Chapter 4: an alternative to Brute Force ?

Introduction

After many days of fan forum whining (not to mention: who moved my cheese?) and a lot of ingame trials, experiments, and moderate success, the first 5/6 man cookie-cutter builds are being posted. Unfortunately I'm a little disappointed to see that my main opinion about the Domain of Anguish is still justified.

The brute force approach

Creating a competent AI is very difficult, especially in an environment as complex as GW's. Without an adaptative AI, the approach used by ANet on endgame PvE is brute monster force: skills so grossly overpowered that any decent player would steamroll the ladder with a couple of copies, environmental effects stronger than two elites (ex: Quicksand x 2, cannot be removed). Ironically, the most efficient way to defeat such a display of brute force is to exploit the AI flaws/limitations. I wonder if ANet designers will learn the lesson or if they'll keep increasing the difficulty in the elite areas of the next chapters.

History says they'll likely do the same mistakes. Old gimmick builds (55, 605, 3-man used to farm Urgoz) should have been enough to prove that the brute force approach wasn't enough to secure the game against hardcore farming, nor that it made the game more challenging. With the current AI implementation and endgame level design, being an 'elite' PvE player involves a big puzzle and a lot of AI exploit (more details below).

In DoA, we're often exploiting poor AI implementation (pathfinding, inability to see beyond aggro range...) to kill stuff despite their stupid brute force. Actually, the very concept of aggro is exploiting AI flaws. The same stands for rebuilding your skillset or mitigating damage with the specific skillset needed in a given area (ward/spirit/shield of X if you expect to meet X, and ward of Y if you expect to meet Y...). It's just a puzzle game with trials and errors. It takes a lot of time, and in the end, only a handful of smart and dedicated players will find the solution themselves. The regular player will just copy/paste the solution and exploit the AI.

In short, to be an good player in the elite missions you need mostly time and dedication (many trials and errors to find the cookie-cutter build, time needed to practice the best build/role, time to reach the final boss). Quoting Mercury Angel, it's difficult, but not challenging. It's like rolling the dice again and again until you get a 1. Once the solution (1/3/5/6 man build) has been revealed, it's no longer difficult, and you can farm all day with your cloned skill bar, and you can show off your elite gear. Whatever the original difficulty and level design, endgame content is all about playing a well-oiled preset machine. No storyline, no quest, no immersion. Just raw grinding for XP and loot.

Yet ANet proved in the past that whatever the difficulty level, we could have some challenging PvE content. That is so say, missions and quests where we need to stop and think strategy ingame (instead of just talking about builds beforehand), where we need to adjust a couple of skills (instead of building specialized/localized optimal bars), to use the map layout and the environment, to watch our radar, to split the team, to run back and forth... That's the big difference between the Domain of Anguish (brute force) and places such as Sorrow's Furnace (or the early pre-nerf incarnations of THK, Abbadon's Mouth and Aurora Glade). In the end, any elite area will be heavily farmed by cookie-cutter copycats, so why not make them more interesting in the first place?

An alternative for the next chapters?

In short, I strongly dislike this brute approach and I find it very player-unfriendly. If I want to solve a puzzle, I'll play with a puzzle. If I want to copy a cookie-cutter build and farm all day, I can do it in other games. A quick look at the general complaint about the DoA will show that there are many design flaws in the recent elite areas (lack of progressive difficulty, time needed to complete a quest, frustration of the average player, crappy rewards...).

Worst of all, this place was specifically design to disrupt the general strategy a regular player would use (and not just specific gimmicks or popular skills). For instance, in the margonite city the environmental effect will disable any energy-based attacker (add to that regular warrior and paragon hate). Another environmental effect punishes players for kiting which is a very basic and normal strategy. In short, the main engine behind the DoA difficulty is to prevent players from playing (remove their energy, damage them if they try to mitigate damage...). As a result, players are more or less forced to exploit AI flaws instead of playing the game. In my opinion the limit between encouraging players to adapt and change, and frustrating players needlessly has been crossed.

Although I'd tend to discard most of the whining, I'm convinced that the brute force approach is unoriginal, unexciting and generally unworthy of what ANet can do (and did in the past). Rather than asking for a nerf of the elite missions, what could be discussed is the general gameplay that one is expecting from the PvE content of the next GW chapters.

Long story made short, some old missions involved battlefield awareness, smart use of the environment (where to fight, using catapults, splitting the group...) as well as real time reactivity (timer, patrols), whereas the new PvE fashion is much more brute force oriented. Of course there are a few exceptions, but the general idea is that brute force is the key in NF. In pretty much all regular quests and missions, a solo player plus henchmen can brute force everything without sweating. In the elite areas, the difficulty is turned up and *monsters* and using more brute force. Little subtlety, direct brute force approach. As a result, the monster AI has a stronger impact, and the fastest way to win often involves AI exploits. Granted, players will always complain about the AI and they will always exploit it. But when the gameplay relies on brute force, AI flaws and limitations become more obvious and more problematic.

What I'd like to find in the next chapters is another kind of PvE content. More complex, more varied, more immersive, and more challenging. Actually the current design of most challenge missions is a good start. You're fighting against time and you're trying to avoid the slightest error against diverse (and most often balanced) opponents and situations. These missions are by no mean perfect, but I find them more interesting and challenging than DoA-like areas.

Arguably the biggest difference between most challenge missions and standard farming is that in a challenge mission you can hardly take the time to exploit AI flaws (aggro, pulling, tanking), you have to rush and kill. Your firepower and defense must be good, but oftentimes you need something more. At the slightest mistake, you're losing time and the mission ends. You generally need more ingame speed and adaptability (as opposed to skillset adaptability). IMHO it requires a very different form of PvE skill (less puzzle-like, and more real time). Unfortunately it's also much less popular due to the lack of rewards (who cares about a high-score lost in a remote outpost or about random hero armor pieces unlinked to your ingame skill?).

A long time ago, you could powerlevel everything (especially for farming) but there was some challenge left for the 'regular' players. The challenge didn't lie just in the monster force, but in the general mission/area/quest design.

One of the great features of Sorrow's Furnace was that even the dumbest player could enter and explore it and do easy quests. Decent or average players could do all quests (including Final Assault) with a minimum of thinking, and excellent players could farm everything in smaller groups. Whatever your profession, and whatever the role you wanted to play, you could find your way into SF, even if hardcore farmers took a bigger and well-deserved share of the loot with cookie cutter tricks.

With DoA-like elite missions you are drastically limited. Again, it's not a probem of difficulty, it's a problem of options and different game content for different players. Now it's mostly a brute force competition. Any area can still be powerlevelled with the right cookie-cutter build, but we lost most of the fun, originality, spontaneity and challenge in the process. Ironically, this brute force approach was supposed to keep endgame farming at bay (economy balance, blah blah...), and farming is now the cookie-cutter activity that is mainly encouraged in all endgame areas...

Conclusion

Once you've completed the storyline (for which the average difficulty is ultra low for newcomers), PvE is mostly about building your character (skills, items, aesthetic stuff, titles...) and personal challenges. The latter is basically nonexistent in GW, barring a few challenge missions or obscure/subpar farming builds.

Farming is also the optimal approach when you want to improve your character (need XP, gold, items). To limit hardcore farmers, ANet's solution is to turn the difficulty up. Unfortunately history proved that in GW you don't control farming with the difficulty button. In the end, the most rewarding areas will be heavily farmed by cookie-cutter copycats, so why not make endgame areas more interesting in the first place? Why not merge the two engame objectives (personal challenge and character building)? Why design PvE content to frustrate players and disrupt normal playstyles and force cookie-cutter builds and AI exploit? Do gimmicks have to be the main option for endgame PvE ?

The underlying question is: what is good endgame PvE made of? We're not talking about newcomers, or ultra-casual players, but about average or semi-hardcore or true hardcore players. The need is to provide insteresting PvE content based on skill and not just time. Skill vs time, seems familiar? Again, it's not just a problem of questing vs. farming/grinding, or casual vs hardcore. Any MMO needs hardcore farming options, the trick is not to kill the regular players' engame fun because of potential farming abuses who will happen anyway.

There is no best or unique approach to this question, but arguably the most important component of the solution is to better use variations on the word 'random'. The game needs random spawns, random monster group compositions, semi-random monster skillsets, and most importantly the game needs more and better gamble money-sinks to destroy the upper-end economic goods. An interesting side-effect of using random features is that it also increases the replayability for regular players.

I agree. That's all.

DoA is about not using brute force. All builds that do come out simply rely on nukers to out dps the enemies.

What they fail to realize, is that simple backfire will do and prevent more damage than 3 renewal/echo nukers.

Yes, DoA is hard. But the reason why it seems so hard, is because it's designed to not be doable by brute force. This is the gist of Scribe's summary of DoA. The area is specifically designed and populated in such a way, that the tank holding agro while nukers nuke aproach is the least viable of all.

Unfortunately, you've set DoA as an example of brute force, hence rendering all your arguments invalid. Everything except DoA is brute force (SS/MM/nukers). In DoA, that's just the least viable method, apart from trapping teams, which are abhoration by themself. Both of these still work, but there are better ways around it.

Very, very well made post. Agree with most of it.

Cheers.

/signed, I like it.

/Agreed and signed

I was really hoping that when DoA was to come out, it would consist more of smaller, but more challenging groups that would require diversity in team builds so that gameplay would be more dynamic and would allow people of all classes to contribute to the experience. What I have witnessed in DoA thus far is that it still largely consists of the wall and nuke tactic with a few variations in some areas. There may be more to this than I have witnessed since much of my experience was cut short due to finals in school. To go off on a tangent from that point, I also find it sad that I will likely have to adapt to a cookie cutter build to find a group when I get a good long chance to sit down and explore the area better. Hopefully A-net will see that what turns many people off from this area isn't the 'difficulty' of the area, but also other factors such as the huge investment of time required and the lack of variety in which one is allowed to use to combat the area.

Also I would compliment you on writing a very clear and well thought out post, such as I have come to see SoF as being known for.

Well put FrogDevourer, a very thoughtful post.

I do not and will not ever pretend to be an expert player. I myself have avoided the appropriately-named DOA apart from a couple chest runs and a couple walk-in-and-die attempts with some guildies and heroes.

I LOVE the challenges that the elite areas can present. But I see what you are saying; it's either you have the only possible right prof/build/AI exploit for the area, or you fail.

A leet group can do 1- or 2- or 3-person UW or FoW; they devise a scheme, test it out and do it to their little hearts' content. Even with a cookie-cutter build, it takes a little practice to get it right, and you do need to keep on your toes.

BUT at the same time, any casual non-leet guild or alliance group, or even a PUG can enter with a full group consisting of almost any prof combination, have fun, be challenged, use their heads and teamwork and make it through.

FrogDevourer = 100% right

Totally disagree with this.

Why write off DoA as a lost cause already instead of asking for a nerf?

It's well within Anet's capabilities to nerf DoA so that most players like it.

I don't see any logic in a sentiment like: "DoA is no good but instead of asking the devs to nerf it to make it fun and enjoyable for normal players, let's just write it off, not participate in it,and hope that the next Guild Wars game that you buy won't repeat that mistake."

While I definitely think missions like THK are excellent for their complexity, I disagree with the idea that Nightfall is all about brute force. In fact, I think part of the point of the chapter is to have a variety of different kinds of missions.

You have timed capture missions like Sebelkeh, and then untimed (although you still have to hurry) capture missions like Dzagonur - with both, you actually don't want to run around and pound every single monster into oblivion, because it wastes time. To catch both runners in Moddok Crevice, it usually requires a fair bit of teamwork (and often a few tries to get everyone's timing right). Jennur's Horde requires pulling groups into the best position to fend off patrols from killing the spirits. And then of course there's Tihark. You may or may not like it, but it's certainly not a grind mission.

Yes there are many pure brute force missions. But there's also a lot of other aspects sprinked through. I think if you want to suggest what should go into Chapter 4, you may want to look over Nightfall and give ideas based on what you liked about those missions.

I'm not sure this is completely on point to your original comment about DoA, but you generalized to Chapter 4 being entirely about brute force, so I wanted to hone in on that.

Agree mostly with OP's points. GW has many great ideas not fully utilized. For example, in addition to monsters and skills, all explorable areas can have "randomly" placed splinter mines/sentry traps, or random spotters calling catapult fire on player's team, so we don't know what to expect everytime we go outside.
Another way to add replayability is to have quests/missions tied to a global conflict, like doing a scouting or assassination quest inside enemy territory and have success/failure affect shift of the frontline. Anyway, GW's gameplay just begs more dynamic interaction and randomization. Right now every area/mission is just too predictable and boring when you go through it more than once.

I agree with most everything you said, except this. I do not like the element of time to be involved in PvE. This is introduced in Factions, and I along with many other players (I would even go so far as to say the majority of players), did not find it to be in the least bit enjoyable. Also, we need to keep in mind that most of GW players are casual players, and as such, they do not have the time or resources to do such missions that will not forgive the slightest of errors. If that's the case, it would only frustrate the casual player and make him/her wonder whether he/she bought the right game.

I agree that the AI leaves something to be desired, but has anyone maybe thought this is the way ANet intended for it to work? So that it's intentionally not adaptively harder, and that it remains casual-player friendly? Just my $0.02.

Probably not. The main engine in the DoA is brute monster force, and it's unlikely that ANet will change the core design of this area. Minor nerf could be done, but they're unlikely because players have already found and used cookie-cutter builds. This place is not for the regular players. End of the story.

The key word was "endgame".

Don't take me wrong, I just love the story, scenery and characters as well as most of the NF content in general. I'm just very very disappointed to see there's little content left for me after one month. Storyline monsters (read: regular margonites) are basically a joke in terms of difficulty and everything can be powerlevelled including the bastion or Sebelkeh or the Gate of Madness or Jennur's Horde (take your time and crush everything). There are indeed a couple of original tricks here and there (such as bringing two hero snares for Moddok Crevice) but most of the time you don't need to look back. As for Tihark, or the "theater" quest or the wurm quests, they're indeed fun on your first time there, and a good addition to the storyline. But their repeatability value and potential of endgame content is marginal.

Again I'm mostly interested in endgame content, not the regular missions. Endgame missions and repeatable quests are supposed to be hard and a little frustrating. They're not as casual friendly. Even if I somewhat liked the time-linked expert/master level in Factions, it was only interesting in a couple of missions. Timed quests and mission are one option but not the only one. One could imagine a strategic use of random spawns and random maze-like levels with nasty encounters. The key feature is basically to be pressured or to be forced to stop and think *ingame* and to be forced into real time strategy/adaptability (as opposed to build crafting on paper).

I agree with all points, except I sometimes entertain the notion that maybe DoA was designed as being a brute force map intentionally, as a means of having players identify problematic builds/exploits/AI issues for the developers. Your points clearly identify why it's infeasible to simply bring strong builds; one must take advantage of the AI by use of gimmick builds or exploits.

Call me cynical, but I see no reason for promoting the kind of play that DoA encourages unless it was for this purpose.

I don't doubt Anet's capabilities to change DoA. I doubt our abilities to convince them it should be changed. The phrase, "Its not a bug, its a feature," comes to mind. The area is working as intended.
Well, maybe not entirely as intended. But, at the very least, the brute force method was how the place was designed. Anet can be very steadfast about keeping there changes, even if they are unpopular with many people. I'll point to the AI changes as evidence of that.

Okay, sorry if I misread your post. For end-game areas, I agree. I think more creative areas would be a great asset to the game. However, we also need to take into account that some people like to farm, so I think ANet should (and does) provide areas for those players as well.

A bit of randomness could be great.

I love the whole idea.

Very well thought out FrogDevourer!

I couldn't possibly have said it better myself. I am, as i know you are, an avid and long time GW player who sees the new "elite" DoA to be incredibly dissapointing. Not only have they simply hit the difficulty button, but everything about teh zone is uncreative and uninspired. Environment graphics are badly textured with all too familiar looks to it, along with a rushed-to-production look to it. Monster skins are just recycled, renamed and made 10x tougher. And rather then add actual challenge, they simply nerf the incentive for play enjoyment through the overpowering environment affects...


To the following poster...

Congrats on making your own argument totally invalid. You say DoA is NOT about brute force? But, READ your opening line again. Your immediate example is that "all DoA builds" rely on nukers to out-damage (DPS) the enemy. Umm, in my book that is a word-for-word definition of brute force. You say all tahts needed is Backfire? Umm, have you even tried DoA yet? First off, Backfire is a single target damage spell. Secondly, without AoE from nukers your runs will be 10x longer as your team tries to take down one foe at a time. As it is, with the current Ai and aggro exploits, it still takes several hours to finish a zone/quest.

That is possibly THE funniest line i have seen in a long time...
You cannot honestly believe this yourself, do you?
So your saying that 3 meteor showers + all their other nukes going off on a mob, is LESS effective the a single Backfire spell being used? Even if Backfire was being spammed, you think its conditional damage is MORE effective then area wide KD from 3 sources every 3 seconds PLUS high AoE dmg PLUS the ability to spam other AoE nukes while they are KD'd? If you said yes to any of the previous, then i am simply at a loss for words.

DoA as an example of brute force COMPLETELY reinforces FrogDevourer's points. You say brute force is the LEAST viable method? I'm sorry but that doesn't even make sense. So being able to complete a quest in DoA in 4 hours using brute force and Ai exploit tactics is NOT as viable as taking 8 hours to complete a DoA quest using finesse and a non-cookie cutter builds?

I have yet to see an ACTUAL balanced, non cookie cutter build complete anything in DoA as efficiently or quickly as pure brute and Ai exploits. In fact, the ONLY balanced group i have EVER heard complete a DoA quest was ONE time from a guildy. It was reported as taking 7+ hours, constant deaths from all team members, constant use of Candy Canes to eliminate DP, and overall fustration. Sounds like fun, eh?

All in all the fact is proven 10 fold. Brute force is the only viable method that allows completion of anything in DoA to be done in a reasonable amount of time. That in itself remains to be uninspired, uncreative, unchallenging and incredibly dissapointing.

Anywhoo, the point of the OP's thread is well said, is supported well, and should be reflected upon by many...

Cheers!

Unfortuantely, it's where we have to go to get a ritualist hero

You go on huge rant wihtout providing any real argument from actual experience.

Yes, I've done DoA a lot.

Yes, backfire is the most basic single-target spell that makes it much easier. If you look at DoA group composition (not all, city and foundry of course, I never said it's a foolproof one-size-fits-all tactic, it's not cookie cutter after all). Stygian veil is an example of mission by far done easiest with 1 tank, 5 nukers, 2 monks. Gloom is something I still need to work on, but the teams I've been in included at least one mesmer, and at least one non-SS-non-MM necro.

I've been in groups with 3 SF/MS/Eles that couldn't overpower a single Ki healing. And any attempt to put more pressure on Ki results in spilled agro.

Put backfire on Ki, and you have just ensured that all mobs die several times faster. Put mistrust on eles. Use desecrate enchantments on dervishes, and a backfire to kill them even faster. Use warders and paragons to cut the damage your group takes by 4 times. Blind the rangers and melee, or hex them to attack slower.

This doesn't eliminate nukers. It changes the overall aproach to combat. Unfortunately, you just show complete inexperience with these concepts. Try it. You'll be shocked at how well such aditions work. This isn't about running another gimmick build that consists out of all mesmers. Or all necros.

This is all about complementing builds. Start with holy trinity build. Then add backfire, add blind, add interrupts, add daze, add enchantment removal, add hexes, add wards, and so on...

The reason why such builds are "impossible" or "don't work" is because they simply don't work by having everyone stand back firing nukes. They take positioning, timing and tactics.

Yes, the nuking is useless. It's pure damage. All brawn, no brain. It relies on all mobs perfectly sticking on tank, and the MS spike going off. What happens when one mob breaks agro? Party wipes, DoA is too hard, nerf it.

But I've long given up on any hope of more intelligent builds because of such arguments. OMG its not AoE it sux.

Unfortunately, asking for a build simply isn't enough. It's not all in build, it's in target prioritization, individual initiative, and above all, trying to learn. DoA is too hard is where it all ends. And getting a group that can run an alternate build is simply impossible. But bringing in nonsense like nuking ftw and DoA is brute force, when there's plenty of advice, even official one by Anet, to try and do something else, leaves little options for anything else. The groups that go in are simply trap/nuke. Let it be brute force then.

But above all, try the following: Go into RoT. Find one of those dervish titans (Pain titans?). Put backfire on them. Watch them lose 85% of their health in two attacks (PvE dervishes are spell based). Then combine that with echo/aecho/renewal, spiritual pain and desecrate enchantments.

Then look at mobs in City. And a common weakness soon emerges.

It's not a silver bullet. It's not a single skill gimmick build that will let you afk the DoA. But at least try something different before going balistic over the idea without even trying it and swearing to the holy trinity as being the only viable way.

People keep on passing off any of the builds presented as "brute force" or "gimmick" builds, but what exactly is this "balanced" build you guys are talking about?

You might want to read his post more carefully.
He's saying, that all builds that comes out are using mindless nuking, when it's not remotely the answer.
He is NOT saying brute force is the answer, he's simply saying that's all most people are coming up with.

And builds that comes out are not necessary what few people who succeed are using.

Before insulting others, you might want to step back and read again.
Your tone is very offensive.

BTW, our team consisted of Warrior, Ranger, Monks, Ritualist, Elementalist, Necros....
Only reason we didn't have Mesmers, Assassins, Dervish, Paragon, etc, is because none of our members had those professions at the end. If they did, we are more than happy to put them in.
We have completed all four of these quests, and waiting on bug fix.

So what's this cookie-cutter build you speak of?
I think our team is pretty well "balanced".

Heck, we even used heroes when we didn't have enough members!
(Had to go back an re-finish those parts, when those members WERE available )

Antheus complete misses FrogDevourer's point. Mind you, the things he says make perfect sense but Devourer wasn't talking about brute force on the part of the players, but the monsters/quest design.

Yes, he does.
But the above poster's reply was not to Antheus' misunderstanding, but to the context of what he was saying.
It seems to be a misunderstanding on an already misunderstood reply.

Yeah, I noticed. That's internet forums for you.

Yes, and no.

Brute force applies to both sides. When you first enter DoA and get hit for 400+ damage, you say: Wow!

Then you rethink. Where did this damage come from. Aha, melee, casters, levels, ...

After adapting to that, you cut damage down in half to one quarter. Then you realize that a lot of damage can be prevented. Then further realize that a lot of virtual damage or whatever its called can be either inflicted or negated.

And at that point, DoA becomes a challenge mastered. Not easy. But at least the "Dead on Arrival" statement is no longer true.

Yes, the damage you face the first time is extreme. It's there exactly for that reason. To make you rethink your build. To force you into trying other tactics than just nuking. And at that point you realize that DoA, while hard indeed, isn't about brute force, but unlike all other NF areas, needs different aproach, than just scaling your own DPS.

City is prime example. You're dealing almost exclusively with casters, dealing insane damage. But casters are also extremly easy to shut down, not to mention there's no mob-wide condition or hex removal (none that I noticed, or found on guildwiki).

So isn't this skill? Isn't this the alternative to brute force? When the scaling of damage is no longer as efficient as rethinking the entire aproach? When rather than taking 3 MS nukers, you just take one, and add two different classes in there?

There's a difference between extreme damage and brute force. All damage in GW can be negated. Brute force is a method. It applies to pure damage without any hint of tactics or strategy. Brute force also relies on one single tactic: tank holds agro, nukers nuke, healers heal. This works everywhere in GW. With slight exceptions of THK, Gate of Madness, DoA, FoW. And those are the places that do, or have frustrated people most.

In that respect your assumption of DoA being brute force fails. Yes, there are other ways to do it, but if DoA failed, is there still room for smarter enemies? DoA enemies are dumb, and can be countered. And even at that there's an outcry about difficulty. Look at what happened when casters were overkiting. Did anyone even try to bring any kind of snares? No, it needed to be fixed. That was indeed a bug, but still.

When is something too hard, and when is something bugged or needs a nerf? When exactly does brute force apply, and when is it simply too much damage?

Look at current pvp SF builds. They are brute force. And here again, the camps split. Some say they are trivial to counter, just spread, interrupt, e-deny, others are screaming for nerf.

GW is primarily about challenge. Challenge of overcoming difficult mobs or competing players. It's about convenience second. Where GW shines is that really few aspects of the game are indeed broken, especially with regard to game design. Anything can be countered, roles can be changed on the fly, grind has no impact. Wow takes different aproach. It's designed to make you win if you play long enough. Same strategy doesn't work in GW.

I play GW for the challenge. If I get wiped repeatedly, I step back, rethink my build, my strategy, then look at other team members, and try to improve myself. It's why I love GW. At the same time I understand many play differently. There is a single thing in GW, that I'm powerless against. And that is err7. Everything else, can be overcome, including DoA.

Bravo. Exceptionally executed. You are very right. Random is key. The fear of the unknown is greater than anything Guild Wars can currently throw at the player. That is why PvP is generally a far more rewarding experience. PvE needs this to happen eventually, or suffer content that only excites on the first date.

Regarding some of the other posts surrounding the first; A flower in a pot of dirt...?

Antheus, what you say makes sense, and I agree with you all the way.

However, that is not the point the OP is making out.
Of course, you don't use brute force to counter brute force.
Duh. I know that, you know that, and obviously the OP knows that.

He's simply stating that, he wants an alternative challenge where the enemies use smart AI instead of brute force.
I don't necessary agree or disagree with that, it has to happen and I need to experience it before I make an decision whether I like it or not.
But regardless of how I feel about the issue, I can tell you that you're missing the point just a tad.

Yup.

Yup.

I agree with both, and i also went off topic about player tactics.

First of all, i did not want and did not intend to directly insult Antheus. My reply, and supposed "rant" was in reply to his overexaggerated and out of context arguments. The "Backfire better then 3 nukers" comment, or the "brute force is useless in DoA" comments are just did not hold water.

The only thing i said that could be construed as an insult is when i said that a certain line was "possibly the funniest line i have heard in a long time"... Even that was justified. The way he originally worded it was simply put; Backfire > 3 Nukers in DoA. Which is just blatently wrong. Intelligent builds CAN be better though, but we all know that. And yes, nuking is NOT an absolute for DoA, but it is proven as a cookie cutter method. Therefore, that is one of the only ways an average player can experience the elite. Antheus provides context and admits that Backfire is not greater than, it is COMPLIMENTARY to, in his reply to my post. MY point was that DoA is too focused on cookie cutter builds. It encourages it, without a doubt.

I did not mean to offend, to insult or annoy anyone. I did not quote Antheus to flame him. I quoted him to try and help clarify some things and maybe better help better understand what i believed to be wrong in his statements. If my "tone" was offensive, i have no way of changing that, as 'tone' through text is in the eye of the beholder (reader) and out of my hands...

Lets now clarify my points again. Backfire is not more effective then 3 nukers, it is complimentary and very useful; i had never said it was useless either. Balanced groups are not useless, but DO take many more hours then ai exploit/nuker builds. Being able to do things in DoA in 4 hours helps make it accessible to a MUCH larger player base = a good thing. HOWEVER, just cause i talk about pure brute tactics being effective in DoA, does NOT mean i condone them. The cookie cutter mentality as i said, is becoming all too hard set for this zone. And WHY? Because the zone itself is just pure brute harshness itself. And that is where it comes back to the OP's point.

In regards to Antheus' response, i do not appreciate being told what i have and have not done. I have been in DoA zones many times now, tried the first time with guildies, and since then with pugs. I have experienced many builds and know numerous tactics. But again, it was better pointed out by Aohige, you are completely missing the OP's point. I was refuted just a few statements that i disagreed with you, which also went off topic from the OP. I do not want to turn this into a flamewar.

Again. I apologize to anyone that was offended. Please continue to debate the OP's topic specifically, rather then about builds, experience and player tactics. There is no denying that DoA is indeed doable. However, i still totally agree with teh OP's point. In addition, i will continue to reiterate that the zone is uncreative, uninspired, unchallenging, and unimpressive. I expected creativity over, recycling and multiplying.

Guess i'll just stop now before i dig too deep of a grave for meself.
Cheers.

I think anything discussing Chapter 4 should be deleted.

Overall a great post thanks

/agree

I'll try to tie this together, and why I wasn't either off-topic, nor why the comments I made weren't irrelevant. I just skipped a few missing steps I figured were obvious.

New PvE:
- Challenging through time limit
- Random spawns
- Requiring adaptive player strategy
- Completely random mob placement/skills/composition
- Reliable, balanced builds for diverse situations encountered

I hope this sums it up.

This all was stated as completely void from DoA, and somewhat emphasized for SF.

SF is insanely exploitable, with 4 person teams requiring essentially no skill whatsoever to run. Solo W/N farming. Besically, little real challenge.

DoA, although opinions, even in this thread diverge, apparently is open not only to non-cookie-cutter builds, but also to a wide variety of classes.

But look at the list of your "ideal" challenge. DoA requires only 2 of those.:
Adaptive player strategy (proper agro management of patrols, handling runaway mobs, selecting targets to counter, moving in and out of casting range to avoid getting hit, kiting if attacked, using terrain).
Reliable and balanced builds to handle different situations. Once again, a point in case for DoA. There are MoF and trapper gimmicks. The alternative is to actually bring different sets of skills as complement (yea, the infamous backfire) and break away from cookie cutter.

Adding random spawns, requiring even more player skill and adding even more unpredictable elements to gameplay - would this really be well received?

Back to DoA example. I tried to present some, based on experience, strategies on how to handle it without the usual cookie cutter build and without exploiting the AI or bugs. I also tried to argue that certain skills can incredibly speed up the process. And yet, this was extremly badly received.

And this was only with regard to two of your suggestions.

Random spawns, or random patrols are historically proven to not work. This is based on all MMOs that used different types of randomness in mobs. It prevents writing of walkthroughs, it can create impossible situations, and it's difficult or impossible to balance. This is unfortunately something that needs to be considered as a fact. Even FPS games don't use random spawns, but use a fixed set of spawn points. Other MMOs use spawn areas, which are clearly defined. (disclaimer: This is written in designer books, tought in courses, and blogged about by every single MMO and game designer out there. You may argue with them, but please not with me. Some do use randomness, but a completely different type of randomness)

But above all, DoA demonstrated that players don't want challenges. Everyone is just waiting for cookie-cutter build, which simply won't emerge. The only alternative are inefficient dps builds, with nobody really trying to find something new. But unlike other areas which do force players into skills, DoA simply requires positioning, kiting, strategy, interrupts, shutdowns, etc. All the very basics of GW. And when presented with alternatives, they get shutdown for even suggesting them. It's not the game that forces cookie-cutter builds - players demand them, even when they are the worst possible option and attempting to prove otherwise results in lots of hate.

So my whole point was, that your suggestions merely expand on top of what DoA did. It may not be directly obvious, especially if you dislike DoA as it is. But unfortunately, your proposal is merely expansion beyond concepts of DoA, even if without artificial difficulty increase. DoA currently requires only a small subset of skills that your fully implemented idea would require. And even then it caused an uproar over difficulty.

This is a contradiction in itself. Cookie-cutter = normal playstyle. You cannot do one without the other. Playing your homemade build however means that area must never present any kind of true challenge to which you need specific counter. If your homemade build doesn't include hex removal, there must never be any hexes. Same for conditions, stances, AoE, spikes, ...
Cookie-cutter as a term is way too abused.

In DoA, the mob composition and skills are constant. And look what happened when I mentioned Backfire. Even when knowing, down to the dot, the skills used by opponents, I got shot down for suggesting a proven and reliable counter without even consideration. Even with knowing every single patrol spawn, agro management is still a mistery to just about everyone in DoA.

Ironically, your proposal is what would enforce everyone to run cookie cutter balanced, one build fits all. And this build is known. The Tank/Nuker/Healer. Why bring an anti-caster mesmer, when the groups might not have any casters. Why bring a dedicated MM, when there might not be corpses. Why bring a SS necro, if there might be heavy hex removal. Pure DPS. You end up with lowest common denominator.

I'll leave it at that, agree, disagree, understand or not, but: "Be careful what you wish for. It just may come through." Maybe, it already has...

Good posts and good points.

I agree that most groups rely on firepower rather than tactics/thinking. (The quest Brawns or Brains comes to mind heh?)

I agree to both the OP and the following critics, you are both right.

Concerning the AI, i agree that it is too much based on being stronger than you, other than actually being better than you.
However, creating such a smart AI may be more work than we're currently estamining it to be.

I've suggested it before and you have also been thinking in that direction, randomness. Cookie-cutter builds or gimmick builds without brain simply cannot withstand to face unknown dangers. That requires almost instant responding and changing of tactics.


Here's a simple random encounter that could easily be implented in areas.

- 8 man group

3 random attack based builds, with speed bosting skills. (steady stance, axe shock, hammer, assissins, ranger based degen etc.)

2 casters being mostly offensive (edenial, migrainers, ss, hex overload sb/ri, etc.)

1 caster being half-half (warder, blindbot, necro hexer, spirit spammer with chenneling skills, hex removals etc.)

2 healer based builds, should always include one primary healing(woh, lod, bl, rit healer etc.) and one mostly protective (spirit spammer, rc prot, zb, etc.)

-

Standard aggro AI is removed and a new priority based AI is created.

Attackers, 2 automatically go for targets with a healing based attribute @ 9 or above, 1 goes for the target with the least armor)

Casters automatically target melee/casters depending on the build that they are using. (dom mesmer goes for casters, necro hexes for attack based characters etc.)

and so on, you get the basic principle.


Conclusion to randomized 8 foe teams.

Does this remind us of something?, yes pvp!
What are we actually looking for in pve, where is the difference between them. If we had randomized spawns, it would be very pvp-alike pve. Is that really what we want?
Remember that the casual player just wants to have fun and win.
Giving this scenario to a casual player might not actually be giving him what he wants.

Though, this will attract the good players to do such areas, but again, such groups and above require tactics and teamwork to beat. Don't get me wrong, I know this game is based on teamwork and tactics, but generel Joe, is utterly crap. He doesn't understand skills and just wants his toon to look good. He, as you already pointed out, thinks that if he spend enough time on it, he will win in the end. Problem is, he won't if we have randomized areas, and then average joe will be forced to either: quit or adapt. (also phrased as "adapt or die!")


Speculations based on my own conclusions

If we had such teams as this, better means of communication is essential to completing said area. Thus forcing average PUGs to use voice communication.
The problems with this is that average PUGs just refuse to. (Based on my own expierences)

Then there are two possible scenarios as a result of this.
People will either,

Not use communication, making it very hard and in need of cookie-cutter builds actually capable of clearing said area.

Adapt and start using it. This will require many many players to become a lot for focused on the game, stepping futher away from the casual gamer's mind.
I fear that many players simply don't have time or will to do this.


End conclusion
Changing the area to randomized spawns is just like playing organized pvp. Either you run cookie-cutter builds and are likely to fail or you find a decent guild. Option number two requires some dedication, which most players don't have or want to have. So this is no different then our current areas.

This is highly speculative and I don't support my own ideas 100%


Just my thoughts on the topic.

PS. Please find spelling mistakes. (no this wasn't sarcasm, i actually want to improve my english.)

Faction's rush rush atmosphere was enough of that already, thanks. Even when not trying for masters, it was pushed too much. You never know when the phone might ring and you have to be on it for a bit, or any other uncountable things. Remember this.

"One of the great features of Sorrow's Furnace was that even the dumbest player could enter and explore it and do easy quests. Decent or average players could do all quests (including Final Assault) with a minimum of thinking, and excellent players could farm everything in smaller groups."
Wow! I must qualify as decent or avareage, as I took my ele through Final Assault with a group as primary healer(couldnt get a real monk). We only wiped twice(like the movie ), and one of those, I was last one left, but got degened before I got break aggro to rez(this was a couple months ago). I wouldnt call Oro quest(only one Ive bothered trying) easy, by any means. Its not very difficult, but its not easy, either. I dont know how people consider these thing easy sometimes. Im pretty good, but I almost never solo(never can get it to work), and take minimal henchies, 2 tank/healers. For me, at least, it depends alot on how well the group works together, like a couple days ago, when my lvl 14 mes got invited to a lvl 20 party to fight to Droks. Did pretty good, got throught Lornars without getting more than 50%DP. And no, I didnt just sit, I fought too. As someone said, it takes thinking for some high-level areas, which I enjoy, but I have no real problem with certain skills being better suited for some areas.

/signed thats very true, and very hard to do

I am agreeable that having more creative and fun ways of completing PvE objectives is much better than the "brute force" option (environment effects, Higher mob levels, unbalanced mobs skills). I always felt that missions/quest should feel like an adventure into the unknown (at least for the first couple of times) but how the element of "random' can be introduced into the instancing technology remains a technical question i suppose for Anet to figure out and implement.

While cookie cutter builds are not neccessary healthy, it is now a part of our culture with its own pros and cons. A necessary evil of sorts in the times placed before us. As much as i like for us to be able to play whatever build in a balanced fashion, i would also very much like to be able to complete objectives in a reasonable time frame rather than failing reapeatedly in vain. Hence the cookie cutter build.

Random is a very difficult issue in Guild Wars. Let's look at a few things:

Randomized skillsets:
- This is basically worthless. With the large number of skills in GW, the chance of 8 random skills, even limited to certain attribute lines or skill types, making even a decent build is close to nil. Any conditional skill becomes nearly worthless because the other skills to provide the condition are likely not going to be picked randomly(crushing blow, glowing gaze, etc).
- Chances of getting absolutely worthless skillbars due to having all support-type skills(blessed aura+divine spirit+divine boon+peace and harmony, etc)

Randomized group composition:
- Again not so great. What happens when you randomly get a group with 4 monks? 4 illusion mesmers with the same hexes? If you limit it to a basically balanced build, you basically have the current status quo(though currently, the designers change things up intelligently like elementalist spiker groups(rain of terror's).

Randomized group placement:
- Probably the best way that randomization could fit into GW, but again leads to problems. What happens when 2 difficult groups spawn too close to each other? Is there movement(and how is that determined), leading to potential horrid patrol overlaps, or is everything stationary and stupid?


While randomization seems good at first glance, when you look into how it would actually work, it really falls apart in Guild Wars. Other games have incorporated it successfully, mostly due to the games design. Diablo 2 had random monster spawns, but every monster did very little, they came in hordes, and a single character could wipe out the hordes of monsters. Since all the monsters were the same, there was no group composition or skill issues, and since all the monsters stood in one place and attacked anything that they saw, movement and placement weren't huge issues. However, I wouldn't want to see GW dumbed down to the level of Diablo 2.

About the domain of anguish, there are good points and bad points in this thread.
- I dislike that the environmental effects really punish you for playing. It seems that with the monster difficulty level, the area could have felt much better without them. Overall, it doesn't seem like they have a huge effect, though, compared to the monsters- I'd prefer to take 50 damage for blocking or whatever it was than to take 200+ damage from attacks. The energy loss in City is a bit annoying, but the monsters are already doing the bulk of the energy denial(Energy Surge, Feedback, Wither, Malaise, etc).

- It does seem to be designed to be difficult to brute-force. The main thing that I've noticed in playing in DoA that nobody even bothers thinking about is the way that the Enraged skill punishes AoE damage(including my guildmates). Enraged gives bonus damage to every monster who is injured but not dead. That means that in that period of time when you're AoE'ing a group of monsters and they're at about 20% health, each and every one of those monsters is doing double damage. That's what causes party wipes by multiple 400+ damage Invoke Lightnings, and 500 damage Stygian Horror attacks. Killing a single monster at a time seems to me much better for survivability. However, everybody is so set on the tank, echo nuker, monk or AoE gimmick build(traps, spiteful, etc) that work elsewhere in the game, that nobody is even willing to try not using massive AoE.

Overall, it seems that the DoA was intended to try to push players into "thinking outside the box" and adapting their builds, rather than brute-forcing their way through it. However, players appear to be unwilling to change, and instead just give up and whine on forums, or else bash their heads into the wall using the same gimmicks, just more refined and tweaked to have a chance to power through the areas.


I agree with Frog in that the challenge missions seem to have a nice level of challenge that players can play at any level, and that can provide a challenge for any level of player. I particularly like Zos Shivrous Channel and Dajkah Inlet, personally. However, the lack of rewards in these areas definately takes them off the list of places that most people actually play. This gives the same feel as many people list as being their biggest postive about Sorrow's Furnace- the ability to go in at any skill level and do something and earn rewards.

Personally, I think that the game should have some areas of both types. It should have moderate end-game areas with somewhat scaling difficulty where anybody can go in, and the average player can have a good challenge that they can overcome. I do like the fact that there's some very difficult end-game areas like Domain of Anguish, however, where those who don't find challenge elsewhere can sate their desire for near-impossible areas where they have to think and coordinate with their friends in order to have a chance to complete.

I agree with you Froggie, there are better ways to add challenge to the game without progressively boosting the levels of the enemy.

With regards to DoA, it doesn't actually force folk to change anything that they have been doing previously. The most prevalent DoA build atm consists of a tank, nukers, monks and perhaps a solitary ranger (if they want spirits for GC+Winter+MoF). The same tactics work, you send the tank in to soak up all the damage then the nukers carefully close in and nuke the entire group of enemies surrounding the tank. The only challenge here is when 'aggro' breaks from the tank.

You know, I've said this before, there are other ways of doing things in PvE but overall the tank, nuke and heal (3 roles provided mainly by 3 core classes) approach will always get the job done. There are other ways of mitigating damage other than sending a tank in or having bonds or relying on spirits (I'm thinking of shutdown, disruption and debilitation) and there are other ways of killing enemies other than nuking the crap out of them, however, while the age old brute force method works, no-one is going to want to play the other methods, especially as the other methods are generally slower and more difficult to play well. This is why certain classes, such as mesmers, necros, rits, assasins don't find it as easy to find groups - especially when it comes to the high level areas. I accept that this is a generalisation but overall I believe it to be true.

Come on, have some sense and don't read it so literally. It doesn't have to be "give the monsters 8 random skills". If they gave the monsters a random selection of just a small handful of different preset builds, that would still likely be sufficient, especially combined with other randomized factors. Of course, it'd also help to not make such awful monster builds - even the monsters in the Domain of Anguish have a lot of subpar skill bars.