all equally effective (and this is ignoring the practical problem of how you arrive at a perfectly balanced skill set to begin with).

The reason the build has to be irrelevant is that, if the build is at all relevant, then the people with the best builds still have it easier. Say their build does tons of damage to a particular boss, but they still need to satisfy your combo condition to beat it. Well, if they do a lot more damage than the weaker build, then they only have to do the combo once or twice, whereas the weaker group might have to do it flawlessly a few dozen times before the boss dies. Worst case, the groups with the strongest builds could just count on getting lucky, since they only need to nail that combo a few times to win. By definition, a faster fight must be easier, because there's a smaller window for mistakes.

You're also ignoring a broader issue - those most skilled at the game would necessarily know the best builds also. Combine the two and you get an unstoppable steamroller. On the other hand, the people who have the weak builds are likely the ones who lack skill in the game to begin with. So really, the situation will not be significantly different from what we have now, except that the really good players can get away with playing any old build they want, and the bad players are just completely screwed no matter what they bring.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spazzer

Why do you play MMORPGs? You should be playing things like Trackmania.

Guild Wars, even in pvp, will never give you the impression that you need to get better at the game. That's why pvp died.

I like RPGs, and GW takes a bit more skill than most of the other grindfests out there. I'd never put this game next to, say, arcade or console games in terms of skill, and I stick to competitive fighting games or RTS when I really want to challenge myself. However, it's a nice way to play with distant friends in a game that isn't entirely devoid of skill. Certain areas do force you to think a bit, and high-end GvG always required some degree of skill, frankly.

Moloch Vein · Sep 11, 2007, 02:28 AM // 02:28

I believe that suggesting poor players to bring mesmers along on the team is doing them a disservice.

The reason is that 1, a good and working mesmer build is a little harder to construct than a good and working necro build. Note, I am not saying that people don't generally fail at both.

2, the mesmer henchmen are without exceptions terrible and bring builds they have not got the AI to use properly.

3, even if you manage to construct a nice working mesmer build, generally speaking, the character will be a less efficient and above all else less resilient PvE hexer than a necromancer. The mesmer skills are to a huge degree focused on single target shutdown. Necro hexes are blanket-type and can with little effort severely disable an entire mob.

4, ever tried to e-deny a level 28 monster?

I've had to bring Gwen with me on some missions so I made her a PD build. That's generally something heroes are good at, they can usually interrupt far better than a human being. And, it's working fine... I generally bring her for Murakai's dungeon in order to get a number of solid interrupts. However, the sad truth is I mainly bring her for her good looks, and because it's fun to do GWEN with... well, Gwen. Livia or Masters can run almost her exact build way better due to passive soul reaping benefits.

Hanok Odbrook · Sep 11, 2007, 05:35 AM // 05:35

OK, what I really would like to see here is combat to be taken to a more involved level than a simple call taget and attack, but not make it a total clickfest. Most of the time I play now (EotN) excepted, I rarely even use any skills myself unless it's near end-campaign boss or I just feel like having something to do other than sit back and wait for the battle to be over. I love EothN for the fact that I actually can use some flagging and pulling tactics in addition to keeping a closer watch on patrol patterns than any point in any of the full campaigns. I pretty much got slaughtered my first time out in Drakkar Lake because I would be fighting one mob and one or two others would suddenly appear and wipe out my party. It wasn't until I really started to watch the patrols that I noticed that mobs were actually patrolling instead of taking half a dozen steps one way, then the other.

I also go into new areas with a thought in mind - is this a place I feel confident taking my Survivor? Thus far, the Dungeons are the only place that have made me think more than twice about it (however, anyone know if a snowball kill nets a real death, or is it just a "fake" death? I keep forgetting to check). What I am looking for is a system that gives greater rewards to teammwork and diversity in skills and professions, without putting weaker teams and builds at a greater disadvantage, and thus increasing the chances of any death occurring. Certainly the teams that work the best together and are able to sustain more powerful attack chains should have a quicker and easier kill than a weaker team - that happens in any sporting event - the better team has the better chance of winning. I see nothing wrong with that.

I know I am not explaining what I would like the new system to demonstrate very well, partly because I don't have any of the details worked out, just the broad generalizations. The system would not simply be Player A uses skills 1, 2, and 3, then Player B uses skills 4, 5, 6 for the win. It's not just use Sever/Gash/Final - get bonus, but using a broad diveristy of skills across both your professions and the PvE only skills to get some sort of reward. A player taking the Dwarf PvE knockdown and follow it up with Crushing Blow would bump up the power of the attack more so than the Warrior knockdown with Crushing Blow would. It would have ever increasing rewards for being able to build a powerful attack against a creature or a mob, but it would also make it harder and have greater penalities for failure to keep a powerful attack going, in essence failure would give the creature a boost for a time, and the closer a party gets to taking the creature or mob down, the better chance that the party will fail, giving the creature or mob a second chance. What I am trying to get at is to have a system that makes a stronger team have less margin for error and a greater penalty for failure than a weaker team who does not have the power and damage potential that the stronger team does. This does not necessarily mean giving that weaker team a cakewalk either - they'll still have to work at taking a creature or mob down, and the longer it takes them to do so, naturally the better the chance that party members will begin to get picked off resulting in eventual failure. I'm just tired of seeing battles over in a matter of a minute or two (or less), win or lose with relatively little input needed by the player.

Hanok Odbrook

PS - the way I look at it, PvP should be treated as a sporting event, there should be winners and losers and the best team should win as long as they don't screw it up (as even the best sports team can do every now and again). For PvE, there should be nothing wrong with everyone being able to win - the problem comes with how challenging can it be before the weaker person CAN'T win, and yet still give the stronger person a sense of accomplishment. I think we can all agree that (with a few exceptions) the three campaigns are relatively on the easy side, especially with Heroes. I want that to change to make it more of a challenge, but not make it seem like HM for a typical casual or weaker player.

DDryss · Sep 11, 2007, 07:35 AM // 07:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyrant rex

if you cant beat all eotn content with you ,3 heros ,and 4 hench you are bad , that is all.

And if this is your only comment you have, your are to young to play this game.

what is wrong with you guys.

He didn't asked how how "good" or "better than others" you all where.

We are not intrested in that crap.