Curse

Malice Black · Jan 30, 2008, 10:16 PM // 22:16

I can't play unless I'm playing with real people. Playing with AI is just dull.

tmr819 · Jan 30, 2008, 11:10 PM // 23:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

I'd say that the persistant areas should always be soloable. Instances/dungeons/missions should scale to parties.

This about sums it up for me. WoW-like for the persistent areas; GW1-like (henches/Heroes AND/OR scaling) for instance areas/missions

It doesn't seem to me that it would be that difficult to design five "mirror-image" versions of a given dungeon scaled/designed for 1- to 5-player parties. Said parties could be any combination of players/Heroes. The dungeon you'd get would be determined by your party size. This would satisfy the players who like to play solo with no AI party, the players who like to play with an AI party only, and players who like to play in player groups.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius

Scaling opposition to the player is one of the god-awfullest ideas in RPG'ing. Anyone who wants to see why it is a truly horrible idea, need look no further than Oblivion.

Numa, I don't understand your aversion to scaling. Then again, I have never played Oblivion. Why does it not work well in that game and how might it be "fixed"?

When I think of scaling I think in these terms: (A) A player enters Magus Stones with a party of 8. Raptor swarm X has 6 raptors in it. (B) A player enters Magus Stones with three Heroes (party of four). Raptor swarm X now has 3 raptors in it, etc. In other words, the numbers of creatures in a mob and/or the level of said mob is decreased corresponding to party size. Likewise for loot, bosses, etc., etc.

Turtle222 · Jan 30, 2008, 11:52 PM // 23:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

I was thinking about this while I was trying my Ranger build I use when I want to solo an area.
Yes, we have all used henchmen, and most of us at this point, heroes. Most of us like heroes, seeing as they allow us to set the skillbars we would like.

Ok, premise set.
What I'm curious about is, is the whole concept of monster difficulty necessitating the use of henchmen a good one?

For example, in Diablo II, you could solo areas, and the more party members you added, the more powerful the monsters became to compensate for your party's increased numbers.

I understand that Guild Wars was marketed as a 'CORPG', or whatever it is, and that the cooperative play was a fundamental element. But as of now, most players do not PUG, and Hero/Hench most areas.

I suppose in the end all I'm asking, with Guild Wars 2 in mind, is if you feel the henchmen dynamic was well-played, or if you would have liked the ability to venture out alone.

Personally, I always enjoyed the game more when I'd solo areas as a ranger. It was more interesting then henchmen. Granted, playing with friends was more interesting still, but I thought that Solo > Henchmen.

which is why persistent worlds are the way to go

Navaros · Jan 31, 2008, 12:19 AM // 00:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antheus

If you PUG, can you convince all 7 other players to give all their loot to you?

Same thing, just for some faulty reason, people assume that henchies are different, where in reality they are just like players, except they are somewhat better players than humans.

My point was not faulty. My point was that you should not have to PUG in GW2 and you also should not have to use Heroes or Henches either. Rather, a single character should be able to solo everything without ever requiring the use of any PUG players or Hero/Hench AI bots. That is ideal game design.

MithranArkanere · Jan 31, 2008, 01:03 AM // 01:03

Solo areas and party areas must be mixed.

In the same way you can 'farm' the Fronis Dungeon, more areas like that one to make alone could be added.

Places where monsters go in lesser member parties and such.

Currently you can go solo in the first areas of all games.
But later in that gets harder.

I think that's the idea. Both things.

Sleeper Service · Jan 31, 2008, 01:34 AM // 01:34

Its strange, many of you (all?) seem to missing out the fact that GW has a low level cap and uses skills in a particular way.

You all know its possible to solo GW but you need to use niche builds that are (imo) boring...very very boring.

And this is because of the level cap, and also because there is no "ultra" skill (barring Ursan, but that another topic).
In order to be able to take on large quantities of mobs at the same time all the skills on the bar must work together.
This leaves little or no leeway on how you proceed to kill stuff.

The current system means that if we wanted to go out and solo with ANY build (as long as it wasnt stupid you know), i dunno a N/Me Blood degen toon for example, It wouldn't work (it barely works in a group but thats not the point).

For that build to work "Diablo style" our skills would need a HUGE boost in effectiveness when playing solo, like Diablo but in reverse; IE: our skills become stronger the less players there are on the team.

If GW 2 hightens/removes the level cap, and that results in more "power" then like in most stereotypical computer RPGs we will be able to solo, I for one dont think thats a good thing. One thing i love about GW is build synergy, its like colours in MTG or playing 2 headed troll and Emperor formats.

If you give people an "I win" button they will use it and then the game stagnates.

The Rifter in EvE a few patches back was just that and boy was pvp retarded.

UB is currently doing it to gw now.

being able to solo can be a good thing, but its not about the character. its about the environment it evolves it.

In GW its bad.

In a level based game...it all leads to that.

aapo · Jan 31, 2008, 02:13 AM // 02:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

I suppose in the end all I'm asking, with Guild Wars 2 in mind, is if you feel the henchmen dynamic was well-played, or if you would have liked the ability to venture out alone.

- There's nothing wrong with the henchman/hero mechanic in my opinion. It works as intended allowing players to finish whatever task they're doing without having to rely on outsider's help. However, I would much rather play game where playing with others is encouraged (much like Diablo II), rather than being compulsory and possibly creating disadvantages when you picked wrong members.

Teutonic Paladin · Jan 31, 2008, 02:29 AM // 02:29

If everything is soloable (scaled mobs and enemy levels) then why would any anyone play warrior? Warrior's can't do anything that eles/sins/monks can't solo. When you allow the entire game to be beaten as a solo player you eliminate the team aspect because the only people who would bother to play in non-guild groups are the classes that can't find groups in any other way. Setting a system where enemies scale to the number of people in your group only works when you have an enormous amount of skills and the ability for classes to play without massive team support.

Bryant Again · Jan 31, 2008, 02:54 AM // 02:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmr819

Numa, I don't understand your aversion to scaling. Then again, I have never player Oblivion. Why does it not work well in that game and how might it be "fixed"?

In Oblivion, everything gets scaled to your level - everything. Random high-way men get boosted in good gear, bandits in cave wear higher end armor, wolves disappear and you start to run into bears...Essentially, people complain about the lack of "epic feeling" you get: "When everyone is as strong and epic as you are, then where's the epic?"

And then you have people complaining about the lack of challenge: "Where's the fun in one-shotting level 2 bandits?" No one will be happy.

Bear in mind that this is what I understand about a lot of people's discontent towards Oblivion, and that I'm not putting Numa in that list. Just something I've seen occasionally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teutonic Paladin

If everything is soloable (scaled mobs and enemy levels) then why would any anyone play warrior? Warrior's can't do anything that eles/sins/monks can't solo. When you allow the entire game to be beaten as a solo player you eliminate the team aspect because the only people who would bother to play in non-guild groups are the classes that can't find groups in any other way. Setting a system where enemies scale to the number of people in your group only works when you have an enormous amount of skills and the ability for classes to play without massive team support.

This would be under the assumption that GW2 will be constructed nearly exactly as GW1.

Aera Lure · Jan 31, 2008, 02:59 AM // 02:59

I prefer a game setting where you can go venture on your own (no AI, aside possibly from a single pet if appropriate to the class). At lower levels, that might not be far from town, in safer areas with lower level monsters etc. As you level up, you can venture into more dangerous areas. Alternatively, you could party with other players and have success getting further than you could alone, or earlier than you could alone. Basically simply extend that model as one continues to advance. The highest level areas in the game you can venture into alone even still, but maybe you cant fully beat it unless you are in a group. Exp scales as needed in all cases described etc.

Or to sum up shortly: no more heroes or henchmen.

Lady Raenef · Jan 31, 2008, 03:28 AM // 03:28

I like playing with a handful of real players, however, with the fact that most of them 'suck out loud' as some call it, I avoid using them. When I help out a friend, I just throw on some powerful heroes and start the mission rather than find some players which may increase our chances quite significantly to fail.

bj91x · Jan 31, 2008, 05:48 AM // 05:48

Henchies suck. Death to henchies for full heroes ftw!

As far as the party is concerned (which seems to be the point of this topic) I prefer a party rathen than solo.

Simply put, the game feels more like a co-op game with AI's than just one person (or 1 person and 1 NPC from what I'm hearing about GW2). I love co-op games. While co-oping with NPC's isn't the same as with real people, it's still much more fun.

Especially with this game's set up as a build creating game, party build is more fun than single player build.

In fact, the #1 reason I won't get GW2 is from what I hear, it's no longer a party based game if you're playing alone.

Thorondor Port · Jan 31, 2008, 06:53 AM // 06:53

I hate Henchmen, but less than pick up groups. (faster, no one rages or disconnects, or lags and agros everything, less bitching, no disagreeing, everything is done my way...)
Give me 7 heroes so I can create a 8man build to compliment and work together.

strcpy · Jan 31, 2008, 07:19 AM // 07:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

I'd be with you if Oblivion was a horrible game.

i.e. could you clarify?

I tend to agree that Oblivion was/is a great game - however it's monster scaling was terrible. By far the easiest way to complete the game was to create a character thats advancement was as totally opposite of how you played and never level up. The other was to "power level" by micro managing how each and every skill was advanced and this "ease" didn't kick in until the higher levels (this assumes you didn't create a 100% chameleon set of robes as soon as possible). If you simply played the game without paying attention to it then you were likely to advance the enemies further than you could handle, though not everyone did that. Of course, that doesn't invalidate enemy scaling - the other elder scrolls series did it quite well.

In GW case I suspect that true solo play is a nightmare to test and code - the different classes are so different it would be near impossible to create a game where all the classes could solo. While other MMO's have taken that route, given the way Anet has pushed all the classes being equal could you imagine the outcry? Easier to give everyone a "base" - and that is the henchman and later heroes available and balance towards said team (since everyone can use said team).

As far as has been said about GW2 then they are going to be solo friendly, no hench, and monsters/loot scaled to you and your companion. How that will work out in reality will be seen. As long as I don't have to sit in a town waiting on others to decide to group with me I'm happy. I generally prefer the group mentality of GW but the solobility of other games is also quite a bit of fun. However, at this point I am somewhat apprehensive that Anet is moving towards WoW without fees (can solo some areas, other impossible instead of just taking some level of skill) - and if I like playing WoW the fees are of little consequence. I will wait and see, the beta's and their feed back will be interesting.

tmakinen · Jan 31, 2008, 07:41 AM // 07:41

When playing I see heroes/henches as much an extension of myself into the game world as my actual avatar, only parts that I have coarser control over. I would love to death the ability to hot swap the character that I am directly controlling through keyboard (naturally with the respective POV change - that part is even implemented already since you can leech the POV of another player while dead or watching GWtube).

Herohench is a great resource for rounding out a team of real players when come-as-you-are doesn't result to a self-sufficient mix of professions. In many situations even if you have a full team's worth of real players it's easier to split in two teams and everybody brings a sidekick to balance the composition. Not that it's mandatory, though. I vanquished Maishang Hills in a 8 man alliance group that had 4 rangers but not a single monk or ritualist, was fun.

Speaking of what, the main disadvantage of henches is that (as a rule of thumb, there are exceptions) their skill bars are made of pure fail. Have you ever tried a 'henchman challenge', i.e., vanquishing an area with only those skill bars that the local henchmen have (and no consumables either)? It's possible (did Marga Coast that way) but about as much harder than HM with properly chosen skill bars as HM is harder than NM.

TPike · Jan 31, 2008, 08:23 AM // 08:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrimEye

The more option you have, the better. In fact, option is the essence of being free.

Henchmen are an option. If you dont want it, dont use it.
Heroes are an option. If you don't want it, dont use it.

The more option we have in the game, the more variety of playstyle we can do,

If you choose not to use these options, its an option too. It is always better to have it and not use it, than need it and dont have it.

^^^^ QFT

Nightfall is the first game I played of this genre.

I did a lot of research on game-play etc and it SEEMED like Nightfall was the one that offered me the most options on game-play etc.

I've only been playing 3 days but I can't see how any other game would measure up.

If anything there may be too many options & not enough direction. Like what do i do with all these Blue weapons?

Just hoard them? Salvaging doesn't seem to be worth it.

arsie · Jan 31, 2008, 09:14 AM // 09:14

I like the game to require a party, whether they be AI or humans.

Lets think about the complexity of GW. You need to pack Interrupts, Damage Reduction, Heals, Hex and Condition Removal, Hex and Condition causers, Stance Breakers, Enchantment Stripers and not to mention Damage.

If it was a game designed so that a single character can deal with 90% of the PvE content at his "level", then quite a lot of those elements would either have to be removed, or that every single profession would need to be able to pack some of each. Yes, you end up with skill bars that have 24-36 slots, and 8 types of potions to spam.

Playing with Henchmen, Heroes and PuGs teach the players that all those elements are needed in a party. The alternative type of game would just require a few roles: Damage Absorption, Heal and Damage Dealing. The rest are just bells and whistles.

I think currently, PvE is most enjoyable with 2-3 humans of your own skill level, and the rest heroes. All henchmen sucks, and I don't think all heroes would be much more fun.

I dislike the playing style of many MMOs, where you kill one monster, you have to stop to regen your skills, heal up, whatever, then you kill the next monster. It is extremely boring. I'd rather deal with groups of monsters, and different groups that offer different challenges.

Longasc · Jan 31, 2008, 09:35 AM // 09:35

If we have GW2 in mind, we should not forget that we will have bigger instances with more players in it. Judging from the interviews and stuff we heard so far.

The problem is that this is a more persistant world, which would make scaling mob level and size and whatever to the party or the player actually impossible.
I.e. the very moment we can meet other parties in explorables, the whole system of scaling up or down according to your party does not work anymore.

GW is not really made for playing solo. You can solofarm many areas, but this means usually only specific parts of it, i.e. Smite Crawlers and early parts of the UW.

If we want a GW where we can solo and it is really part of playing the game normally, it would probably no longer be GW. It would rather become a most likely level-based progression game like Dark Age of Camelot or WoW.

This is a disturbing thought. Either GW2 is vastly different to GW1 or we have such effects as forced grouping if there is really only one "companion" instead of heroes and henchmen.

Sleeper Service · Jan 31, 2008, 10:17 AM // 10:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Longasc

If we have GW2 in mind, we should not forget that we will have bigger instances with more players in it. Judging from the interviews and stuff we heard so far.

The problem is that this is a more persistant world, which would make scaling mob level and size and whatever to the party or the player actually impossible.
I.e. the very moment we can meet other parties in explorables, the whole system of scaling up or down according to your party does not work anymore.

GW is not really made for playing solo. You can solofarm many areas, but this means usually only specific parts of it, i.e. Smite Crawlers and early parts of the UW.

If we want a GW where we can solo and it is really part of playing the game normally, it would probably no longer be GW. It would rather become a most likely level-based progression game like Dark Age of Camelot or WoW.

This is a disturbing thought. Either GW2 is vastly different to GW1 or we have such effects as forced grouping if there is really only one "companion" instead of heroes and henchmen.

If its persistant i'm thinking that the combat will be dealt with in the same way as in the FF series.

we share the world with other players and we can all interact with each other, take part in certain SCRIPTED events together (ie: Dragon attacks north bridge a 12:00 GMT everyone help fight it off, or stop people from fighting it off), but barring those events once we engage hostilities the party enters a "do not disturb" mode where other players can see us fighting monsters (or maybe they just see a "combat!" icon on our heads whatever way) but they cannot join in. That way scaling is possible.

Numa Pompilius · Jan 31, 2008, 11:04 AM // 11:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmr819

Numa, I don't understand your aversion to scaling. Then again, I have never player Oblivion. Why does it not work well in that game and how might it be "fixed"?

The problem is this:

On your very first day you exit town and fight a wolf. It is a very hard fight for a new player, but eventually you triumph, and continue in the game.
As a level ten you exit the same town and fight the same wolf. It is a very hard fight for a level ten, but eventually you triumph, and continue in the game.
As a level twenty you exit the same town and fight the same wolf. It is a very hard fight for a level twenty, and you say "this magical sword, these magical goggles - they do nothing!", and uninstall the game.

If you ever in a MMO felt like you were treading water and not actually progressing, wait till you've played a game which scales opposition to you.

Oblivion compounded the problem by actually rewarding anti-gaming (you would progress faster if you avoided levelling up) but that's an oblivion-specific problem caused by levelling being optional, while the lack-of-progress thing is innate to scaled oppositon.

The fix, and my preferred way of handling difficulty, is to do as is done in most MMORPGs: the opposition is distributed geographically, so that the player can move to progressively harder areas as his capabilities increase. The player is encouraged to move to harder areas partly by the story arc, partly by scaling loot to monster level.

Edit: shortened because of wall-of-textness. I doubt anyone is interested in my views on ideal mob placement and ideal combat models or what was used in ancient cRPG's anyway.