Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help
- - - - -

Dynamic Enemy Leveling: Yay or Nay?


  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#1 gw2guruaccount

gw2guruaccount

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 892 posts

Posted 16 March 2014 - 02:15 PM

Quote

In LA you are surrounded, even if you're the only one on the map, by Vets and Elites. Dynamic LS spawns would either increase or decrease this number based on actual people in the map. This is a possible solution to late-comers not being able to get the most out of the game; rather than just scaling a boss scale the whole map to the expectations of the people on it no longer making it an unmanageable or far too simplisticly and empty mess.

Interesting idea. Yay or Nay?

#2 Desild

Desild

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 985 posts
  • Location:New Eden
  • Profession:Guardian
  • Guild Tag:[DKAL]
  • Server:Piken Square

Posted 16 March 2014 - 02:25 PM

View Postgw2guruaccount, on 16 March 2014 - 02:15 PM, said:

Interesting idea. Yay or Nay?

Why not just stop coming up with Zerg-ridden Content and give us more dungeons and instances, which are easier to balance around a small group of players? Best part of the Nightmare Ends was the lovely instance.

#3 master21

master21

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 447 posts

Posted 16 March 2014 - 02:30 PM

View PostDesild, on 16 March 2014 - 02:25 PM, said:

Why not just stop coming up with Zerg-ridden Content and give us more dungeons and instances, which are easier to balance around a small group of players? Best part of the Nightmare Ends was the lovely instance.

Because for me personally LA fight with huge hologram is better than every dungeon like instance they made in whole LS. Only molten dungeon is close on my fun metter.

#4 ZCKS

ZCKS

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1429 posts
  • Location:The ass end of nowhere... AKA Kansas
  • Guild Tag:[TG]
  • Server:Isle of Janthir

Posted 16 March 2014 - 05:13 PM

View PostDesild, on 16 March 2014 - 02:25 PM, said:

Why not just stop coming up with Zerg-ridden Content and give us more dungeons and instances, which are easier to balance around a small group of players? Best part of the Nightmare Ends was the lovely instance.

This ^ a thousand times.

They say they want hard content but the problem is hard open world content is more often then not f@cked up by some idiot that does not know the fight or by a jackass who is trolling people.

What they need to implement is instanced fights where the difficulty gets progressively harder the more people you bring & the rewards get better (slightly) the more people are brought.

This would allow them to create fights that are hard & require allot of people (15-whatever) without trolls or ignorant people causing others to suffer.

Edited by ZCKS, 16 March 2014 - 05:17 PM.


#5 gw2guruaccount

gw2guruaccount

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 892 posts

Posted 16 March 2014 - 09:05 PM

View PostDesild, on 16 March 2014 - 02:25 PM, said:

Why not just stop coming up with Zerg-ridden Content and give us more dungeons and instances, which are easier to balance around a small group of players? Best part of the Nightmare Ends was the lovely instance.
Instanced content has extreme limitations. It also promotes the already rampant LFG problem and combines it with a lack of reason to replay the instance. If players are suffering after the day 6 episode is anything to go by this would make the content for them, since everyone will have instanced the content within the first 3 days, beyond impossible. It's a matter of defeating an inherent division that comes with all instanced content.

#6 Beyond Freedom

Beyond Freedom

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 247 posts
  • Location:In your dreams.
  • Profession:Thief

Posted 16 March 2014 - 09:37 PM

View Postgw2guruaccount, on 16 March 2014 - 09:05 PM, said:

Instanced content has extreme limitations. It also promotes the already rampant LFG problem and combines it with a lack of reason to replay the instance.
LFG is also a problem with open world content, although it is usually formulated as:
- we couldn't get enough people on our server to defeat Tequatl so we had to guest on another server
- we couldn't find the right people on our server so we had to abuse the guesting mechanics in order to find our own private overflow to do this
- I couldn't get onto the map where this event was happening even though it was on my own server, I got shoved to an overflow where nothing was happening

All these issues are because "open world" content is actually instanced, it's hosted on a server and that server has limitations, and therefore all the problems you want to raise about instanced content are necessarily going to apply. The main difference between explicitly instanced content and open world content in GW2 is that in open world you get no choice whatsoever about who you play with.

Lack of reason to replay the instance? Well, usually a dungeon has several encounters to master and open world events have one. You're likely going to get tired of that one encounter faster than the multiple ones.

Damn, I broke my own rule.

Edited by Beyond Freedom, 16 March 2014 - 09:40 PM.


#7 Desild

Desild

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 985 posts
  • Location:New Eden
  • Profession:Guardian
  • Guild Tag:[DKAL]
  • Server:Piken Square

Posted 16 March 2014 - 09:42 PM

A new dungeon, with three paths, a set of armor for all types and a set of weapons. Doesn't matter if they are subjectively ugly.

Is that too much to ask?

#8 gw2guruaccount

gw2guruaccount

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 892 posts

Posted 16 March 2014 - 09:45 PM

View PostBeyond Freedom, on 16 March 2014 - 09:37 PM, said:

LFG is also a problem with open world content, although it is usually formulated as:
- we couldn't get enough people on our server to defeat Tequatl so we had to guest on another server
- we couldn't find the right people on our server so we had to abuse the guesting mechanics in order to find our own private overflow to do this
- I couldn't get onto the map where this event was happening even though it was on my own server, I got shoved to an overflow where nothing was happening

Thus the nature of the suggestion. It combats all three in relation to the LS, while it won't make Teq any easier it would drastically lower the requirements of many events. We've seen this in action with the LA events specifically referring to the Miasmas where it was more efficient to use a smaller group of players since every one beyond that point only made it harder. Managing this on a global scale instead of a local scale is simply the next step from that system.

Quote

All these issues are because "open world" content is actually instanced, it's hosted on a server and that server has limitations, and therefore all the problems you want to raise about instanced content are necessarily going to apply. The main difference between explicitly instanced content and open world content in GW2 is that in open world you get no choice whatsoever about who you play with.

Lack of reason to replay the instance? Well, usually a dungeon has several encounters to master and open world events have one. You're likely going to get tired of that one encounter faster than the multiple ones.
Keeping in mind this is about the LS specifically there's likely no reason to make more than one instance per scenario.Also drawing parallels between a server map which can hold two-hundred people and an instance which holds five is sort of silly. If we made the instance numbers bigger this would only encourage guilds to act as guilds and pose even greater restrictions on instanced content with an almost eventual outright demand for fidelity.

View PostDesild, on 16 March 2014 - 09:42 PM, said:

A new dungeon, with three paths, a set of armor for all types and a set of weapons. Doesn't matter if they are subjectively ugly.

Is that too much to ask?
No, but I doubt you want that to not be permanent. This is specific to the LS.

#9 Beyond Freedom

Beyond Freedom

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 247 posts
  • Location:In your dreams.
  • Profession:Thief

Posted 16 March 2014 - 09:56 PM

View Postgw2guruaccount, on 16 March 2014 - 09:45 PM, said:

drawing parallels between a server map which can hold two-hundred people and an instance which holds five is sort of silly.
No it isn't. You just agreed with me that the open world LFG issues were valid, therefore LFG in open world is an issue.

Quote

If we made the instance numbers bigger this would only encourage guilds to act as guilds
which is a good thing

Quote

and pose even greater restrictions on instanced content
which don't exist as I just demonstrated

Quote

with an almost eventual outright demand for fidelity.
which is just gibberish.

#10 gw2guruaccount

gw2guruaccount

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 892 posts

Posted 16 March 2014 - 10:27 PM

View PostBeyond Freedom, on 16 March 2014 - 09:56 PM, said:

No it isn't. You just agreed with me that the open world LFG issues were valid, therefore LFG in open world is an issue.

which is a good thing

which don't exist as I just demonstrated

which is just gibberish.
Speaking of gibberish ...

You've "demonstrated" nothing. You proposed something. However while I do enjoy your idealism it's rooted majorly in naivete and has no backing. The concept of fidelity? It's already been in seen in games with "Raid" type dungeons where by-and-large if you don't join the/a group you don't run the dungeon. This chokes off smaller guilds since even charisma won't save you if you don't have enough people to start running that kind of content. That is counter-intuitive to any form of game and gameplay.

Comparing macro to micro behaviors just makes no sense. It isn't even worth discussing why you're being silly.

Edited by gw2guruaccount, 16 March 2014 - 10:28 PM.


#11 Beyond Freedom

Beyond Freedom

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 247 posts
  • Location:In your dreams.
  • Profession:Thief

Posted 16 March 2014 - 10:55 PM

View Postgw2guruaccount, on 16 March 2014 - 10:27 PM, said:

The concept of fidelity?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fidelity

All absolutely irrelevant to your argument.

#12 gw2guruaccount

gw2guruaccount

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 892 posts

Posted 16 March 2014 - 11:40 PM

View PostBeyond Freedom, on 16 March 2014 - 10:55 PM, said:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fidelity

All absolutely irrelevant to your argument.

Quote

fi·del·i·ty

noun \fə-ˈde-lə-tē, fī-\

: the quality of being faithful to your husband, wife, or sexual partner
: the quality of being faithful or loyal to a country, organization, etc.

: the degree to which something matches or copies something else


http://www.merriam-w...ionary/fidelity

Plugging in the second the point would be "Fidelity" to the guild, I.E. joining it.

I can't believe I had to explain that. Of all your poor cherry picking you would choose something so ... Anyway, what was your point in arguing a definition? If you're done, you're done.

#13 Kattar

Kattar

    Your Shoulder to Cry On

  • Administrators
  • 2227 posts

Posted 16 March 2014 - 11:56 PM

Why not just scale to the number of people in your party rather than forcing you to group in the first place? I mean, if we're trying to reinvent the wheel here. I'd rather not be forced to group with people if I don't want to.

You are fooling yourself, user. Nothing here is what it seems. ANet is not the plucky hero, Guru is not an evil empire, and this is not the grand arena.



Questions about moderation? For the love of Balthazar ask them here!


#14 Epitaph_Blade

Epitaph_Blade

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 118 posts

Posted 17 March 2014 - 03:41 AM

I always believed this was the case. If it's not, then it should be.
Yay.

#15 Beyond Freedom

Beyond Freedom

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 247 posts
  • Location:In your dreams.
  • Profession:Thief

Posted 17 March 2014 - 08:17 AM

View Postgw2guruaccount, on 16 March 2014 - 11:40 PM, said:

Plugging in the second the point would be "Fidelity" to the guild, I.E. joining it.

Joining a guild and fidelity to it have nothing in common. And joining a guild has no relevance whatsoever to how many players can be in an instance or what the issues are if they do.

#16 gw2guruaccount

gw2guruaccount

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 892 posts

Posted 17 March 2014 - 12:55 PM

View PostBeyond Freedom, on 17 March 2014 - 08:17 AM, said:

Joining a guild and fidelity to it have nothing in common. And joining a guild has no relevance whatsoever to how many players can be in an instance or what the issues are if they do.
You would have to explain away an entire problem in an entire genre that has been plagued by Elitism and Clan Rule. "I disagree" simply isn't enough anymore.

View PostKattar, on 16 March 2014 - 11:56 PM, said:

Why not just scale to the number of people in your party rather than forcing you to group in the first place? I mean, if we're trying to reinvent the wheel here. I'd rather not be forced to group with people if I don't want to.
Problem with that is the limitations of the party management system. If things scaled only with your party numbers you could very well have a de facto party of five ( just work together ) and just never group up. The game would be unable to scale properly.

To add to this if it's proximity based you don't want to do that either since already AFK characters still effect scaling and while a separate issue altogether it'd be best not to just toss it in because it's easier.

Edited by gw2guruaccount, 17 March 2014 - 12:56 PM.


#17 Beyond Freedom

Beyond Freedom

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 247 posts
  • Location:In your dreams.
  • Profession:Thief

Posted 17 March 2014 - 01:16 PM

View Postgw2guruaccount, on 17 March 2014 - 12:55 PM, said:

You would have to explain away an entire problem in an entire genre that has been plagued by Elitism and Clan Rule. "I disagree" simply isn't enough anymore.

However, butterflies have purple banana-flavored toes. Therefore you would have to account for my earlier remark that is actually nonexistent but lives happily on the moon.

See, two people can play the game where you just take the last sentence that someone wrote, write something completely orthogonal, nonsensical, and irrelevant, and state that it's a challenge that undermines their point completely.

Go on, what is this problem that supposedly have to explain away? That people join guilds? That you don't know what fidelity means? That you're just systematically trolling this forum?

#18 Kattar

Kattar

    Your Shoulder to Cry On

  • Administrators
  • 2227 posts

Posted 17 March 2014 - 01:52 PM

View Postgw2guruaccount, on 17 March 2014 - 12:55 PM, said:

Problem with that is the limitations of the party management system. If things scaled only with your party numbers you could very well have a de facto party of five ( just work together ) and just never group up. The game would be unable to scale properly.
So? If all this is conjecture and if changes are being made anyway why couldn't something like that be done? Or have you already decided on the system you want and are going to shoot down any other suggestions?

Remember this is a discussion not a dissertation on why you're right and everyone else is wrong disguised as a poll thread.

You are fooling yourself, user. Nothing here is what it seems. ANet is not the plucky hero, Guru is not an evil empire, and this is not the grand arena.



Questions about moderation? For the love of Balthazar ask them here!


#19 gw2guruaccount

gw2guruaccount

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 892 posts

Posted 17 March 2014 - 04:10 PM

View PostKattar, on 17 March 2014 - 01:52 PM, said:

So? If all this is conjecture and if changes are being made anyway why couldn't something like that be done? Or have you already decided on the system you want and are going to shoot down any other suggestions?

Remember this is a discussion not a dissertation on why you're right and everyone else is wrong disguised as a poll thread.
I'll just stop offering explanations then.

View PostBeyond Freedom, on 17 March 2014 - 01:16 PM, said:

Go on, what is this problem that supposedly have to explain away?
Increasing player control over major portions of the game will result in Elitist behavior and furthermore creating De Facto Guild Oriented Content will lead to Guilds having the power to demand fidelity. "Guilds will be able to not allow you to run content, de facto, because if you don't join them they won't take you on larger raids". It's been a problem for years.

Edited by gw2guruaccount, 17 March 2014 - 04:11 PM.


#20 raspberry jam

raspberry jam

    Vigil Crusader

  • Members
  • 4844 posts

Posted 17 March 2014 - 04:12 PM

View Postgw2guruaccount, on 17 March 2014 - 04:10 PM, said:

Increasing player control over major portions of the game will result in Elitist behavior and furthermore creating De Facto Guild Oriented Content will lead to Guilds having the power to demand fidelity. "Guilds will be able to not allow you to run content, de facto, because if you don't join them they won't take you on larger raids". It's been a problem for years.
Are you seriously saying people can't PUG?

#21 gw2guruaccount

gw2guruaccount

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 892 posts

Posted 17 March 2014 - 04:16 PM

View Postraspberry jam, on 17 March 2014 - 04:12 PM, said:

Are you seriously saying people can't PUG?
No. However with the current system and the LFG PUG issues as is increasing the value of that would be difficult without some form of player politics coming into play. It is one thing to find 5 random people; it is an entirely different monster to find 25 random people and get them to coordinate; no different than the 100+ man zergs which again is an entirely different animal. It works sometimes but as you increase the number required it becomes easier and easier for players to control the situation from within Guilds than depend on strangers.

In essence it just makes the current LFG problems worse.

Let me make it clear that this problem is not just a problem of "Raids", since this is specifically about the LS it's also a matter of time sensitivity. Guilds, specifically ones large enough and skilled enough to run the content, becomes powerhouses because honestly not joining them makes the LS particularly difficult if not impossible to play.

Edited by gw2guruaccount, 17 March 2014 - 04:18 PM.


#22 raspberry jam

raspberry jam

    Vigil Crusader

  • Members
  • 4844 posts

Posted 17 March 2014 - 04:31 PM

View Postgw2guruaccount, on 17 March 2014 - 04:16 PM, said:

No. However with the current system and the LFG PUG issues as is increasing the value of that would be difficult without some form of player politics coming into play. It is one thing to find 5 random people; it is an entirely different monster to find 25 random people and get them to coordinate; no different than the 100+ man zergs which again is an entirely different animal. It works sometimes but as you increase the number required it becomes easier and easier for players to control the situation from within Guilds than depend on strangers.

In essence it just makes the current LFG problems worse.

Let me make it clear that this problem is not just a problem of "Raids", since this is specifically about the LS it's also a matter of time sensitivity. Guilds, specifically ones large enough and skilled enough to run the content, becomes powerhouses because honestly not joining them makes the LS particularly difficult if not impossible to play.
So join them, or make your own guilds. Guilds in MMOs are merely structured clumps of friends (or rather people whom you know), a more long-term solution to the problem of most people you meet being mediocre players. Turns out though that they are only mediocre because you are not used to playing with them, and them not with you. Guilds are as I said the solution since guild members tend to play longer with each other, thereby getting more used to each other which increases the efficiency of the group.

A guild doesn't have to be the big bad DKP club with raid schedule that you have to follow or be kicked. It can be a small group of friends playing together. And if say 5 people who happen to be in the same guild come to that instance and want to play they could very well become the core of a large PUG. I have done exactly that a lot of times in a lot of different games and I managed to not make demands on joining my guild.

You can do the same. Instead of seeing a problem with this, become the solution.

#23 gw2guruaccount

gw2guruaccount

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 892 posts

Posted 17 March 2014 - 04:39 PM

View Postraspberry jam, on 17 March 2014 - 04:31 PM, said:

So join them, or make your own guilds. Guilds in MMOs are merely structured clumps of friends (or rather people whom you know), a more long-term solution to the problem of most people you meet being mediocre players. Turns out though that they are only mediocre because you are not used to playing with them, and them not with you. Guilds are as I said the solution since guild members tend to play longer with each other, thereby getting more used to each other which increases the efficiency of the group.

A guild doesn't have to be the big bad DKP club with raid schedule that you have to follow or be kicked. It can be a small group of friends playing together. And if say 5 people who happen to be in the same guild come to that instance and want to play they could very well become the core of a large PUG. I have done exactly that a lot of times in a lot of different games and I managed to not make demands on joining my guild.

You can do the same. Instead of seeing a problem with this, become the solution.
Megalithic guilds are counterintuitive to your point. If it worked as you said I'd be all for it but reality dictates that guilds with hundreds of players just have hundreds of players. Even guilds that demand activity within them and cull daily that have hundreds of players can only gauge activity based on primarily arbitrary criteria when it comes to becoming more integrated with your guildmates. Right now this means nothing in GW2 but the moment Guild Politics and Guild Favorable Events become the standard you begin to have the problems of other games. If guilds were limited to small tribes they would definitely work; you play with 50 people and get to know half or something but with the option of surpassing hundreds of people most people can't name half the people let alone say they ever played with them unless specifically designated to a squad by someone else in the Guild.

Also, the suggestion was 25, not 5, which is harder to PUG period and Guild Pressure only persists in games where it's favorable. I've no doubt you're a benevolent player but this is about the world at large; I know it exists, I know that it's not some minority issue, and I know it's been persistent through many games where it's allowed so there's no reason to believe it wouldn't form; LFG as we know it with it's issues is nothing more than the problem on a microcosmic scale.

#24 gw2guruaccount

gw2guruaccount

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 892 posts

Posted 17 March 2014 - 04:46 PM

I suppose I should just add that Guild Coercion combined with Guild Standards blocking the LS is just not "okay".

#25 Beyond Freedom

Beyond Freedom

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 247 posts
  • Location:In your dreams.
  • Profession:Thief

Posted 17 March 2014 - 04:51 PM

View Postgw2guruaccount, on 16 March 2014 - 09:45 PM, said:

If we made the instance numbers bigger this would only encourage guilds to act as guilds and pose even greater restrictions on instanced content with an almost eventual outright demand for fidelity.

View Postgw2guruaccount, on 17 March 2014 - 04:10 PM, said:

creating De Facto Guild Oriented Content will lead to Guilds having the power to demand fidelity. "Guilds will be able to not allow you to run content, de facto, because if you don't join them they won't take you on larger raids". It's been a problem for years.
Finally you give us a glimpse as to what the hell you're talking about, and it's pure paranoid delusion. Nobody is preventing you from doing anything. If you need more people to run some content, find more people and pug it or make your own guild. Saying that this is a huge problem that haunts the whole MMO genre is extraordinary hyperbole - I doubt that even 1% of MMO players have ever been pressured in the way you describe.

#26 raspberry jam

raspberry jam

    Vigil Crusader

  • Members
  • 4844 posts

Posted 17 March 2014 - 04:53 PM

View Postgw2guruaccount, on 17 March 2014 - 04:39 PM, said:

Megalithic guilds are counterintuitive to your point. If it worked as you said I'd be all for it but reality dictates that guilds with hundreds of players just have hundreds of players. Even guilds that demand activity within them and cull daily that have hundreds of players can only gauge activity based on primarily arbitrary criteria when it comes to becoming more integrated with your guildmates. Right now this means nothing in GW2 but the moment Guild Politics and Guild Favorable Events become the standard you begin to have the problems of other games. If guilds were limited to small tribes they would definitely work; you play with 50 people and get to know half or something but with the option of surpassing hundreds of people most people can't name half the people let alone say they ever played with them unless specifically designated to a squad by someone else in the Guild.

Also, the suggestion was 25, not 5, which is harder to PUG period and Guild Pressure only persists in games where it's favorable. I've no doubt you're a benevolent player but this is about the world at large; I know it exists, I know that it's not some minority issue, and I know it's been persistent through many games where it's allowed so there's no reason to believe it wouldn't form; LFG as we know it with it's issues is nothing more than the problem on a microcosmic scale.
Seriously what are you talking about, why do you capitalize "Guild Pressure" as if it was IEEE standard terminology or something, how does the existence of 100+ person guilds counter my point of it being possible to let a small guild become the core of a PUG, and so on?

As an aside, I am not a benevolent player, I prefer to PUG because most people are idiots and I do not want them in my guild, but they serve well as serfs playing for my benefit. PUGing makes them go away so that I don't have to see them once we are done playing.

#27 master21

master21

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 447 posts

Posted 17 March 2014 - 05:00 PM

View Postraspberry jam, on 17 March 2014 - 04:53 PM, said:

Seriously what are you talking about, why do you capitalize "Guild Pressure" as if it was IEEE standard terminology or something, how does the existence of 100+ person guilds counter my point of it being possible to let a small guild become the core of a PUG, and so on?

As an aside, I am not a benevolent player, I prefer to PUG because most people are idiots and I do not want them in my guild, but they serve well as serfs playing for my benefit. PUGing makes them go away so that I don't have to see them once we are done playing.

All this talking about community and learning ppl, playing with PUGs just to say that you use ppl and throw them away because they are idiots?

Maybe you should try to advertise group play with you in that way. "Hey morons, come and play with me I need to fill one spot"

#28 raspberry jam

raspberry jam

    Vigil Crusader

  • Members
  • 4844 posts

Posted 17 March 2014 - 05:17 PM

View Postmaster21, on 17 March 2014 - 05:00 PM, said:

All this talking about community and learning ppl, playing with PUGs just to say that you use ppl and throw them away because they are idiots?

Maybe you should try to advertise group play with you in that way. "Hey morons, come and play with me I need to fill one spot"
And in the process I have hoisted countless players who were not really that good, so to speak, through all sorts of elite content in several games.

What do you think about "Dynamic Enemy Leveling"?

Edited by raspberry jam, 17 March 2014 - 05:18 PM.


#29 MazingerZ

MazingerZ

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 2278 posts
  • Profession:Guardian
  • Guild Tag:[CYRL]
  • Server:Tarnished Coast

Posted 17 March 2014 - 05:21 PM

View Postraspberry jam, on 17 March 2014 - 05:17 PM, said:

And in the process I have hoisted countless players who were not really that good, so to speak, through all sorts of elite content in several games.

What do you think about "Dynamic Enemy Leveling"?

I am worried that adding a dynamic leveling model will cause ArenaNet, if they code it without bugs, to scale around the mediocrity of those who can't or won't learn to dodge.  Its not ArenaNet's job to fix a problem when the system is clearly working for me as is.
It's okay to enjoy crap if you're willing to admit it's crap.
Every patch is like ArenaNet walking out onto the stage of the International Don't Kitten Up Championship, and then proceeding to shiv itself in the stomach 30 times while screaming "IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD! IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!"

#30 Gyre

Gyre

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 148 posts
  • Location:The Painted World of Ariamis

Posted 17 March 2014 - 05:33 PM

View Postraspberry jam, on 17 March 2014 - 04:53 PM, said:

As an aside, I am not a benevolent player, I prefer to PUG because most people are idiots and I do not want them in my guild, but they serve well as serfs playing for my benefit. PUGing makes them go away so that I don't have to see them once we are done playing.

This is actually how my guild recruited in both GW1 and GW2.  Be as belligerent as possible and if the PUG still performs and finds it amusing they must be a pretty cool person since they can just take it in stride.

I'm not sure a dynamic system would fix the problems the game seems to have with large scale content.  The tri-wurm for example had a guild that decided TS was mandatory.  When they couldn't get it they just used TS to relocate to a stacked overflow and hid on a remote waypoint with tags off to organize.  In essence they made the content instanced.  I find their actions reprehensible for open world content but doesn't that show the issue is more about lack of player control of variables and not necessarily scaling?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users