The Scribe #26

http://www.guildwars.com/community/t...ibe-061207.php

Enjoy.

As much as I love the game GW, when I read the Scribe info I kept thinking one thing. When are they going to post Cookie Cutter Formula for DOA.

I know I know don't be negative but DOA just brings me down.

Take Care..

My question is, does this type of Tactics the Scribe provide really are held true to what the community knows about DoA or not? I mean is there really more benefits in spiking then in AoE in DoA; or is this a straight out bunch of rubbish?

It just bugs me that the scribe is writing about things that Anet have already announced. Like the double faction rewards weekend for guild battles... that news was sooo yesterday. We need more unique news!!

The fact that they're writing about tactics to use in DOA should kinda give them a clue that mabye their new prized mission isn't that well received.

i still think SF nuking would be more effective than an air spike

The fact that they're writing about basic GW tactics is a clue that the player base is more clueless about simple techniques of aggro, and targeting.

Surely after playing a chapter or two of GW, the things they suggest should be fairly common GW pve sense:

- group in well balanced parties
- attack monk first
- pull patrols separately and kill each group individually, not take on 2+ mobs at once
- run away if the tide of the battle is turning
- know what skills the enemy mobs use, figure out how to counter them
- expect to fail and make mistakes if you've never done the mission before

none of the above has changed ever since chapter 1

a new thing however is the mob becoming enraged depending on their damage taken (not something i usually pay attention to, being a monk)

spiking, i assume they mean stay away from degen and that we're going see even more elementalist groups than now?

if you look at the skill effects of enrage, it seems their power increases significantly if they take more damage...

pretty neat idea to get rid of all those pesky AoE damage strategies.

Well it is also common sense that vs certain mob groups and situations it is not ideal that you always attack to monks first. Some cases their build is so ineffective that they can't save own group anyway and their Elementalist etc is bigger threat.

While I believe they meant well, the Scribe’s tactics are, for the most part, common sense strategies that, I hope, most people who’ve gotten this far already know to do. You’d probably find a more useful guide right here on Guru…though I haven’t looked for one.

I thik the scribe is trying to insinuate that ranger spike should make a comeback in PvE, lol.

The ability to separate mobs of monsters by "aggro" has most certainly changed since the introduction of Chapter 1, as has the makeup of the mobs overall. Not only that, it is much more difficult to find a place to fight a single group of monsters without aggro of other mobs, either because of patrol paths or the refusal of monsters to move far enough out of range of overlapping mobs. Monsters also run away and aggro other mobs, not only from AoE damage, but from skills that simply effect all monsters attacking a single party member (like Shield of Judgement or Gladiator's Defense). Also, there are many places where separation of mobs is simply not possible, aggro of a single monster (as in using a longbow) will bring more than one mob, often from a distance. This doesn't even take into account that there is more than one spawn of monster instances for most areas.

What is being referred to as "common sense or basic" GW PvE tactics is also questionable, somewhat in Factions, but especially in Nightfall. It appears that the "well-balanced" team now means visiting forums like this and putting together a party of very specific professions that have "cookie-cutter" builds for each mission, quest, or area. This is easily seen in most outposts or towns where many PUGs are seeking party members not only by profession, but by build as well.

Attacking the monk(s) first is also not necessarily a universal common sense tactic because many mobs include multiple healers, non-healer monsters with healing spells, and spiker monsters that will quickly wipe out an entire party if not spiked first. In addition, healer monsters are usually well insulated at the rear of a mob (often within aggro range of another mob). And of course there are now the monsters that respawn themselves which makes targeting choices even more critical. I could go on, but there is plenty of evidence that overall PvE gameplay has changed since GW's introduction.

Of more interest than the original topic of this post, is the tone and nature of replies to it. There is clearly a delineation between the "hardcore" GW players and those that only play to have fun. This seems to be the general trend of any thread or post in the forums that relates to overall PvE gameplay. It has become commonplace for the hardcore GW types to flame any discussions about AI, monsters, mobs, etc. through inferences that anyone in disagreement with their views are clueless, noobish, etc. It seems as though the only well received threads or posts are those that will maintain the "elitist" class of GW players that can spend hours researching builds, monster skills, exploits, replaying areas over and over, etc.

One of the big attractions to the PvE side of GW for me (and many other noobish, clueless players) was that only a modicum of knowledge was needed to have fun in game. Back then, the "common sense" tactics were actually viable. Proper aggro, well-balanced teams, and good targeting would take you through the game at an enjoyable pace. While max armor, elite skills, and uber weapons were advantageous, they weren't necessary until you reached those areas where they were acquired from NPC's. All this seemed to change when Anet started it's attempts to "nerf" those that were exploiting or supporting those complaining that the game wasn't sufficiently challenging. Interestingly enough, Anet actually enabled players to take advantage of the game by including such things like the shortcut to Drok's.

Unfortunately, for players such as myself, Anet appears to have given itself over to the relatively few (given the overall player base) that have figured out how to circumvent anything Anet is able to come up with in terms of difficulty. The problem with this strategy is that it is a never-ending spiral. That's to say, Anet comes up with something and the hardcore players immediately come up with a way to get around it. This has made the overall gameplay a great deal less fun, and much more frustrating, for the "casual" player (which, by the way, is the largest player base). In one sense, Anet has fueled the player-vs-player side of PvE rather than player-vs-environment. What I mean is that the environment is being tailored to create classes of players (hardcore elitist vs. clueless noobs). Prehaps this is just a natural outcome of the fact that Anet heavily pushes the PvP part of the game and was apparently caught off-guard by the popularity of PvE since it's not a true RPG.

My advice to Anet is to remember that PvE content should not be soley ruled by delineating the have's and the have not's. A huge chuck of PvE players aren't interested in having more gold, uber weapons, or some other trophy to wave under other player's noses. They simply want a "playable" game to complete missions and quests as the story-line suggests and have fun while doing so, most often in the company of like-minded individuals.

You just hit a bull’s-eye here, and the best argument as to why a Ritualist HERO is needed for everyone else. Sure ... Razah can be a trophy for the 1% while everyone else gets a standard HERO.