Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help
* * * - - 3 votes

Nothing Legendary About Invulnerable


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#1 ShezuTsukai

ShezuTsukai

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 481 posts
  • Location:Coast of Nebraska
  • Profession:Thief
  • Guild Tag:[Soul]
  • Server:Fort Aspenwood

Posted 09 February 2013 - 07:01 PM

Did CoF route three for first time and had a good time. Made it through the muck, fought the waves of spawns, and made to Burntclaw's island. That's where a Legendary creature became very underwhelming.

I liked the spiky rock aoe. Good animations and effects. I found it humorous watching my teammates being 9-ironed into the lava (until he got me then it wasn't so funny). I even thought the one shot insta kill was appropriate for a Legendary Boss, dodge better.

But what really disappointed me was him going invulnerable 3/4 of the time simply to run back and do his aoe. Weak, very weak. I don't get to go invulnerable when I want to do my aoe. Why should a boss? And why not have him do his aoe right where he is at?

#2 Lucav

Lucav

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 264 posts
  • Guild Tag:[SC]
  • Server:Blackgate

Posted 09 February 2013 - 07:03 PM

you also dont have 100's of thousands of hp

#3 Baron von Scrufflebutt

Baron von Scrufflebutt

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 3225 posts

Posted 09 February 2013 - 07:36 PM

When was A.Net ever able to create good challenging PvE?
My favourite moments in GW games were always the encounters that were planned to be fairly easy, because that meant that A.Net didn't have to throw a bunch of gimmicks at the player in hopes of creating a sense of difficulty.

#4 Lordkrall

Lordkrall

    Legion Commander

  • Members
  • 5370 posts
  • Location:Sweden
  • Profession:Warrior
  • Server:Aurora Glade

Posted 09 February 2013 - 07:37 PM

View PostProtoss, on 09 February 2013 - 07:36 PM, said:

When was A.Net ever able to create good challenging PvE?
My favourite moments in GW games were always the encounters that were planned to be fairly easy, because that meant that A.Net didn't have to throw a bunch of gimmicks at the player in hopes of creating a sense of difficulty.

Underworld and DoA without gimmick builds and con sets would love to have a word with you :)

#5 JACK the Somnolent

JACK the Somnolent

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 89 posts
  • Location:Tyria
  • Profession:Guardian
  • Guild Tag:[WAR]
  • Server:Dragonbrand

Posted 09 February 2013 - 07:57 PM

View PostLordkrall, on 09 February 2013 - 07:37 PM, said:

Underworld and DoA without gimmick builds and con sets would love to have a word with you :)

Seriously. One time (after EotN) my friends and I tried to do UW HM with a balanced group. We had something like 2 warriors, 1 dervish, 2 eles, 1 ranger, and 2 monks. We did pretty well until plains and then shit hit the fan. I should also mention that I was the only person in the group to have finished UW at the time.

#6 Baron von Scrufflebutt

Baron von Scrufflebutt

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 3225 posts

Posted 09 February 2013 - 09:25 PM

View PostJACK the Somnolent, on 09 February 2013 - 07:57 PM, said:

Seriously. One time (after EotN) my friends and I tried to do UW HM with a balanced group. We had something like 2 warriors, 1 dervish, 2 eles, 1 ranger, and 2 monks. We did pretty well until plains and then shit hit the fan. I should also mention that I was the only person in the group to have finished UW at the time.

Clearly that was challenging, but was it challenging for the right reasons?
That's what I was talking about with the phrase "good challenging PvE". It's the same thing as giving a guy 3 million HP or demanding that players bring specific skills to be able to complete content - the difficulty is a gimmick.

#7 JACK the Somnolent

JACK the Somnolent

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 89 posts
  • Location:Tyria
  • Profession:Guardian
  • Guild Tag:[WAR]
  • Server:Dragonbrand

Posted 09 February 2013 - 09:51 PM

View PostProtoss, on 09 February 2013 - 07:36 PM, said:

When was A.Net ever able to create good challenging PvE?
My favourite moments in GW games were always the encounters that were planned to be fairly easy, because that meant that A.Net didn't have to throw a bunch of gimmicks at the player in hopes of creating a sense of difficulty.

That's what I'm saying, they made good challenging PvE in GW1. SF, UW, FoW (to a lesser degree), DoA, Urgoz, and The Deep I thought were all extremely fun (and at time frustrating). So I guess the point of my previous comment was that they did make good/interesting and challenging content in GW1 they just had an issue with the whole "buildwars" thing.

Yes GW2 is lacking in this area, everyone already knows that though.

#8 Dirame

Dirame

    Golem Rider

  • Community Contributors
  • 2241 posts
  • Server:Vabbi

Posted 09 February 2013 - 10:01 PM

View PostProtoss, on 09 February 2013 - 09:25 PM, said:

Clearly that was challenging, but was it challenging for the right reasons?
That's what I was talking about with the phrase "good challenging PvE". It's the same thing as giving a guy 3 million HP or demanding that players bring specific skills to be able to complete content - the difficulty is a gimmick.

How do you create good challenging PvE without these nasty things called gimmicks?

#9 AKGeo

AKGeo

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 819 posts

Posted 09 February 2013 - 10:10 PM

View PostDirame, on 09 February 2013 - 10:01 PM, said:

How do you create good challenging PvE without these nasty things called gimmicks?

By inventing true artificial intelligence.

High HP is a gimmick. one-shot attacks are gimmicks. AoE knockback into lava is a gimmick. AoE pull and spin-to-win (Kholer) is a gimmick. The trick is knowing the enemy and realizing that you DO have the skills necessary to counter it. But apparently it's too much effort to step away from the comfort zone of those specific 10 skills you always run in order to bring the support skills and run the weapons with the proper skills needed to survive and win.

I understand it. It took me a long time to muster up the courage to pick up the daggers and face some legendary bosses at close-melee range because that's how it just needed to be done, due to "gimmicks". But that's something that needs to be done. Adaptation is key to survival in all situations, even a video game.

#10 AKGeo

AKGeo

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 819 posts

Posted 09 February 2013 - 10:17 PM

View PostJACK the Somnolent, on 09 February 2013 - 09:51 PM, said:

That's what I'm saying, they made good challenging PvE in GW1. SF, UW, FoW (to a lesser degree), DoA, Urgoz, and The Deep I thought were all extremely fun (and at time frustrating). So I guess the point of my previous comment was that they did make good/interesting and challenging content in GW1 they just had an issue with the whole "buildwars" thing.

Yes GW2 is lacking in this area, everyone already knows that though.

There's absolutely no difference in "gimmicky" content between Guild Wars 1 and Guild Wars 2. You mention Urgoz's warren. Um...room effects? Binding Chains and near-instagib aoe that swarms every player regardless of being targeted by the objective? Oh, and the two adds with the boss that heal him. Yeah, that's totally not gimmicky. UW: forcing the split of the group to deal with four boss-level mesmers with tons of mesmer and AoE elementalist adds. Not gimmicky at all.

Give me a break. All "challenging" content in a video game NEEDS to be due to gimmicks. So either you can protest the gimmicks and instead run around killing bunnies and moa birds all day, or you can adapt to the content and learn how to overcome the chall....I mean gimmicks. Or you could quit. But you'd be a hypocrite for quitting this game and not your other games.

I honestly feel that those who have such angst about GW2's "gimmicks" that they'd spend hours whinging on a forum about it are simply those who refuse/fail to adapt to the new playstyle of GW2, which the gimmicks were built around. There's nothing in this game that's impossible to finish. It's only impossible to finish something if you refuse to learn how.

#11 Just Horus

Just Horus

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 224 posts

Posted 10 February 2013 - 12:48 AM

View PostLordkrall, on 09 February 2013 - 07:37 PM, said:

Underworld and DoA without gimmick builds and con sets would love to have a word with you :)

Using gimmicky builds to finish gimmicky content. Seems fair. Mind you I'm talking about UW here.

I don't mind invulnerable in this game as long as it's done right. It's annoying to have a monster use a ridiculous path that puts it into a position where it can't harm us (we weren't actively trying to do this mind you) , making itself invulnerable.

Edited by Horus Moonlight, 10 February 2013 - 12:53 AM.


#12 ShezuTsukai

ShezuTsukai

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 481 posts
  • Location:Coast of Nebraska
  • Profession:Thief
  • Guild Tag:[Soul]
  • Server:Fort Aspenwood

Posted 10 February 2013 - 02:10 AM

Picking the right skills to face an opponent for a greater chance of victory is just smart and lends to developing tactics and better player skill.

I don't really mind when monsters who can't get to you go invulnerable. What I'm talking about is a "Legendary" Boss whose primary defense against player attacks is bad AI scripting to return to his appointed place to set off his timered aoe. Bad AI, bad tactics, and bad scripting when so much more is possible.

People might run more than just CoF path 1 if Burntsoul was a real fight.

#13 Calypso589

Calypso589

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 208 posts

Posted 10 February 2013 - 07:09 AM

View PostShezuTsukai, on 10 February 2013 - 02:10 AM, said:

Picking the right skills to face an opponent for a greater chance of victory is just smart and lends to developing tactics and better player skill.

I don't really mind when monsters who can't get to you go invulnerable. What I'm talking about is a "Legendary" Boss whose primary defense against player attacks is bad AI scripting to return to his appointed place to set off his timered aoe. Bad AI, bad tactics, and bad scripting when so much more is possible.

People might run more than just CoF path 1 if Burntsoul was a real fight.

I think you're referring to the boss of P3, who runs to the center of the arena to perform his rock AoE that tries to push you off. "Legendary" is the sub-name given to the boss of P1. That fiery wicker thing whose actual name escapes me. lol

Either way every single boss fight is CoF is terrible. Let's forget how hard or how easy it is because everyone has varying degrees of skill to that argument can't be won.

No, the fights are just uninspired. They're boring. A bad player will eventually learn the fight and see this. A good player will just see it immediately. I'm hoping these dungeon revamps make bosses fun and interesting because right now, they're not. At all.

#14 Afyael

Afyael

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 100 posts

Posted 10 February 2013 - 07:50 AM

View PostAKGeo, on 09 February 2013 - 10:17 PM, said:

There's absolutely no difference in "gimmicky" content between Guild Wars 1 and Guild Wars 2. You mention Urgoz's warren. Um...room effects? Binding Chains and near-instagib aoe that swarms every player regardless of being targeted by the objective? Oh, and the two adds with the boss that heal him. Yeah, that's totally not gimmicky. UW: forcing the split of the group to deal with four boss-level mesmers with tons of mesmer and AoE elementalist adds. Not gimmicky at all.

Give me a break. All "challenging" content in a video game NEEDS to be due to gimmicks. So either you can protest the gimmicks and instead run around killing bunnies and moa birds all day, or you can adapt to the content and learn how to overcome the chall....I mean gimmicks. Or you could quit. But you'd be a hypocrite for quitting this game and not your other games.

I honestly feel that those who have such angst about GW2's "gimmicks" that they'd spend hours whinging on a forum about it are simply those who refuse/fail to adapt to the new playstyle of GW2, which the gimmicks were built around. There's nothing in this game that's impossible to finish. It's only impossible to finish something if you refuse to learn how.

I'll give you the various rooms in urgoz/the deep/DOA were very gimmicky but for the most part the difficulty in GW1 came from mobs and the skills they used (they used the same skills as players unlike GW2). I remember everyone rejoicing when ray of judgement got a major buff to give Monks viable dps... only to realize that afflicted monks in Factions also used it and would melt your henchmen within seconds. Four Horsemen was not a gimmick, it was a tough fight that tested your party's ability to split effectively, a valuable skill in PvP.

I especially remember in Slavers Exile bringing Frozen soil to counteract the rez skills from enemies or bringing Winter to Hell's Precipice to drastically cut down the damage that Fire Imps did with Rodgort's Invocation. In this game you just burn down enemies that never move out of AoE or use healing/protection skills and kite like they did in GW1.

#15 Baron von Scrufflebutt

Baron von Scrufflebutt

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 3225 posts

Posted 10 February 2013 - 09:23 AM

View PostJACK the Somnolent, on 09 February 2013 - 09:51 PM, said:

That's what I'm saying, they made good challenging PvE in GW1. SF, UW, FoW (to a lesser degree), DoA, Urgoz, and The Deep I thought were all extremely fun (and at time frustrating). So I guess the point of my previous comment was that they did make good/interesting and challenging content in GW1 they just had an issue with the whole "buildwars" thing.

Yes GW2 is lacking in this area, everyone already knows that though.

Areas such as SF or FoW were never as challenging as UW or DoA and I thought they were examples of very decent PvE. That's why I would rather have good PvE, even if it's not particularly challenging, over something that strives to be primarily challenging.



View PostDirame, on 09 February 2013 - 10:01 PM, said:

How do you create good challenging PvE without these nasty things called gimmicks?

In GW1 it was about AI, group compositions, skillbars, ...

#16 Dirame

Dirame

    Golem Rider

  • Community Contributors
  • 2241 posts
  • Server:Vabbi

Posted 10 February 2013 - 11:30 AM

View PostProtoss, on 10 February 2013 - 09:23 AM, said:

In GW1 it was about AI, group compositions, skillbars, ...

So how do you put that into GW2's terms?

Personally, I've felt that they should bring back NPC groups where there's always some kind of coordination between the enemies that we have to break. I was actually expecting this from AC but I guess it didn't work when they tried it? But yea, that's something I think might work but what would you do?

#17 AKGeo

AKGeo

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 819 posts

Posted 10 February 2013 - 11:45 AM

View PostAfyael, on 10 February 2013 - 07:50 AM, said:

I'll give you the various rooms in urgoz/the deep/DOA were very gimmicky but for the most part the difficulty in GW1 came from mobs and the skills they used (they used the same skills as players unlike GW2). I remember everyone rejoicing when ray of judgement got a major buff to give Monks viable dps... only to realize that afflicted monks in Factions also used it and would melt your henchmen within seconds. Four Horsemen was not a gimmick, it was a tough fight that tested your party's ability to split effectively, a valuable skill in PvP.

I especially remember in Slavers Exile bringing Frozen soil to counteract the rez skills from enemies or bringing Winter to Hell's Precipice to drastically cut down the damage that Fire Imps did with Rodgort's Invocation. In this game you just burn down enemies that never move out of AoE or use healing/protection skills and kite like they did in GW1.

Uh....what? Same skills as players? Ever heard of Monster skills? Spectral Agony? GW2 bosses use the same skills as players, just scaled up to match their status. Just about every mechanic that a boss uses as a skill besides those for Agony in fractals is just a trumped up version of a player skill, with a few exceptions.

Moving out of AoE was something implemented later in GW1 to counter the farming that people were doing. And enemies DO move out of AoE at times. I've seen modniir archers move around my reflecting walls, too. It's not a coded roach scatter like in gw1, but it does happen.

Oh and you haven't played against ascalonian monks in AC, either. There are heals, there are protection skills that enemies use. Yes, most of the npc enemies are purely attack. Yes, that makes some of the fights feel lacking. But if they were to implement enemies who actively prot/heal, it would be much more difficult to solo the content. So, they'd have to introduce power creep to the players, and it'd be the same, or lower the HP of the enemies and it'd be the same. In order to make it so solo players can run around PvE zones, they had to sacrifice something. And tactics seems to be where they made the cut.

#18 Baron von Scrufflebutt

Baron von Scrufflebutt

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 3225 posts

Posted 10 February 2013 - 12:04 PM

View PostDirame, on 10 February 2013 - 11:30 AM, said:

So how do you put that into GW2's terms?

Personally, I've felt that they should bring back NPC groups where there's always some kind of coordination between the enemies that we have to break. I was actually expecting this from AC but I guess it didn't work when they tried it? But yea, that's something I think might work but what would you do?

GW2 is a single-player game with a team-based endgame. And you are forced to use the same skills for both parts.
GW1 worked (better) because A.net designed the game from start to finish with a team in mind. You then have single-player games that also work because they are designed from start to finish with a solo player in mind. With that in mind, I think the game would be easier to design if it didn't sit on two chairs: creating a game that is build on roles, that accepts that no character can do it all and then throw this group against a group of foes (as you suggested) would probably work so much better.

#19 Dirame

Dirame

    Golem Rider

  • Community Contributors
  • 2241 posts
  • Server:Vabbi

Posted 10 February 2013 - 12:17 PM

View PostProtoss, on 10 February 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

GW2 is a single-player game with a team-based endgame. And you are forced to use the same skills for both parts.
GW1 worked (better) because A.net designed the game from start to finish with a team in mind. You then have single-player games that also work because they are designed from start to finish with a solo player in mind. With that in mind, I think the game would be easier to design if it didn't sit on two chairs: creating a game that is build on roles, that accepts that no character can do it all and then throw this group against a group of foes (as you suggested) would probably work so much better.

Nah, they don't have to create a game that is built on roles when this game has given every character the ability to fill all roles. If they were to have a dungeon where the mobs have different roles pitted against players with a flexible structure, the players will win due to the simple fact that they adapt a lot better and they all have self heals as well as group supporting skills. It would work but it may end up being too simple and too easy.

Now if they were to employ a more dynamic Ai that mimicked the player's ability to switch roles on the fly, maybe that would be more engaging. I've actually seen this with the npc thieves where they steal from you and all of a sudden they have a hammer to knock you down or a gun to blast you back with and that was pretty cool because it gave the npc a bit more personality. But then again, that could also be considered a gimmick and even the healer thing could be considered a gimmick lol.

So really I don't think you can create a game without someone proclaiming that the challenges you've created are based on gimmicks.

Edited by Dirame, 10 February 2013 - 12:20 PM.


#20 Baron von Scrufflebutt

Baron von Scrufflebutt

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 3225 posts

Posted 10 February 2013 - 01:14 PM

View PostDirame, on 10 February 2013 - 12:17 PM, said:

It would work but it may end up being too simple and too easy.

As I said above, I think this is the point - I think that A.Net is able to create good PvE, but that PvE will not be insanely challenging. And based on their abilities, I think casual, mid-challenging PvE is where they can shine the most and I'd be perfectly fine if they'd go with what they do well.

#21 Red Sonya

Red Sonya

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 261 posts

Posted 10 February 2013 - 06:13 PM

View PostLordkrall, on 09 February 2013 - 07:37 PM, said:

Underworld and DoA without gimmick builds and con sets would love to have a word with you :)

Boy you got that right brothermandude! Plus how about all that cheating the "Players" do with gimmick builds like invulnerable assassins and 55 hit point Monks? eh yeah how about that? Anet built some fine challenging ai it was the players who exploited it.....cheating like they did.

#22 JACK the Somnolent

JACK the Somnolent

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 89 posts
  • Location:Tyria
  • Profession:Guardian
  • Guild Tag:[WAR]
  • Server:Dragonbrand

Posted 10 February 2013 - 06:58 PM

View PostAKGeo, on 09 February 2013 - 10:17 PM, said:

There's absolutely no difference in "gimmicky" content between Guild Wars 1 and Guild Wars 2. You mention Urgoz's warren. Um...room effects? Binding Chains and near-instagib aoe that swarms every player regardless of being targeted by the objective? Oh, and the two adds with the boss that heal him. Yeah, that's totally not gimmicky. UW: forcing the split of the group to deal with four boss-level mesmers with tons of mesmer and AoE elementalist adds. Not gimmicky at all.

Give me a break. All "challenging" content in a video game NEEDS to be due to gimmicks. So either you can protest the gimmicks and instead run around killing bunnies and moa birds all day, or you can adapt to the content and learn how to overcome the chall....I mean gimmicks. Or you could quit. But you'd be a hypocrite for quitting this game and not your other games.

I honestly feel that those who have such angst about GW2's "gimmicks" that they'd spend hours whinging on a forum about it are simply those who refuse/fail to adapt to the new playstyle of GW2, which the gimmicks were built around. There's nothing in this game that's impossible to finish. It's only impossible to finish something if you refuse to learn how.

I guess I just don't understand arbitrary decisions as to what is a gimmick and what is not. Yes a boss going invuln is annoying and not very interesting, but I don't think it's a gimmick per se. I also quite like the idea of zone debuffs. Why wouldn't different rooms afflict you in different ways in the Realm of Torment and the like?

#23 Humfly

Humfly

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 36 posts

Posted 10 February 2013 - 07:54 PM

View PostShezuTsukai, on 10 February 2013 - 02:10 AM, said:

Picking the right skills to face an opponent for a greater chance of victory is just smart and lends to developing tactics and better player skill.

A definition of smart "Characterized by sharp quick thought".  Picking the right skills doesn't require smart it requires advance knowledge. You get the crap beaten out of you gaining that advanced knowledge (or someone else teaches you it) neither of which is fun and your reward is being able to grind that content faster with less trouble which isn't much fun either.

I have no desire to grind this or that dungeon and so no desire to go through the generally painful process of learning and becoming competent at this or that path of this or that dungeon. GW2's strung together scripted set piece encounters called dungeons are just an all round fail as far as I am concerned.

#24 DeConstruct

DeConstruct

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 133 posts

Posted 10 February 2013 - 08:05 PM

View PostJACK the Somnolent, on 10 February 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

I guess I just don't understand arbitrary decisions as to what is a gimmick and what is not. Yes a boss going invuln is annoying and not very interesting, but I don't think it's a gimmick per se. I also quite like the idea of zone debuffs. Why wouldn't different rooms afflict you in different ways in the Realm of Torment and the like?
How I view a gimmick is as a mechanic that renders a player powerless to intervene and eliminates skill from the equation. Concepts like extremely high boss health, area effect damage, one shots and other unavoidable stuff. What players expect from an encounter is to be able to mitigate damage using skill combinations that are more difficult, and do increased damage using skill combinations that are more difficult.

What I've always ended up saying in the beginning as a result, is with boss health and RNG that high, it was only ever a matter of time before you died. Regardless of how skilled you are(nt)

#25 JACK the Somnolent

JACK the Somnolent

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 89 posts
  • Location:Tyria
  • Profession:Guardian
  • Guild Tag:[WAR]
  • Server:Dragonbrand

Posted 10 February 2013 - 08:09 PM

View PostDeConstruct, on 10 February 2013 - 08:05 PM, said:

How I view a gimmick is as a mechanic that renders a player powerless to intervene and eliminates skill from the equation. Concepts like extremely high boss health, area effect damage, one shots and other unavoidable stuff. What players expect from an encounter is to be able to mitigate damage using skill combinations that are more difficult, and do increased damage using skill combinations that are more difficult.

What I've always ended up saying in the beginning as a result, is with boss health and RNG that high, it was only ever a matter of time before you died. Regardless of how skilled you are(nt)

Fair enough. Thank you for giving me a reasonable response.

Edited by JACK the Somnolent, 10 February 2013 - 08:09 PM.


#26 AKGeo

AKGeo

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 819 posts

Posted 10 February 2013 - 08:10 PM

AoE and one shots are typically avoidable. HIgh boss health is there to keep people from steamrolling it. It prolongs the battle to make it worthy of being called a "boss battle". Gimmicks...all bosses in the history of gaming have had abnormally high hit points.

Like it's been said: some of these mechanics are required in order to maintain the status of the fights, because the alternatives are either impossible or would be very taxing for the game to create.

#27 El Duderino

El Duderino

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 2246 posts
  • Location:Drowning in a White Russian listening to Creedence
  • Profession:Mesmer
  • Guild Tag:[DuDE]
  • Server:Blackgate

Posted 10 February 2013 - 08:14 PM

View PostProtoss, on 10 February 2013 - 01:14 PM, said:



As I said above, I think this is the point - I think that A.Net is able to create good PvE, but that PvE will not be insanely challenging. And based on their abilities, I think casual, mid-challenging PvE is where they can shine the most and I'd be perfectly fine if they'd go with what they do well.

Seriously??? You need to go find a good carebear game and leave GW alone. You basically don't like hard content. From the looks of it you are the type of player that prefers to smash buttons and easily push your way through any encounter rather than actually learn to get better. And then you blame everything on gimmicks.

If you hate ANet as much as you preach in every thread I have read with you in it then I can only conclude when you told me GW isn't the game I think it is - you meant it isn't the game you hoped it is. Because, clearly it's not the game you think it is if you dislike it so much.



#28 Afyael

Afyael

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 100 posts

Posted 10 February 2013 - 08:17 PM

View PostAKGeo, on 10 February 2013 - 11:45 AM, said:

Uh....what? Same skills as players? Ever heard of Monster skills? Spectral Agony? GW2 bosses use the same skills as players, just scaled up to match their status. Just about every mechanic that a boss uses as a skill besides those for Agony in fractals is just a trumped up version of a player skill, with a few exceptions.

Moving out of AoE was something implemented later in GW1 to counter the farming that people were doing. And enemies DO move out of AoE at times. I've seen modniir archers move around my reflecting walls, too. It's not a coded roach scatter like in gw1, but it does happen.

Oh and you haven't played against ascalonian monks in AC, either. There are heals, there are protection skills that enemies use. Yes, most of the npc enemies are purely attack. Yes, that makes some of the fights feel lacking. But if they were to implement enemies who actively prot/heal, it would be much more difficult to solo the content. So, they'd have to introduce power creep to the players, and it'd be the same, or lower the HP of the enemies and it'd be the same. In order to make it so solo players can run around PvE zones, they had to sacrifice something. And tactics seems to be where they made the cut.

1. There were several monster skills like spectral agony but for the most part enemy skill bars were compromised primarily of skills you could also use (with several exceptions such as Shiro) but the point I was trying to make was that it felt quite similar to pvp because you were countering enemy builds rather than just taking off chunks of health from static 'zombified' enemies.

2. I do remember centaurs running out of my Mesmer's feedback so I will agree with that.

3. Yes I do remember those enemies being quite challenging in lower levels and I think they are an excellent example of what the game could have been. Some of the most common complaints about this game are that the non-instanced mobs are far too easy and there is no incentive to group. Giving all the mobs appropriate skillbars would fix both these issues I believe, all that would then be needed is appropriate rewards and people would be flooding into zones and grouping up.

Edited by Afyael, 10 February 2013 - 08:19 PM.


#29 Serris

Serris

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 165 posts

Posted 11 February 2013 - 01:03 PM

View PostAKGeo, on 09 February 2013 - 10:10 PM, said:

By inventing true artificial intelligence.

none of the things you mentioned are "gimmicks", and what you propose as solution is something that has not yet been invented anywhere, let alone a game with millions of mobs being simulated concurrently.

#30 raspberry jam

raspberry jam

    Vigil Crusader

  • Members
  • 4786 posts

Posted 11 February 2013 - 02:37 PM

View PostProtoss, on 09 February 2013 - 07:36 PM, said:

When was A.Net ever able to create good challenging PvE?
My favourite moments in GW games were always the encounters that were planned to be fairly easy, because that meant that A.Net didn't have to throw a bunch of gimmicks at the player in hopes of creating a sense of difficulty.
QFT. FoW and Sorrow's Furnace were pretty good and quite challenging in parts, without having too many gimmicks in them. Of course with builds made possible in expansions they were ridiculously easy.

View PostDirame, on 09 February 2013 - 10:01 PM, said:

How do you create good challenging PvE without these nasty things called gimmicks?
The most reliable way is to make it *ing difficult. As in real difficulty. This is not found anywhere in any MMO whatsoever, though found in small parts in GW1.This supposes some things about the game itself:
  • No way to build past the enemy (which is why most of GW1 is ruled out)
  • If game allows free respec, certain build facets must be required (this makes strategic thought important)
  • If game is party oriented (multiple enemies), then the type of enemies, not the strength of each enemy or their numbers, must be of critical importance (this makes proper targeting more important)
  • If game is action oriented (most games are), then timing must be made essential. This might involve things like interrupts.
  • If game involves resource management, the level of challenge should be matched to reward good resource management and punish bad such to the degree of making the players fail. This can involve proper healing (spot heal vs. party heal etc, which in itself makes it necessary for enemies to have access to both ).
  • If game is of a tactical nature (most party based games and MMOs are) then the challenge must contain the three natural elements of tactics: output (fire/damage), mitigation (shelter/healing), and movement/positioning. If the game rewards you for flanking an enemy but punishes you for overextending, it's a game with potential for tactical challenge.
  • Losing must be a standard outcome. When you go in you should not expect to win.
The more facets the game has, the more of them can be involved in the challenge. GW1 had many of the listed things; GW2 has fewer of them, which is why we see less good challenging gimmick-free content.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users