Games should reward better play. The question is, how much? +10%? +50%? +100%? +700%?
P.S. My solution to issues like that? Make kill teams! Have players who play using the same too much tracked and thwarted by kill teams of monsters that specifically target the player's way of playing.
P.P.S. Really funny avatar, Deakon, where's it from?
Why don't we ever talk about improving the opposition?
Iuris
qvtkc
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Iuris
What I'm talking about is best illustrated by the first great solo farming nerf, the "loot scaling" one. Before it, Superior vigor runes and similar items cost a lot more than they do now, simply because of overabundance of gold. With the earnings of those days, it took quite a long time to gain that much money in regular play, from regular drops and quest rewards. Nowadays, they cost 20k at the trader.
|
1) Golds (gold items) are excluded from loot scaling
and
2) Better drops in Hard Mode
Shuuda
Quote:
| He's right, the amount of chess-positions a human brain can evaluate is far less then what a computer can. |
Improvavel
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Amy Awien
No need to get nasty. He's right, the amount of chess-positions a human brain can evaluate is far less then what a computer can.
There's quite a few more positions to evaluate in chess then 'a couple of million' as you implied, not to mention that in chess there's a bit more to evaluate then in GW. |
For a computer there is no difference - it is all based on their computational power.
Humans don't evaluate all the positions though - there are several positions they discard automatically. A computer can and will (given enough power) evaluate all the positions.
Quote:
| GW's mob AI is limited on purpose, just as their skill bars, it would easily become to diffcult if they weren't. |
Still, EoTN charr and stone summit have decent team builds and they still die easily due to their static nature.
Some things could be easy adjusted - for example mobs decide to cast conditions/hexes regarding the weapon you have equipped. That is silly. Just because I've a spear I can't be a caster anymore and instead I'm a physical character relying on attacks...
Test Me
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Deakon
Socialism has no place in a game.
|
Improvavel
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by qvtkc
Guess your brain hasn't been exposed to courses in biology. A given brain has a finite number of brain cells and each cell can either discharge or not (be "turned on" or "turned off", send an impulse through its axon or not). That a brain has a finite number of positions isn't rude at all, it's a fact.
|
Still opposed to AI, we can make decisions without going through all the positions of our brains, making it prone to mistakes, but on the other hand wasting time/resources on completely wrong lines of thinking.
A powerful enough AI, without programming flaws, won't lose a chess game.
Do you want a GW AI that won't lose vs humans?
Quote:
| Why would it need to take 30 minutes per area? The point of making AI more human like wouldn't be to make it harder to beat normally, since bad players can be beaten pretty easily. It's to overcome farming. Most farms are based on a one-trick gimmick and if that trick fails the entire thing fails. But there are many tricks. So have mobs adapt somewhat to whatever is being used, the trick fails, and farming turns impossible without making it much harder for a normal group. |
Second, why do you need to overcome farm?
Third, all those tricks are based on the inability of mobs to remove enchantments, spell immunity and/or damage reduction.
I'm not against boost to the MOBs builds. I've advocated that before. But that won't make the game harder (or substantial so) - just less stupider/stats based.
If you look, the harder areas are based on MOBs having huge stats and cheating.
qvtkc
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Improvavel
Do you want a GW AI that won't lose vs humans?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Improvavel
Second, why do you need to overcome farm?
|
But I do care when it comes to running, because it does nothing but devalue both content and certain more unique rewards.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Improvavel
Third, all those tricks are based on the inability of mobs to remove enchantments, spell immunity and/or damage reduction.
|
Of course skills that makes you 100% invulnerable like Shadow Form did would still need to be treated separately.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Improvavel
I'm not against boost the MOBs builds. I've advocated that before. But that won't make the game harder (or substancial so).
If you look, the harder areas are based on MOBs having huge stats and cheating. |
qvtkc
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shuuda
That's not intelligence. That's just doing a lot of calculation very fast.
|
Tullzinski
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shriketalon
And that is actually it. This would make adjust the most common foes across the continents, thus providing each region with something that is a half decent challenge. Not as big a problem as one might think. And in the process, mobs get tougher, PvE gets more challenging, and the game gets more involved. Which is good, no?
TL;DR-> A lot of the SC and solo stuff that is complained about is simply an issue because the monsters can't deal with it. Give the most common monsters means of doing so, and we're quite a few steps closer to solving the problem AND making PvE more engaging at the same time. |
Not Allowed you need to stop!!!
Everyone wants the nerf/buff player skills merry go round.
/signed btw
Improvavel
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by qvtkc
I want a GW that won't lose vs farmers, but will lose vs people playing normally (if they are good enough).
|
The main problem is the attacks on farmer did nothing to the people playing normally.
Skeleton of Dhuum and bazzilion spawns in UW? Harder to normal teams than farmers (and I'm still working on finish that with 2p+6h, 8 skellies spamming flurry of splinters while a dozen spiders knock everyone can be annoying).
All these years the additions for the normal players are reduced to zaishen quests and books (and some of those are still faster with farming/running builds).
Quote:
|
Because the gimmicks involved in farming are at the absolute core of what I see as the greatest problem in GW, which is mission/dungeon running. Do I care about some guy using SF to farm ectos for 10 hours straight every day? Hell no, it just makes ectos cheaper for me. But I do care when it comes to running, because it does nothing but devalue both content and certain more unique rewards. |
In the end you get nerfs on farming but exactly no buffing on regular play.
Quote:
| So? It could be something as easy as "it hurts when I hit this guy (because he has Holy Wrath on) so I won't hit him" or "we can't kill this guy even though 4 of us are beating on him (since he's a super buffed tank) so we'll ignore him, or spread out". |
Quote:
| Huge stats and cheating is what makes DoA a not exactly popular place to play in. |
Improvavel
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by qvtkc
There is nothing that differs from the way your brain evaluates things except the scale of parallelism.
|
So it is processing power.
AI is good at those kind of problems.
But problems where they need to learn - nope. Not yet, at any rate.
Deakon
I don't understand how people can write scripts/macros/bots (against the EULA) to mow down the stiff competition in PvP areas but the creators of the game can't write code to moderately give speed runners a hard time in PvE.
Amy Awien
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Deakon
... Socialism has no place in a game. Games reward the players who are smarter, faster and who are well prepared for the challenge.
|
Farming, Speedclears, Dungeonruns and all that may have their own place, as evidenced by the fact that it was never destroyed, but they should not replace the game as it was originally intended to be played.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shuuda
That's not intelligence. That's just doing a lot of calculation very fast.
|
The-Bigz
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Deakon
I don't understand how people can write scripts/macros/bots (against the EULA) to mow down the stiff competition in PvP areas but the creators of the game can't write code to moderately give speed runners a hard time in PvE.
|
Just my 2 cents on that point.
bilinast
imo, pve mobs should be more balance, more professions spread across the mobs, pretty much what upier said. Beside, to make it even more "fun", monsters skills bar should generate random builds 
everytime you enter a mission/explorable area.
Builds that are not some random skills put together. Mb a build that reflects current meta.
everytime you enter a mission/explorable area.Builds that are not some random skills put together. Mb a build that reflects current meta.
Morphy
This is what should have been done in the first place.
Improvavel
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Amy Awien
And you know how to define intelligence? What makes you so sure that intelligence is something different from doing many calculations fast, or evaluating many situatiosn fast and accurately? Anyway, in chess evaluating millions of positions gets the job done better then human intelligence. What, then, makes you say it's 'just' doing many calculations?
|
Tic-tack-toe is also evaluating positions, but it isn't as challenging as chess simply because our brain can evaluate all those positions in a short period of time.
Human intelligence developed to deal with a set of problems, mostly how to interact with other humans.
Making calculations very fast is a type of intelligence but not very interestiing for GWs AI.
Most important is that AI always act in predictable ways. That makes it exploitable.
qvtkc
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Improvavel
The main problem is that drops are quite random. Finishing Forgewhight HM to get 2 diamonds? Please.
|
The problem is that diamonds are boring and almost worthless.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Improvavel
So basically every caster would put holy wrath on and be immune? And what if you have an imbagon and a ER E/Mo? The mobs are just going home?
|
Deakon
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Amy Awien
Socialism or any other ideologies have nothing to do with it, It's an RPG, meaning that RPG characters group up and have adventures. GW's PvE - and it's PvP - were intended to be played cooperatively, in groups, as is evidenced by the fact that groups of 4, 6 and 8 characters can be - and are expected to be - formed for missions and quests.
|
If I want to solo or h/h, then I'm being anti-social but still enjoying my purchase in a way I'm happy with. Me being anti-social should not cause anyone else consternation. You still have the option of grouping with like-minded individuals in order to accomplish a goal. It has never been denied you as a player. It may be denied to your preferred character or build.
You can't just show up at a Laker's tryout and demand that you be allowed to be on the team and receive the same salary as the starting line-up. You can, however, get together with friends and hit the playground for a fun game of b-ball.
I have much better success with my h/h than I ever had in a PuG. And taking away my ability to play within the game mechanics in a way that makes me happy isn't going to make me want to join a PuG. It makes me less interested in playing GW at all.
If Anet want to promote balanced team play then great. But you don't trim the living limbs from a tree so the dying ones have a chance to survive. I believe the game is dying and from what I can tell so does the majority. Improving the opposition, nerfing skills, buffing skills etc. etc. is simply putting a band-aid on a gaping wound. All good things come to an end. Let it go with grace and dignity... or add new content.
bilinast
Quote:
| If Anet want to promote balanced team play then great. But you don't trim the living limbs from a tree so the dying ones have a chance to survive. I believe the game is dying and from what I can tell so does the majority. Improving the opposition, nerfing skills, buffing skills etc. etc. is simply putting a band-aid on a gaping wound. All good things come to an end. Let it go with grace and dignity... or add new content. |
qvtkc
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Deakon
But you don't trim the living limbs from a tree so the dying ones have a chance to survive.
|
Oh well, never mind. Just don't take up gardening.
Deakon
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by qvtkc
Um... Actually...
Oh well, never mind. Just don't take up gardening. |
Amy Awien
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Deakon
Do you understand what socialism is? You just claimed socialism has nothing to do with it then, in the same paragraph, explained how socialism is the intended way to play.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wiki
Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization advocating either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources.
A more comprehensive definition of socialism is an economic system that has transcended commodity production and wage labor, where economic activity is carried out to maximize use-value as opposed to exchange-value and thus a corresponding change in social and economic relations, including the organization of economic institutions and resource allocation; often implying advocacy for a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended. |
Quote:
| If I want to solo or h/h, then I'm being anti-social but still enjoying my purchase in a way I'm happy with. ... |
Deakon
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Amy Awien
From wiki:I think we have different views as to what socialism is, unless you can explain how the wiki-definition applies to what I described as what I thought was the intended way of playing: "GW's PvE - and it's PvP - were intended to be played cooperatively, in groups, as is evidenced by the fact that groups of 4, 6 and 8 characters can be - and are expected to be - formed for missions and quests."
Ah, well socialism and (anti-)social are different things. The discussion is about 1-2 character farms, speedclears and mission/dungeon running, not about H&H through missions and quests. |
It's the same flawed logic that anti-gun people have. Some abuse so take away from all. Although I've never participated in speed clears etc. I'm still pro-choice.
Gony
Back to original poster, away from AI...
What about giving monsters a randomized skill pool?
Each monster type would have a few definitive skills that would stay static, (a couple synergizing skills that fit well to their species and class), and then at least one or two slots for random skills selected from a pool specific to their area?
For example, a shing jea mantid would get it's usual basic skills, then a random chance at a small pool of not too powerful skills in addition. Later Echovald warrens would get three to five skills each that stay on their bar, and then at least a couple slots randomly chosen from pretty much every skill available at that stage in the game (all core, almost all factions skills).
Working with builds posted earlier:
Warden of Forests: None Shall Pass, Counter Blow, Devastating Hammer, Healing Signet. (three slots with random Tactics, Srength, Hammer attack skills respectively)
Warden of Winds: Barbed Trap, Brambles, Lacerate, Splinter Shot, Snare, Troll Unguent. (slots for random expertise, marks skills)
Warden of the Spirit: Cry of Frustration, Energy Surge, Shatter Enchantment, Shatter Hex. (slots for random dom, insp and FC skills)
Warden of Earth: Ash Blast, Aura of Restoration, Churning Earth, Glyph of Lesser Energy, Shockwave, Stoning. (slots for random Earth magic and ES skills
Warden of Seasons: Ancestor's Rage, Consume Soul, Recuperation, Spirit Light, Splinter Weapon, Weapon of Warding, Wielder's Boon. (Slots for random Resto and Spawning skills)
Their basic builds and elites would remain static, so you could prepare your balanced party well to deal with them, but they should hold enough surprises to make SCs much more difficult for the niche builds used to exploit them...
What about giving monsters a randomized skill pool?
Each monster type would have a few definitive skills that would stay static, (a couple synergizing skills that fit well to their species and class), and then at least one or two slots for random skills selected from a pool specific to their area?
For example, a shing jea mantid would get it's usual basic skills, then a random chance at a small pool of not too powerful skills in addition. Later Echovald warrens would get three to five skills each that stay on their bar, and then at least a couple slots randomly chosen from pretty much every skill available at that stage in the game (all core, almost all factions skills).
Working with builds posted earlier:
Warden of Forests: None Shall Pass, Counter Blow, Devastating Hammer, Healing Signet. (three slots with random Tactics, Srength, Hammer attack skills respectively)
Warden of Winds: Barbed Trap, Brambles, Lacerate, Splinter Shot, Snare, Troll Unguent. (slots for random expertise, marks skills)
Warden of the Spirit: Cry of Frustration, Energy Surge, Shatter Enchantment, Shatter Hex. (slots for random dom, insp and FC skills)
Warden of Earth: Ash Blast, Aura of Restoration, Churning Earth, Glyph of Lesser Energy, Shockwave, Stoning. (slots for random Earth magic and ES skills
Warden of Seasons: Ancestor's Rage, Consume Soul, Recuperation, Spirit Light, Splinter Weapon, Weapon of Warding, Wielder's Boon. (Slots for random Resto and Spawning skills)
Their basic builds and elites would remain static, so you could prepare your balanced party well to deal with them, but they should hold enough surprises to make SCs much more difficult for the niche builds used to exploit them...
Martin Alvito
@ OP: The short answer is that making the monsters smarter/more efficient makes them die less. Unless ANet credibly commits to increase the loot/kill ratio (improbable for a host of reasons), loot-motivated players such as farmers are incentivized to NOT tell them how to fix their game.
Works if the SC mechanism isn't sufficiently overpowered. If you wanted to house something like the old SF, you would have to include a lot of "random" skill combinations that wreck SF. People will still SC unless you make the SC inefficient relative to the alternatives, irrespective of whether it's 10% or 75% faster.
That logic isn't necessarily flawed. It depends on how much you value the freedom to use the gun, relative to the cost of the abuses. You have stipulated one preference ordering; your opponents another. Doesn't make either of you "right".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gony
What about giving monsters a randomized skill pool?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Deakon
It's the same flawed logic that anti-gun people have. Some abuse so take away from all.
|
Deakon
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Martin Alvito
That logic isn't necessarily flawed. It depends on how much you value the freedom to use the gun, relative to the cost of the abuses. You have stipulated one preference ordering; your opponents another. Doesn't make either of you "right".
|
I was looking forward to GW2 but with the XTH fiasco and now this major fail of an already months late update, I doubt very seriously I'll bother. When does Diablo III release?
Martin Alvito
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Deakon
Agreed somewhat... Loss of freedom is NEVER right.
|
Guns don't kill people. They just reduce the transaction cost. But that's causal; people get killed at the margin as a result of that reduction. From the standpoint of someone killed at the margin, that cost is infinite. So from a utilitarian perspective, one life saved justifies the cost to individual liberty.
And with that, enough derailing. Feel free to post a response; you may have the last word. If you want to go further than that I'm happy to chat via PM.
OT: Yes, the core issue under debate (should farms be nerfed) spans multiple threads right now. ANet took a very specific stance early in the run of GW: solo farms => bots => easy RMT = bad. Ursan and SF were both group farms that got the axe for the same underlying reason as botting - both create an undesirable externality for the more casual player that ANet perceives to be their core audience.
(Yes, I realize that SF only partially bought the farm.)
It's obvious that some segment of the audience prefers that degenerate builds like Ursan and SF exist. What is not so clear is whether or not ANet is hurting or helping GW2 sales by nerfing such builds.
Lanier
So back to the OP:
I agree completely. The monsters in PvE are aweful and need reworkings of their skillbars. I was always of the opinion that every monster group in PvE should have two "healers" and should have monsters with full bars of skills that make since being there. PvE is way too easy and it would bring a lot more challenge and fun back into the game if Anet would buff the E in PvE. Sadly... I dont see this ever happening.
I agree completely. The monsters in PvE are aweful and need reworkings of their skillbars. I was always of the opinion that every monster group in PvE should have two "healers" and should have monsters with full bars of skills that make since being there. PvE is way too easy and it would bring a lot more challenge and fun back into the game if Anet would buff the E in PvE. Sadly... I dont see this ever happening.
Yelling @ Cats
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The-Bigz
I have said the same thing in multiple other threads that are 'PvE r bad nao QQ'. When will they listen to this idea to reward slow and rewarding gameplay rather then rush for the bullshit ideas? Who knows.
|
All weapons and armor are standardized. Even if beating Sanctum Cay mission dropped a dozen ectos and 30 golds...you still gain nothing of value.
Deakon
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Martin Alvito
Which is precisely my point. You place an extremely high value on specific freedoms. That's a very Jeffersonian approach to the problem. Other people may look at the same situation and bring something like Mill to the table.
Guns don't kill people. They just reduce the transaction cost. But that's causal; people get killed at the margin as a result of that reduction. From the standpoint of someone killed at the margin, that cost is infinite. So from a utilitarian perspective, one life saved justifies the cost to individual liberty. And with that, enough derailing. Feel free to post a response; you may have the last word. If you want to go further than that I'm happy to chat via PM. OT: Yes, the core issue under debate (should farms be nerfed) spans multiple threads right now. ANet took a very specific stance early in the run of GW: solo farms => bots => easy RMT = bad. Ursan and SF were both group farms that got the axe for the same underlying reason as botting - both create an undesirable externality for the more casual player that ANet perceives to be their core audience. (Yes, I realize that SF only partially bought the farm.) It's obvious that some segment of the audience prefers that degenerate builds like Ursan and SF exist. What is not so clear is whether or not ANet is hurting or helping GW2 sales by nerfing such builds. |
Just so you know, I used to be part of "test crew" for an unnamed TSR game. I fully understand exactly how difficult it is to maintain balance with such complicated mechanics that go into games. After WotC purchased the game, they immediately retired it because it was in direct competition with a much more successful game. Not that this gives my opinion any more validation than anyone else's. I just wanted you to know that I'm not just talking out of my ass. I personally own over $7k (U.S.) worth of "modules" and "expansions" for a single dead game. Money I spent because I enjoyed playing it and was very dedicated.
I was really hoping that GW2 would be my next money pit of gaming bliss. The past year has really discouraged my hopes.
Still Number One
I would say the chance of A.net ever tampering with NPC AI to the proposed extent is 0, but sometimes they can be completely unpredictable in what they are thinking.
Their is simple evidence to why I believe it is a 0% chance and that goes back to when VoD was removed from GvG. VoD was removed because instead of playing the game the way it was "intended" (this sounds familiar...) people began stalling til VoD and then took advantage of the terrible NPC AI and used skills like clumsiness, ineptitude, wandering eye, and splinter weapons to completely destroy balled up NPCs pretty much guaranteeing them a win while all they had to do the 18 minutes before that was run flags with a warrior and sit in a giant impenetrable fort.
Instead of changing the AI of the NPC's to solve the problem, A.net change the tiebreaker to lord damage, stating that because of Guild Wars 2, they do not have the appropriate support that would make the AI programming changes possible.
If they didn't have the resources to do it then, they more than likely still do not have the resources to do it now, especially on a scale as large as PvE compared to PvP.
So I think the people in favor of a change are doing nothing more than wishful thinking, and the people who are against it can probably let out a big sigh of relief.
Their is simple evidence to why I believe it is a 0% chance and that goes back to when VoD was removed from GvG. VoD was removed because instead of playing the game the way it was "intended" (this sounds familiar...) people began stalling til VoD and then took advantage of the terrible NPC AI and used skills like clumsiness, ineptitude, wandering eye, and splinter weapons to completely destroy balled up NPCs pretty much guaranteeing them a win while all they had to do the 18 minutes before that was run flags with a warrior and sit in a giant impenetrable fort.
Instead of changing the AI of the NPC's to solve the problem, A.net change the tiebreaker to lord damage, stating that because of Guild Wars 2, they do not have the appropriate support that would make the AI programming changes possible.
If they didn't have the resources to do it then, they more than likely still do not have the resources to do it now, especially on a scale as large as PvE compared to PvP.
So I think the people in favor of a change are doing nothing more than wishful thinking, and the people who are against it can probably let out a big sigh of relief.
Lycan Nibbler
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Martin Alvito
OT: Yes, the core issue under debate (should farms be nerfed) spans multiple threads right now. ANet took a very specific stance early in the run of GW: solo farms => bots => easy RMT = bad. Ursan and SF were both group farms that got the axe for the same underlying reason as botting - both create an undesirable externality for the more casual player that ANet perceives to be their core audience.
(Yes, I realize that SF only partially bought the farm.) It's obvious that some segment of the audience prefers that degenerate builds like Ursan and SF exist. What is not so clear is whether or not ANet is hurting or helping GW2 sales by nerfing such builds. |
Anet showed it is possible to react to overpowered skills just last week with seeping wound, so why couldnt they be as pro active with the other skills that were so obviously OP? Maybe that SW affected pvp?? The fact they did such a bad job of nerfing SF after all that time is another issue.
I personally enjoyed Ursan from time to time just have fun with friends rolling through UW once in a while, but it wasnt my staple build, more like a bubblegum build when I didnt want to think too much.. not sure if that makes me degenerate
. SF I only used to run my alts around.
Chthon
The problem with OP's proposal is that it makes the game too hard. You forget that a-net's task is to make PvE doable for the casual player playing normally (who is paying the bills after all), while keeping the intelligent hardcore players (and their not-so-intelligent hardcore imitators) from utterly smashing through PvE with degenerate invinci-builds for farming and speed clearing. A solution that stops degenerate invinci-builds at the cost of making PvE too hard for casual players treats the disease by killing the patient.
Who are these "casual players" of whom I speak. Trying going to the next ZQuest location and joining a PUG. Then ask them to ping their builds. That Endure Pain warrior, that hybrid fire/SoS E/Rt, that caster ranger, that monk with 7 redbarups and rebirth, that Conjure Flame + AoB derv who doesn't realize his build breaks itself, that sin who runs a perma build despite 2 other melees in the team and doesn't even have Death Blossom, that entire team where not only doesn't a single W/X or X/W have SY! on their bar, but none of them even have the skill unlocked.... These are the casual players. This is why the mobs in PvE have such awful builds.
So, if OP's solution is no good, what would work? Well, if I were going to design the game from scratch (hint, hint: GW2) I'd go with total mob randomization like D2. Since that's probably off the table, I'd suggest something I'm going to call "random champions" that works something like this:
Who are these "casual players" of whom I speak. Trying going to the next ZQuest location and joining a PUG. Then ask them to ping their builds. That Endure Pain warrior, that hybrid fire/SoS E/Rt, that caster ranger, that monk with 7 redbarups and rebirth, that Conjure Flame + AoB derv who doesn't realize his build breaks itself, that sin who runs a perma build despite 2 other melees in the team and doesn't even have Death Blossom, that entire team where not only doesn't a single W/X or X/W have SY! on their bar, but none of them even have the skill unlocked.... These are the casual players. This is why the mobs in PvE have such awful builds.
So, if OP's solution is no good, what would work? Well, if I were going to design the game from scratch (hint, hint: GW2) I'd go with total mob randomization like D2. Since that's probably off the table, I'd suggest something I'm going to call "random champions" that works something like this:
- Most monsters get a "champion" variant that is the same as the normal monster, except that it has one or two extra (or changed) skills that pose a problem for invinci-builds -- interrupts, knockdowns, (preferrably non-spell) enchant strips, (preferrably non-spell) degen, PBAoE, touch skills, (preferrably non-spell) e-denial, etc.
- Between 0 and 2 of each mob's monsters are randomly promoted to their champion form.
The-Bigz
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chthon
The problem with OP's proposal is that it makes the game too hard. You forget that a-net's task is to make PvE doable for the casual player playing normally (who is paying the bills after all), while keeping the intelligent hardcore players (and their not-so-intelligent hardcore imitators) from utterly smashing through PvE with degenerate invinci-builds for farming and speed clearing. A solution that stops degenerate invinci-builds at the cost of making PvE too hard for casual players treats the disease by killing the patient.
Who are these "casual players" of whom I speak. Trying going to the next ZQuest location and joining a PUG. Then ask them to ping their builds. That Endure Pain warrior, that hybrid fire/SoS E/Rt, that caster ranger, that monk with 7 redbarups and rebirth, that Conjure Flame + AoB derv who doesn't realize his build breaks itself, that sin who runs a perma build despite 2 other melees in the team and doesn't even have Death Blossom, that entire team where not only doesn't a single W/X or X/W have SY! on their bar, but none of them even have the skill unlocked.... These are the casual players. This is why the mobs in PvE have such awful builds. So, if OP's solution is no good, what would work? Well, if I were going to design the game from scratch (hint, hint: GW2) I'd go with total mob randomization like D2. Since that's probably off the table, I'd suggest something I'm going to call "random champions" that works something like this:
|
Champion Mobs in every 2-3 mobs to stop farmers from farming effectively without bringing a friend along to single out these monsters and kill them. Promotes teamplay and synergy a bit. I am for it. Will it probably turn into 'GLF x/x20 to kill Champion mobs'? Most likely, but it does add another facet in.
Bryant Again
Even something as simple as rotating the enemy skills could suffice. Could also make things a bit more entertaining in hm.
snaek
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by chthon
while keeping the intelligent hardcore players (and their not-so-intelligent hardcore imitators) from utterly smashing through PvE with degenerate invinci-builds for farming and speed clearing.
|
Chthon
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by snaek
i like how you assume that people who use degenerate invinci-builds are intelligent and/or hardcore.
|
Anyone who cares enough about GW to invest the time and effort into reading about, obtaining the skills/gear for, and using degenerate invinci-builds qualifies as "hardcore."
FireWhale
The main reason charr fail is because they try to do that stupid "group up and form a defensive parameter" crap. Makes aoe'ing them that much easier. If they didn't do that, I guarantee they will be much much harder to beat.
WhiteAsIce
Someone probably already mentioned this, but do keep in mind that foes are limited to skills that are Core and of that campaign. It's not easy to give a strong bar to foes in that case. You could only do that for foes in EotN, where they can have skills from any campaign, as well as monster-only skills.