I'm not saying that you have to agree with me... I'm saying that this idea might be fun for some players, me included, if done properly.
My idea actually already exists in Guild Wars, and that I enjoyed it when it was there. I want more of it... Some examples:
1) The Cannon turtles on the Luxon side
2) The Juggernauts on the Kurzick side.
3) The forteress defenses in Nightfall
There are also a few issues that I think should be settled once and for all.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gameshoes3003
Make the super-hero lvl 35.... Now then, name one boss that's over lvl 35...
Also, you cannot expect that bot to beat an enemy 1 or 2 levels higher than it, it just won't happen.
The game is suppose to be hard because you cannot have anybody in a party that is over level twenty. Repeat, cannot have anybody in the party that's over level twenty.
|
The levels, as stated previously, will be balanced such that the super is about as strong as 2 bots (if it takes two places) or as strong as 3 bots (if it takes 3 places). Actual level numbers are therefore *irrelevant* to the present discussion.
You can make a game like GW harder in many ways, including: (1) pitting you against higher-level monsters, and (2) pitting you against larger mobs of similar or even lower-level. You could do the same on the player side, without making it harder or easier.
I wouldn't want that bot to kill ennemies higher-level than itself without my help. I have no idea where you got that from.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gameshoes3003
Also, if you're trying to equalize ONE bot, to equal TWO bots. Then uuuh... I see no point, might as well bring two still.
And think... What would you want..... 2 human players, or one freakin superbot that deals over 150 base damage as you can witness through Glint and the Lich from Prophecies. I see less parties, and more solo runners. That's not what the game is about.
Also, there is no strategy with bots because, uuuhh... they attack what you attack? Strategy is dealing with what you got (Such as people?). And having a superbot that completely dominates, isn't strategy. That's just you in running and out letting the bot take care of things.
|
What the game is about is not yours to decide. It's up to the community and ANet.
Do you play with bots? I don't think so. If you play only with humans, then you should not even have that discussion, because this will not affect you anyway.
Unlike what you said, playing *well* with bots requires that you call targets, position them (and re-position them to avoid AoE spells), and otherwise give them some intelligence to complement their AI.
Did I mention the super-bot would be balanced? Therefore, it would not dominate *by definition*?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gameshoes3003
Introducing new dynamics to the game? No. Just buffing levels.
Strategy is dealing with what you got (Such as people?). And having a superbot that completely dominates, isn't strategy. That's just you in running and out letting the bot take care of things.
|
I agree that strategy is dealing with what you have. That may be people, or it may be bots, depending on your preference. Lots of people like playing with bots (henchs and heros), and my idea concerns them.
The strategy relies on the relative importance of group members. For example, if you lose your monks, then it's time to retreat... If you lose your minion mancer, then you got a whole mess on your hands. See?
The same can be said about higher-level members in your party. Lose one of them, and it's as if you lose two members in one shot. If it gets disabled (hexed or conditioned), it's as if two members got disabled. It might have stronger spells and attacks, but it can cast them less often than two members could.
So you have to be extra careful to make sure that super stays alive and contributing. Therefore, sending it into the fray without support is like sending a lone tank into an army. It might do some damage, but you'll lose it, and end up losing the fight. Poor strategy indeed.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gameshoes3003
Also, yes it still would lower the party size, and having just a bot on your team does not create a personal experience.
|
About personal experience: there is much to say about this. Personal experience for me means being involved, contributing significantly to the action, not being lost in the crowd. Having a personal purpose.
You can achieve that in PUG's, in teams of human players, in mixed groups, or in purely hench/hero groups. You can get that in PvP or PvE. It depends on your contribution.
If you're in a 4-character team, whether human or hench, then if you slack off and do nothing, your team runs at 75% efficiency. In a 8-character team, you'd run at 87.5% efficiency. Therefore, the larger the group, the less there is room for personal experience - as far as contribution to the team is concerned. Smaller team means mistakes can potentially cost you more. The cost of losing that super or having it disabled would be high, and you'd have to contribute to the fight to ensure that this does not happen.
Protecting the tank in Ghost Recon felt like a personal experience. It was stronger than me, obviously, but if it was lost, then the mission was over. Same protecting larger ships or bombers in Descent Freespace. Most strategy games have supers and ubers and normal units. However, the normal units are needed to protect the ubers and supers. They need to be involved.
Same thing here.
Plenty of strategy games have it. So why are you saying that there is no strategy in this?