Unrealistic Difficulty!!!!
Burst Cancel
Quote:
Originally Posted by SotiCoto
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:
Yes, and that is what I play with.|
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
seriously unrealistic difficulty? i want HM to get more challenged and this is difficult?
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. darktyco
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 ( 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
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
Quote:
Isn't one of the major points in playing a Role-playing type of game creating and playing a UNIQUE character??!!
|
Quote:
Quote:
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.|
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
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burst Cancel
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burst Cancel
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.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.
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.Quote:
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.|
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
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
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
Quote:
That's why pvp died.
Oh God. End of thread. Mod, close this please?
| Antheus
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
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
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
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
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanok Odbrook
|
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:
Quote:
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.
I guess the point that stands out to me very clearly is that not everyone is having such problems. To the OP, I recommend you try some different tactics and adapt to each situation on a case-by-case basis. I'm not necessarily saying the OP is this person, but so many players seem to find one skill bar (for heroes, too) and stick with it forever thinking it will always be the only answer... all too often that is the problem when people complain the game is too hard. If you're doing that, stop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keithark
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:
That's the difference between specifically asking for advice on how to do something, and complaining that the game is "unrealistic..." you illicit different responses.|
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
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
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
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. Keithark
GWEN is easy...take a SF Elly, Jagged bones MM, and a SS necro (with BR)..then take the 2 monk hench, the fire hench and then the last slot take something to balance your party (depending on what class you are). Now all you have to do is go kill stuff, in hard areas just flag and pull so you don't get too many at same time. This will make whole game easy (other than the worm dungeon where everyone is at 60dp the whole last level)
Abbel Calima
Quote:
Originally Posted by nw5221
I have been playing Guild Wars since July of 2005. I have purchased all of the new games, as well as the new expansion. I’ve been looking forward to “Eye of the North” ever since I read about it. I enjoy GW immensely but I have to tell you that I am also VERY FRUSTRATED!!
With every new game, I’ve grown more and more irritated at the unrealistic difficulty in certain areas. I understand that there has to be a degree of challenge, but the game is becoming 90% aggravation. The quests in the dungeons are next to impossible to complete. Within 2 minutes the entire party has a -60% death penalty. The foes are not only unrealistically ultra-powerful but there are times that I’ll attack a group of 5 and within seconds every red dot on the mini-map is drawn in and ‘suddenly’ I’m fighting 30. And that’s a “lovely” experience if you happen to be near a resurrection shrine. Because the AI isn’t smart enough to Rez away from the foes…So I get to experience the “joy” of getting slaughtered 50 times. I have tried several quests 4 or 5 times only to quit in frustration. I’ve tried with henchmen and I’ve tried with real players. I’ve yet to complete them. I’m at a point where I’m about to quit. Ok bye! Lol, just learn how to play. Unlock skills for your heroes and come up with a decent teambuild. Adjust your teambuild according what you're going to face. Do not rush into mobs, pull carefully one group at a time untill you get better. If you can't come up with any good teambuild, look into the forums for some ideas.
Snow Bunny
Quote:
Originally Posted by DDryss
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. ..... The game isn't hard. Do you not understand this? With the advent of hardmode, they made a patch that Made the Game Easier. C'mon people. STOP USING YOUR SF ELES. Take an SS necro, Deep Freeze, and some tasty smitingness against those undead. Done.
thunderai
I remember my first run-in with the junto heading west from Stifhalla. I thought to my self, my god this thing is hard. I was able to recover and compelte the game with no problems but the exapsnion did have one casualty.
My son who is 6 (younger than the age requirement, but whatever) was always able to do the other campaigns just fine. He has decked out heros and understands the game just fine. Is not able to keep up with the mobs in EotN. I have not seen him play the game since then and I kind of feel bad that he is not able to keep up with some of the higher level mobs. He is only 6, but it is a hard lesson to have to teach. Sometimes you can not win and you just have to either continue to practice and try or play something else for awhile... Now i have to listen to nick.com all the time... oh boy
iridescentfyre
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ebony Shadowheart
|
I guess the point that stands out to me very clearly is that not everyone is having such problems. To the OP, I recommend you try some different tactics and adapt to each situation on a case-by-case basis. I'm not necessarily saying the OP is this person, but so many players seem to find one skill bar (for heroes, too) and stick with it forever thinking it will always be the only answer... all too often that is the problem when people complain the game is too hard. If you're doing that, stop.
Quote:
GWEN is easy...take a SF Elly, Jagged bones MM, and a SS necro (with BR)..then take the 2 monk hench, the fire hench and then the last slot take something to balance your party (depending on what class you are). Now all you have to do is go kill stuff, in hard areas just flag and pull so you don't get too many at same time. This will make whole game easy (other than the worm dungeon where everyone is at 60dp the whole last level)
You do realize Destroyers are immune to burning--and have exceptionally high armor against Fire--right?
Lourens
Quote:
Originally Posted by nw5221
I have been playing Guild Wars since July of 2005. I have purchased all of the new games, as well as the new expansion. I’ve been looking forward to “Eye of the North” ever since I read about it. I enjoy GW immensely but I have to tell you that I am also VERY FRUSTRATED!!
With every new game, I’ve grown more and more irritated at the unrealistic difficulty in certain areas. I understand that there has to be a degree of challenge, but the game is becoming 90% aggravation. The quests in the dungeons are next to impossible to complete. Within 2 minutes the entire party has a -60% death penalty. The foes are not only unrealistically ultra-powerful but there are times that I’ll attack a group of 5 and within seconds every red dot on the mini-map is drawn in and ‘suddenly’ I’m fighting 30. And that’s a “lovely” experience if you happen to be near a resurrection shrine. Because the AI isn’t smart enough to Rez away from the foes…So I get to experience the “joy” of getting slaughtered 50 times.
I have tried several quests 4 or 5 times only to quit in frustration. I’ve tried with henchmen and I’ve tried with real players. I’ve yet to complete them.
I’m at a point where I’m about to quit. Guildwars is all about skill selection party selection
Some tactics would also be nice
And most important having skillz :P
I played since dec 2005 and found ruins of surmia hard back then :P
But now i think just organize good and you will be allright
With every new game, I’ve grown more and more irritated at the unrealistic difficulty in certain areas. I understand that there has to be a degree of challenge, but the game is becoming 90% aggravation. The quests in the dungeons are next to impossible to complete. Within 2 minutes the entire party has a -60% death penalty. The foes are not only unrealistically ultra-powerful but there are times that I’ll attack a group of 5 and within seconds every red dot on the mini-map is drawn in and ‘suddenly’ I’m fighting 30. And that’s a “lovely” experience if you happen to be near a resurrection shrine. Because the AI isn’t smart enough to Rez away from the foes…So I get to experience the “joy” of getting slaughtered 50 times.
I have tried several quests 4 or 5 times only to quit in frustration. I’ve tried with henchmen and I’ve tried with real players. I’ve yet to complete them.
I’m at a point where I’m about to quit. Guildwars is all about skill selection party selection
Some tactics would also be nice
And most important having skillz :P
I played since dec 2005 and found ruins of surmia hard back then :P
But now i think just organize good and you will be allright
Burst Cancel
@Hanok Odbrook: I understand what you're trying to do - my argument is that it can't be done. You can try "working out the details", but I submit that you'll never be able to craft a system where the weaker builds can do well, yet the stronger builds still have a hard time - as long as there remains a difference between weak and strong builds. By definition, a strong build must win more easily than a weak build, so if a weak build can do it ...
Also, if you penalize a "stronger" build harder than you do a "weak" build, are they really strong and weak builds anymore? The problem here is that you're using a lot of concept terms without any concrete implementation - as such, you're able to use labels like "strong" and "weak" without any actual consideration of whether they would still be strong or weak under your system. For instance, if all builds perform with roughly equal effectiveness, there aren't really any strong or weak builds anymore - this is what happens when player skill matters much more than build; the build simply ceases to be relevant. Consider competitive games - say, Starcraft. Assuming this game were perfectly balanced (it comes close, I think), the three races would be different, but equal. In this case, it doesn't really matter what you play.
I think Anet got it mostly right with HM - you can't make something that's challenging for the hardcore player but is still accessible to the casual player. In order to satisfy both camps, you have to resort to difficulty modes and specialized areas like the elite missions. The only issue is that HM might not be hard enough in most cases, but then you run into the issue of how much you want to divide up the player base.
I'm also curious as to why you think diversity for diversity's sake is good. I've never come across a rational defense for this type of thinking, either in gaming or in the real world. Diversity is good if it accomplishes something else - but there's nothing inherently special about it that diversity should be pursued just for the sake of having diversity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iridescentfyre
Also, if you penalize a "stronger" build harder than you do a "weak" build, are they really strong and weak builds anymore? The problem here is that you're using a lot of concept terms without any concrete implementation - as such, you're able to use labels like "strong" and "weak" without any actual consideration of whether they would still be strong or weak under your system. For instance, if all builds perform with roughly equal effectiveness, there aren't really any strong or weak builds anymore - this is what happens when player skill matters much more than build; the build simply ceases to be relevant. Consider competitive games - say, Starcraft. Assuming this game were perfectly balanced (it comes close, I think), the three races would be different, but equal. In this case, it doesn't really matter what you play.
I think Anet got it mostly right with HM - you can't make something that's challenging for the hardcore player but is still accessible to the casual player. In order to satisfy both camps, you have to resort to difficulty modes and specialized areas like the elite missions. The only issue is that HM might not be hard enough in most cases, but then you run into the issue of how much you want to divide up the player base.
I'm also curious as to why you think diversity for diversity's sake is good. I've never come across a rational defense for this type of thinking, either in gaming or in the real world. Diversity is good if it accomplishes something else - but there's nothing inherently special about it that diversity should be pursued just for the sake of having diversity.
Quote:
You do realize Destroyers are immune to burning--and have exceptionally high armor against Fire--right?
Don't want to jump on you, but I've seen comments along these lines far too often. Destroyer battles are actually in the minority in GWEN, and other enemies - such as the Charr, or the Undead, burn just fine.
thunderai
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burst Cancel
I think Anet got it mostly right with HM - you can't make something that's challenging for the hardcore player but is still accessible to the casual player. In order to satisfy both camps, you have to resort to difficulty modes and specialized areas like the elite missions. The only issue is that HM might not be hard enough in most cases, but then you run into the issue of how much you want to divide up the player base. I would have to say that I do not hear enough of this type of comment. I am by no means a supporter of aNet, but it is their game and we all need to understand that fact. In fact I would say that the mechanics of Hard Mode are what I think should have been done. Saying they should have harder builds, better builds, etc, only warrents a larger mallet and bigger cookie cutter.
You can not easily make builds that have a larger cookie cutter so giving the mobs buffs makes the game more difficult.
You can still counter those buffs with good builds but you need talent to ensure the cookie cutter you stole from online is implemented correctly.
a good example is dazing. Dazing can turn HM into NM but only if your prepaired, skills in HM almost mean nothing as much as the talent of the player does.
Sweet Mystery
Duh one thing to think off..... if your going to do something you have no idea about, why not perform some research? I know when I was doing NF and if I got stuck I looked on wiki and got some info... then knew what I was doing and planned a h/h team accordingly.
Can't do it, use your guild to assist or advise? If not in a guild and a loner then no wonder struggle as don't get experience.
Can't do it, use your guild to assist or advise? If not in a guild and a loner then no wonder struggle as don't get experience.
gabrial heart
Hardest dungeon i've found in Eotn is shards of orr. It's not hard per say with lots of holy dmg you can clear it pretty easy, but it does make it tougher if you go in with more then one melee class other then dervish. Just alot of spike dmg in very short periods.
It's true that the groups move around the map ALOT more in Eotn, so it's pretty easy to have mad aggro in a few short seconds. Areas with aggrodons, raptors and those felixes can easily wipe the best builds of you get too many. One skill i feel is very very overpowered is wurm bile, it's like a bosses sandstorm that you can't move out of, lasts forever and ends in poison or disease.
I found VERY few areas/quests/missions that aren't h/h-able....
It's true that the groups move around the map ALOT more in Eotn, so it's pretty easy to have mad aggro in a few short seconds. Areas with aggrodons, raptors and those felixes can easily wipe the best builds of you get too many. One skill i feel is very very overpowered is wurm bile, it's like a bosses sandstorm that you can't move out of, lasts forever and ends in poison or disease.
I found VERY few areas/quests/missions that aren't h/h-able....
maraxusofk
LOl i havent found a problem wit this game so far. ive beaten the entire game using 3 heroes (1 mm, 1 lod, 1 sh ele) and cynn, mehnlo, lita, and herta. easy as pie man. ive even completed half the dungoens doing this. if u want advice, learn to flag ur heroes back and kite properly. if u overaggro u WILL wipe.
Equaliser
Hard? No.
Some of the solo master quests are difficult but I won't go as far as unrealistically difficult.
One come to mind is the a Norn's quest involving a griffin (can't remember the quest name) but it is not impossible.
Some of the solo master quests are difficult but I won't go as far as unrealistically difficult.
One come to mind is the a Norn's quest involving a griffin (can't remember the quest name) but it is not impossible.
Lourens
And Slavers Exile isnt even really hard
Im waiting for hardmode :P
Im waiting for hardmode :P
Hanok Odbrook
Let me pose this question - can anyone here honestly say that they would enjoy playing GW and that four million others would as well if we were all a bunch of clones running around playing the same builds the same way? I think not. The character creation system, the ability to pick and choose Secondary Professions, Skills, and Attribute Points gives us a chance to play very different characters, and as long as you play it well, I think there should be some reward - success shouldn't be determined by bringing the "ideal" build into an area. I currently have 22 PvE characters across two accounts because I like being able to play many different ways and learning new ways to play with different professions both in PvE and PvP. I like trying out different skill sets to find ways to have relative success with a character and yet still use unique sets to differentiate my character from the rest of the crowd.
I haven't played D&D on-line, but have read that it requires a diverse group in order to solve puzzles and get through the game. I like that concept. In GW I think a party with eight diverse characters is more fun to play and gives more options to play than a party filled with identical builds. Should it be forced? No - I also like that GW allows us to party form any type of group and head out into the wild. I just don't think that a group's success should be based solely on whether they are comprised the the "right" builds to get through an area.
A handicapping system - just as they use in sporting events, at al - is used all the time to level the playing field between the best and worst competitors. The teams are still on different playing levels, but the handicap evens things out and gives the weaker team an equal opportunity for competition. The best example of this that comes to mind is a horse race where lighter jockies (thus the ones with the advantage) are weighted down to compensate for the heavier jockies. Everyone is still running the same racetrack, but weight won't decide the winner - the jockey who runs the best race tactics will.
Will players always try to find the best builds to get through the game quickest and easiest just to be the first to do so? Of course, no system can change that, and that's their choice (and they are also probably the first people to complain about the game being easy even though their complaint has the least amount of merit) but I want a system that allows players to pick any profession and skill combination they choose (preferably because they have fun playing it) and not be penalized simply because it's not the strongest build or most ideal build to use in an area.
I rushed my Dervish through Istan and the first couple Kaineng missions simply so I can spend as much time playing her as possible with an Assassin secondary. And I have had a lot of fun experimenting with various skill and attribute choices, and look forward to seeing what new PvE skills I can use for her - not because I want to find a strong build, but simply the build I find the most fun to play, and I don't think I should be penalized for that choice. Unfortunately it seems the current GW system does just that.
Ultimately your choice of build and party formation would not make a difference in how easy or hard areas are - simply your skill at using your choices to the best effect. I'm not saying that a full party of Healing Monks should be able to vanquish an area - we still need to have players make competant choices, but just because a team doesn't bring an MM or a couple of Spiker Eles should mean that they have to suffer through more deaths than the powered up team.
Hanok Odbrook
I haven't played D&D on-line, but have read that it requires a diverse group in order to solve puzzles and get through the game. I like that concept. In GW I think a party with eight diverse characters is more fun to play and gives more options to play than a party filled with identical builds. Should it be forced? No - I also like that GW allows us to party form any type of group and head out into the wild. I just don't think that a group's success should be based solely on whether they are comprised the the "right" builds to get through an area.
A handicapping system - just as they use in sporting events, at al - is used all the time to level the playing field between the best and worst competitors. The teams are still on different playing levels, but the handicap evens things out and gives the weaker team an equal opportunity for competition. The best example of this that comes to mind is a horse race where lighter jockies (thus the ones with the advantage) are weighted down to compensate for the heavier jockies. Everyone is still running the same racetrack, but weight won't decide the winner - the jockey who runs the best race tactics will.
Will players always try to find the best builds to get through the game quickest and easiest just to be the first to do so? Of course, no system can change that, and that's their choice (and they are also probably the first people to complain about the game being easy even though their complaint has the least amount of merit) but I want a system that allows players to pick any profession and skill combination they choose (preferably because they have fun playing it) and not be penalized simply because it's not the strongest build or most ideal build to use in an area.
I rushed my Dervish through Istan and the first couple Kaineng missions simply so I can spend as much time playing her as possible with an Assassin secondary. And I have had a lot of fun experimenting with various skill and attribute choices, and look forward to seeing what new PvE skills I can use for her - not because I want to find a strong build, but simply the build I find the most fun to play, and I don't think I should be penalized for that choice. Unfortunately it seems the current GW system does just that.
Ultimately your choice of build and party formation would not make a difference in how easy or hard areas are - simply your skill at using your choices to the best effect. I'm not saying that a full party of Healing Monks should be able to vanquish an area - we still need to have players make competant choices, but just because a team doesn't bring an MM or a couple of Spiker Eles should mean that they have to suffer through more deaths than the powered up team.
Hanok Odbrook
tmakinen
Ok, let me try to explain this through analogy.
You've got a hammer. It's a good hammer, too, and hitting nails is fast and easy. However, it's not particularly suitable for cutting planks of wood, turning screws or checking that a pillar is vertical instead of tilted. You complain that the requirement of using the right tool for the right job is restricting and kills diversity? There's an entire toolbox available with a vast array of choices, learn to use them all - that is proper diversity.
Contrary to what you claim, the game is not forcing you to run cookie cutter builds to be successful. During alliance PvE events we never run cookie cutter, mostly it's whatever people can/want to bring, and there are only a couple of places in the game where the initial choice might not work well enough (Eternal Grove HM anyone?) The important thing is to know what is needed, not as 'we need a tank' but instead as 'we need a way to counter lots of burning'. That is a specific challenge posed by the game, and acknowledging it is the first step on the way to victory (and conversely, ignoring it is the quickest way to defeat). Now, since real diversity is a good thing, there are multiple ways to meet that challenge. Maybe everybody can use Frigid Armor to gain immunity to burning. Maybe somebody can pack Martyr, Extinguish or even Cautery Signet. In some cases it's futile to try to remove burning because it gets instantly reapplied. Have one or two party members spamming Light of Deliverance - case solved. Don't have LoD? Use an E/Mo with Heal Party and Ether Prodigy. This game does indeed provide a bewildering array of choices if people just care to educate themselves.
Do you now see the difference between 'this game should be easy enough to be completed with any build that I happen to like, because that's diversity' and 'this game is easy enough for any party that takes into account the basic challenges and acts accordingly'?
You've got a hammer. It's a good hammer, too, and hitting nails is fast and easy. However, it's not particularly suitable for cutting planks of wood, turning screws or checking that a pillar is vertical instead of tilted. You complain that the requirement of using the right tool for the right job is restricting and kills diversity? There's an entire toolbox available with a vast array of choices, learn to use them all - that is proper diversity.
Contrary to what you claim, the game is not forcing you to run cookie cutter builds to be successful. During alliance PvE events we never run cookie cutter, mostly it's whatever people can/want to bring, and there are only a couple of places in the game where the initial choice might not work well enough (Eternal Grove HM anyone?) The important thing is to know what is needed, not as 'we need a tank' but instead as 'we need a way to counter lots of burning'. That is a specific challenge posed by the game, and acknowledging it is the first step on the way to victory (and conversely, ignoring it is the quickest way to defeat). Now, since real diversity is a good thing, there are multiple ways to meet that challenge. Maybe everybody can use Frigid Armor to gain immunity to burning. Maybe somebody can pack Martyr, Extinguish or even Cautery Signet. In some cases it's futile to try to remove burning because it gets instantly reapplied. Have one or two party members spamming Light of Deliverance - case solved. Don't have LoD? Use an E/Mo with Heal Party and Ether Prodigy. This game does indeed provide a bewildering array of choices if people just care to educate themselves.
Do you now see the difference between 'this game should be easy enough to be completed with any build that I happen to like, because that's diversity' and 'this game is easy enough for any party that takes into account the basic challenges and acts accordingly'?
Asprah
GWEN is really not that hard,you can finish main story in 2 days. And elite dungeon is easier then any other elite mission.
If you have trouble finishing some dungeon take your time (even 30 min) to make a full human party and check everyone´s skillbar. You can often see someone is a bad player by his skillbar only. Adjust your skillbars for specific dungeon. For example heart of the shiverpeek quest : take frigid armor,mantra of flame,ward vs harm or something like that.
I had trouble in some dungeons only when soloing them,and that was bcs hero`s AI isnt always the way it should be.
If you have trouble finishing some dungeon take your time (even 30 min) to make a full human party and check everyone´s skillbar. You can often see someone is a bad player by his skillbar only. Adjust your skillbars for specific dungeon. For example heart of the shiverpeek quest : take frigid armor,mantra of flame,ward vs harm or something like that.
I had trouble in some dungeons only when soloing them,and that was bcs hero`s AI isnt always the way it should be.
the_jos
Quote:
First of all, AI handles those builds very well. AI MM can play some builds better than human players because they have better minion control.
Same for dual SF eles.
Second, both builds have both an offensive and defensive role.
A MM with both horrors and fiends can 'tank' and do damage at the same time. When AI is attacking minions they are not attacking team members.
They also waste a lot of energy and skills on minions.
The fire nuker with Meteor Shower has a similar role.
Many people thing it's a pure offensive build.
However, when used in a tanking team build the team can KD a large group of enemies for about 10 seconds. This gives only one second casts a small chance of getting through. That's not damage, that's 10 seconds shutdown with bonus damage.
Thirth, the (dual) SF and MM are relative 'stand-alone' builds.
They work in almost all team builds as long as certain conditions are met (corpses and burning).
This does not mean they are the best builds to put in a team.
I use MM and SF eles very little because they also have some disadvantages.
However, you need to think more in team-build and less in individual builds.
I am thinking when the last time was we (HM guild) used a MM or SF ele in a vanquish when playing with a guild team. Can't remember and I know I've played with mixed human/hero teams a lot.
Limp
Try going to PVX Wiki to help with builds ect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reverse_oreo
Quote:
Game is easy, please stop crying about the difficulty. The hardest monsters in the entire GW arsenal are the new dinosaurs. Destroyers are simple, charr are surprisingly easy. Please, rune up your heroes and win the game.
The hardest monsters in the entire GW arsenal are the new dinosaurs???? Wow now thats funny!!! You been to Slavers Exile yet? LOL. Bet you beat it cause your so uber leet right??? PLZ....
Blackhearted
Quote:
Originally Posted by nw5221
I have been playing Guild Wars since July of 2005. I have purchased all of the new games, as well as the new expansion. I’ve been looking forward to “Eye of the North” ever since I read about it. I enjoy GW immensely but I have to tell you that I am also VERY FRUSTRATED!!
With every new game, I’ve grown more and more irritated at the unrealistic difficulty in certain areas. I understand that there has to be a degree of challenge, but the game is becoming 90% aggravation. The quests in the dungeons are next to impossible to complete. Within 2 minutes the entire party has a -60% death penalty. The foes are not only unrealistically ultra-powerful but there are times that I’ll attack a group of 5 and within seconds every red dot on the mini-map is drawn in and ‘suddenly’ I’m fighting 30. And that’s a “lovely” experience if you happen to be near a resurrection shrine. Because the AI isn’t smart enough to Rez away from the foes…So I get to experience the “joy” of getting slaughtered 50 times.
I have tried several quests 4 or 5 times only to quit in frustration. I’ve tried with henchmen and I’ve tried with real players. I’ve yet to complete them.
I’m at a point where I’m about to quit. LOL. I really can't come up with much more to say to this that just... LOL. How you can fail at eotn which is rather easy for the vast majority of it is, well, kinda bad. The only things with "unrealistic power" are dungeon end bosses. And even those can be beaten if you stop and think of a new way to do it, other than charge in, after you die.
With every new game, I’ve grown more and more irritated at the unrealistic difficulty in certain areas. I understand that there has to be a degree of challenge, but the game is becoming 90% aggravation. The quests in the dungeons are next to impossible to complete. Within 2 minutes the entire party has a -60% death penalty. The foes are not only unrealistically ultra-powerful but there are times that I’ll attack a group of 5 and within seconds every red dot on the mini-map is drawn in and ‘suddenly’ I’m fighting 30. And that’s a “lovely” experience if you happen to be near a resurrection shrine. Because the AI isn’t smart enough to Rez away from the foes…So I get to experience the “joy” of getting slaughtered 50 times.
I have tried several quests 4 or 5 times only to quit in frustration. I’ve tried with henchmen and I’ve tried with real players. I’ve yet to complete them.
I’m at a point where I’m about to quit. LOL. I really can't come up with much more to say to this that just... LOL. How you can fail at eotn which is rather easy for the vast majority of it is, well, kinda bad. The only things with "unrealistic power" are dungeon end bosses. And even those can be beaten if you stop and think of a new way to do it, other than charge in, after you die.
Mister Overhill
As I've said before, Guild Wars PVE is essentially a team based arcade shooter. If you're expecting more you won't find it here. I PUG for the variety and challenge, and since I've been gaming since PONG, I don't get all bent out of shape no matter what happens. 