Find content
Not Telling
Exactly. See, there are great gaming moments that it appears that MMOs will never have, and that makes me sad. They're very social moments, too.
And I'm not even talking about healing stuffs.
That moment where in ME3 where you get blindsided by a banshee and a team mate reacts quickly and hits it with a rocket, saving you from a rather humiliating end. It's snap tactical decisions that you have to make in the spur of the moment. They feel awesome. It really brings you together as a team. That's what you can't write a bot for. That's what GW2 doesn't have. This is what depresses me about the current state of MMOs.
There are no brilliant moments in a game like GW2.
Can anyone name even one that doesn't involve a jumping puzzle? Honest question. Completely serious. My ears and mind are open, here. Name one truly great gaming moment you've had in GW2 that arised from the game being emergent and clever.
Mouse1981
Member Since 09 Apr 2012Offline Last Active Dec 13 2012 01:33 PM
#2115741 Where has everyone gone?
Posted
on 12 December 2012 - 04:19 PM
#2115708 Where has everyone gone?
Posted
on 12 December 2012 - 03:47 PM
Lucas is right, guys.
I've been playing ME3 a lot, and I've seen some bots, yes. But they're hilarious. The team treats them like pets because they're silly. They run into walls; They get confused as to where in the map they are; They shoot at the sky a lot, even when something is hurting them right in front of them; They stand still for banshees to one-shot them; They get into cover when nothing is shooting at them; They have no clue how to deal with objectives; And so, so much more. Ultimately it really is like having a zombie squadmate in a military scenario.
"Crap! We have two atlases, here! Get to cover!"
"BRAAAAINS?"
So yes, the bots exist, but as I've pointed out many times, they can't actually play the game. With a GW2 bot, you can set it running and go to bed because it will just play the game for you. It'll farm, do events, and be very capable; There's really nothing a player can do that a GW2 bot can't. And the reason for this is because GW2 combat is essentially just button-mash zerging that doesn't rely on tactical awareness, nor reaction times. So a bot is easy to write for it. But when you actually have a game that involves tactical awareness and reaction times? That's when you get really bad bots, like the ME3 bots.
ME3 requires you to think, GW2 does not. Go and watch some videos of both and you'll understand what I mean. You can get past most content in GW2 just by the merit of having grinded for good gear. That doesn't work at all in ME3 because the game requires the player to use their brain and react quickly. A bot doesn't have a brain, it can just do set tasks. Very simple set tasks. And GW2 is very simple.
This is why, as Lucas points out, you won't be able to find a bot that successfully plays ME3. It'll just be hilariously bad. You'll be amused by just how bad it is. The ladies and gents that make up my ME3 team have been very amused when we've had to PUG one or two more people and one of them has actually been a bot. The bot is like a piñata; It'll get shot a lot and then it will die.
---Edit---
Just for blindude though who seems to be really oblivious to the topic at hand, I'll try and elaborate on why it's easy to write a successful bot for GW2, but hard to write one for ME3 (and impossible to make a successful one).
Okay, ME3 already has great AI. This is the thing. It's AI versus AI. If you have a team of people who've put together some truly amazing, tactical, reactive AI, then it's hard to write a bot that can play against that AI unless you have running access to what the AI is doing. Try to think about this in technical terms, please. I understand it might be hard, but try.
You're talking about writing a bot that can out think AI which can react to it tactically in a three dimensional space. This is actually a bigger deal than chess, because chess doesn't have the three-dimensionality of maps to deal with. Nor does GW2. GW2 is one, big open plain. If you get above a mob, all you get is 'invulnerable' ticks if you try to attack them. Sniping is not a thing in GW2. Mobs don't try to snipe you in GW2.
A mob can and will use higher ground cover to snipe you in Mass Effect 3. This is very confusing for a bot to react to, because it doesn't know how to deal with the situation tactically. Let's say that there is an atlas bearing down on the position of a bot, a phantom closing in from a flanking position to do a stealth one-hit kill, and a sniper in cover.
The ME3 bot can't understand the situation tactically. It can't evaluate the situation. It can't think and react in the way we can. The three-dimensionality of it just adds layers of confusion which makes it all the more difficult to write a bot for. You need a bot that can react tactically in a three-dimensional plane. You need a bot that can work with team mates strategically.
In GW2, you don't need to work with team mates, you just have to be there spamming keys. In GW2, you don't need to deal with three-dimensionality, because everything is on a flat plain. In GW2, you don't need to worry about tactics because mobs make a bee-line towards you (mobs never run away, or try to lure you into an ambush).
GW2 is just a matter of hitting buttons, it has no tactical inclinations. Again, you can't even snipe.
These differences in game style are why you can make a successful bot for GW2, but not for ME3.
---Edit---
I'll add a bit more. Since... you know, people who don't code... it's hard to explain things.
Okay, imagine it like this. GW2 is a flat board. There are no 'floors' to worry about. It's perfectly flat. All of your skills work on a flat board, you can't target high or low, you can't snipe, it's basically a two dimensional plane. Let's work with that. Now, mobs will make a bee-line towards you and never try to flank you. So on that two-dimensional plane you'll have dots coming from the same angle. And all of these dots are always visible. You just have to turn the bot to face the attacker and hit some attack buttons. If health is low, hit a heal, it's easy.
Now add three-dimensionality. Mobs can come from below and above, and they can attack you from below and above. The bot can no longer solely turn left/right, it has to deal with a sphere of interactivity. Now add in the tactical elements of cover use and cloaks which make targets less visible. It's now dealing with dots that can come from above and below, and dots that can turn invisible. It's also dealing with dots that can come from any direction, rather than just the one.
Now add in concerns like needing ammo, ammo location, concealed dots camping near ammo. Add in concealed targets that are waiting for you to be alone and in the open in order to kill you (the AI of ME3 is designed to go after lone wolf characters, and at that point you need to be able to communicate with other players that yu need an extraction, which a bot can't do). The bot has to deal with all of these extra concerns that aren't even an issue in GW2. This is why a successful bot hasn't been written for ME3, yet. There are so many variables. There are thousands upon thousands upon thousands more variables in ME3, than the limited few in GW2.
And for me, those variables separate a good/fun game from a bad/unfun one.
I've been playing ME3 a lot, and I've seen some bots, yes. But they're hilarious. The team treats them like pets because they're silly. They run into walls; They get confused as to where in the map they are; They shoot at the sky a lot, even when something is hurting them right in front of them; They stand still for banshees to one-shot them; They get into cover when nothing is shooting at them; They have no clue how to deal with objectives; And so, so much more. Ultimately it really is like having a zombie squadmate in a military scenario.
"Crap! We have two atlases, here! Get to cover!"
"BRAAAAINS?"
So yes, the bots exist, but as I've pointed out many times, they can't actually play the game. With a GW2 bot, you can set it running and go to bed because it will just play the game for you. It'll farm, do events, and be very capable; There's really nothing a player can do that a GW2 bot can't. And the reason for this is because GW2 combat is essentially just button-mash zerging that doesn't rely on tactical awareness, nor reaction times. So a bot is easy to write for it. But when you actually have a game that involves tactical awareness and reaction times? That's when you get really bad bots, like the ME3 bots.
ME3 requires you to think, GW2 does not. Go and watch some videos of both and you'll understand what I mean. You can get past most content in GW2 just by the merit of having grinded for good gear. That doesn't work at all in ME3 because the game requires the player to use their brain and react quickly. A bot doesn't have a brain, it can just do set tasks. Very simple set tasks. And GW2 is very simple.
This is why, as Lucas points out, you won't be able to find a bot that successfully plays ME3. It'll just be hilariously bad. You'll be amused by just how bad it is. The ladies and gents that make up my ME3 team have been very amused when we've had to PUG one or two more people and one of them has actually been a bot. The bot is like a piñata; It'll get shot a lot and then it will die.
---Edit---
Just for blindude though who seems to be really oblivious to the topic at hand, I'll try and elaborate on why it's easy to write a successful bot for GW2, but hard to write one for ME3 (and impossible to make a successful one).
Okay, ME3 already has great AI. This is the thing. It's AI versus AI. If you have a team of people who've put together some truly amazing, tactical, reactive AI, then it's hard to write a bot that can play against that AI unless you have running access to what the AI is doing. Try to think about this in technical terms, please. I understand it might be hard, but try.
You're talking about writing a bot that can out think AI which can react to it tactically in a three dimensional space. This is actually a bigger deal than chess, because chess doesn't have the three-dimensionality of maps to deal with. Nor does GW2. GW2 is one, big open plain. If you get above a mob, all you get is 'invulnerable' ticks if you try to attack them. Sniping is not a thing in GW2. Mobs don't try to snipe you in GW2.
A mob can and will use higher ground cover to snipe you in Mass Effect 3. This is very confusing for a bot to react to, because it doesn't know how to deal with the situation tactically. Let's say that there is an atlas bearing down on the position of a bot, a phantom closing in from a flanking position to do a stealth one-hit kill, and a sniper in cover.
The ME3 bot can't understand the situation tactically. It can't evaluate the situation. It can't think and react in the way we can. The three-dimensionality of it just adds layers of confusion which makes it all the more difficult to write a bot for. You need a bot that can react tactically in a three-dimensional plane. You need a bot that can work with team mates strategically.
In GW2, you don't need to work with team mates, you just have to be there spamming keys. In GW2, you don't need to deal with three-dimensionality, because everything is on a flat plain. In GW2, you don't need to worry about tactics because mobs make a bee-line towards you (mobs never run away, or try to lure you into an ambush).
GW2 is just a matter of hitting buttons, it has no tactical inclinations. Again, you can't even snipe.
These differences in game style are why you can make a successful bot for GW2, but not for ME3.
---Edit---
I'll add a bit more. Since... you know, people who don't code... it's hard to explain things.
Okay, imagine it like this. GW2 is a flat board. There are no 'floors' to worry about. It's perfectly flat. All of your skills work on a flat board, you can't target high or low, you can't snipe, it's basically a two dimensional plane. Let's work with that. Now, mobs will make a bee-line towards you and never try to flank you. So on that two-dimensional plane you'll have dots coming from the same angle. And all of these dots are always visible. You just have to turn the bot to face the attacker and hit some attack buttons. If health is low, hit a heal, it's easy.
Now add three-dimensionality. Mobs can come from below and above, and they can attack you from below and above. The bot can no longer solely turn left/right, it has to deal with a sphere of interactivity. Now add in the tactical elements of cover use and cloaks which make targets less visible. It's now dealing with dots that can come from above and below, and dots that can turn invisible. It's also dealing with dots that can come from any direction, rather than just the one.
Now add in concerns like needing ammo, ammo location, concealed dots camping near ammo. Add in concealed targets that are waiting for you to be alone and in the open in order to kill you (the AI of ME3 is designed to go after lone wolf characters, and at that point you need to be able to communicate with other players that yu need an extraction, which a bot can't do). The bot has to deal with all of these extra concerns that aren't even an issue in GW2. This is why a successful bot hasn't been written for ME3, yet. There are so many variables. There are thousands upon thousands upon thousands more variables in ME3, than the limited few in GW2.
And for me, those variables separate a good/fun game from a bad/unfun one.
#2115687 Where has everyone gone?
Posted
on 12 December 2012 - 03:22 PM
blindude, on 12 December 2012 - 10:07 AM, said:
Thank you for bringing some sence in this thread.You can make chess bots that could possibly beat or get at least a draw against grandmasters though making a bot for gw2 is probably easier than making a one that beat the average chess player.You can make bots for pretty much EVERY game out there if you really want to.
and a stupid bot buttonspamming a retard event where brainless enemies charge a bridge, and 4 autoattack bots clean it (something even a kid using a ps3 joystick on autofire can do using a program for buttonspam).
Show me a ME3 bot able to play properly alone while you watch your movie
#2115341 PvE Kind of Boring?
Posted
on 12 December 2012 - 04:27 AM
Uhm yes. But the game is sold worldwide, so is pointless talk about asia or european's or american law per se.
Even doing it, every country behave different. I was talking about law protecting customers, not just about refund.
Even doing it, every country behave different. I was talking about law protecting customers, not just about refund.
#2115337 PvE Kind of Boring?
Posted
on 12 December 2012 - 04:13 AM
Rickter, on 12 December 2012 - 04:00 AM, said:
and this is something i feel like should be encouraged more. GW2 is flexible, it works with you. dont have much time to play? great! just dont play, its not like you are paying a sub right? and you can come back any time you want!
leave, try other things, get life taken care of, Gw2 aint going anywhere any time soon. maybe in a few months there will be game enhancements that improve your GW2 experience! best wishes!
leave, try other things, get life taken care of, Gw2 aint going anywhere any time soon. maybe in a few months there will be game enhancements that improve your GW2 experience! best wishes!
Sadly, we bough this game and was expensive too. And carry a history of his predecessor and launch fakes wrote by the very hands of the CEO.
Now, we read so many angry of it, leavers , bashers , refunds not accomplished pretending a new invented rule of 6 months as a limit etc.
Not everyone have gw2 thanks to daddy's money.
Even them, don't accept this waste of money.
And yes, to be clear, there are laws to protect customers, it's just customers ignoring them even if you lead them and show them where to read and start to do something
#2115326 PvE Kind of Boring?
Posted
on 12 December 2012 - 03:57 AM
I too find pve rather boring (and Orr infuriating) and easy. I haven't logged in since the announcement of gear stat increases and haven't decided quite yet if I want to continue with the game or not. Rome: Total War 2 is calling anyway...
Mostly I find something missing from PvE and the game in general. I think it is perhaps because I found playing as a protection monk in GW1 far more challenging and dynamic than the combat I've encountered in GW2. I have a level 80 with nearly 100% map completion.
I don't have a lot of time for gaming anymore. Which looks to be the consensus of us 30 somethings. For now, GW2's PvE just doesn't hold my interest. I am revisiting the Super Nintendo and having more fun than I did playing my ranger up to 80. Earthworm Jim anyone?
I am thinking GW2 just might not be a game for me. For those of you enjoying yourselves, great! I may see you in a few months or here on the forums.
Mostly I find something missing from PvE and the game in general. I think it is perhaps because I found playing as a protection monk in GW1 far more challenging and dynamic than the combat I've encountered in GW2. I have a level 80 with nearly 100% map completion.
I don't have a lot of time for gaming anymore. Which looks to be the consensus of us 30 somethings. For now, GW2's PvE just doesn't hold my interest. I am revisiting the Super Nintendo and having more fun than I did playing my ranger up to 80. Earthworm Jim anyone?
I am thinking GW2 just might not be a game for me. For those of you enjoying yourselves, great! I may see you in a few months or here on the forums.
#2115213 PvE Kind of Boring?
Posted
on 11 December 2012 - 11:58 PM
DuskWolf, on 10 December 2012 - 07:44 AM, said:
(I'm sorry, Jump 'n' Move. I couldn't take your post seriously. Then I realised it was meant to be a clever ironic satire, because really, it couldn't be anything else. And I've treated it as such.)
Man you sure like to twist words, especially for a post that was supposed to be supporting you. It was satire to a degree, but more so in respect to you voicing your opinions being a positive thing, even if i had some incorrect assumptions (ie cash shop spending).I found the criticism in your posts more positive than negatively just bashing the game, even if a couple posts I've read seemed to be re-jumbled versions of previous posts but that's because you were making the same point. But I digress.
I wish story mode interested me more, but i just feel detached whenever I play through it. Like the starter quest has some of the feel of old Pre, but the rest just feels like I'm reading and accepting a EULA all the time. Read, next, read, next, repeat. That and the puppet show didn't do it for me. But i think that's because I just might prefer the old long cutscenes, and wall of texts. at least for a story line/mission mode.
#2114737 PvE Kind of Boring?
Posted
on 11 December 2012 - 03:07 PM
Lucas Ashrock, on 11 December 2012 - 05:59 AM, said:
Try The Secret World and tell me 
Wait .. this is like, one of several TSW comments I've seen you make lately. I'm not exactly sure (because it seems silly), but are you touting TSW as some awesome MMO and/or Funcom as some wonderful developer?
#2114430 PvE Kind of Boring?
Posted
on 11 December 2012 - 05:59 AM
Arquenya, on 10 December 2012 - 01:18 PM, said:
Very valid points.
What truely keeps surprising me is that there hardly seem to be any companies that dare to believe in the quality of their own product. Because quality sells, it really does. I really wish there was a company with enough determination, resources and finances to make something really good. A publisher with at least some idealism to want to make a very high quality game.
Instead gameplay usually seems to be a (cowardly) mix of common denominator and max profit. Safe and profitable. So some people want horizontral progression? Throw it in the mix! Wait, most mmo's also have gear grind? Throw it in the mix too!
And sadly, people are generally still ok with it. Partially, of course, because there's no good alternatives, which make a lot of people believe that it's not even possible to make a good, enjoyable, intelligent quality game at all.
Duskwolf, I'm happy there's still idealists like him that have faith in game maker's ability to really make something remarkable. And won't settle for mediocrity, like most of us do.
What truely keeps surprising me is that there hardly seem to be any companies that dare to believe in the quality of their own product. Because quality sells, it really does. I really wish there was a company with enough determination, resources and finances to make something really good. A publisher with at least some idealism to want to make a very high quality game.
Instead gameplay usually seems to be a (cowardly) mix of common denominator and max profit. Safe and profitable. So some people want horizontral progression? Throw it in the mix! Wait, most mmo's also have gear grind? Throw it in the mix too!
And sadly, people are generally still ok with it. Partially, of course, because there's no good alternatives, which make a lot of people believe that it's not even possible to make a good, enjoyable, intelligent quality game at all.
Duskwolf, I'm happy there's still idealists like him that have faith in game maker's ability to really make something remarkable. And won't settle for mediocrity, like most of us do.
Zero_Soulreaver, on 10 December 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:
This is exactly the problem, people see a few bad posts and think it is what the entire community is about. It happens with every single MMO including WoW. People see a few people they don't agree with and say "omg this community is filled with jerks!"
The reality is that a community is not just what you see in forums or what you think you see in game, it's a lot more than that. Community is about those you pay attention to as well as those you don't even notice, but nobody seems to look at it that way. Besides in most MMOs you can't even talk for the entire player base b/c their are communities within communities that you don't know exist. I learned early on when first starting MMOs that their are too many people to only harp on the ones you just don't like.
The reality is that a community is not just what you see in forums or what you think you see in game, it's a lot more than that. Community is about those you pay attention to as well as those you don't even notice, but nobody seems to look at it that way. Besides in most MMOs you can't even talk for the entire player base b/c their are communities within communities that you don't know exist. I learned early on when first starting MMOs that their are too many people to only harp on the ones you just don't like.
I guess the SWOTR massleaving or ffonline fail was a fake and never happened at all, right?
#2113751 PvE Kind of Boring?
Posted
on 10 December 2012 - 03:38 PM
In any case, forums can't be representative for what people think of the game. Most people that quit don't post, so I'd say it already has a tendency to be overly positive. And well, let's be honest: GW2 needs a lot of improvement before it can be considered to be something more than a just a beautiful game.
Try the WAR forums, where players generally advise you not to buy/play their game!
Yea it could definitely use some RP and social features. Guild Halls and Alliances ftw!
Try the WAR forums, where players generally advise you not to buy/play their game!
Oweio, on 10 December 2012 - 01:47 PM, said:
This game has some realy bad social aspects, and for an mmo thats fatal.
#2113669 PvE Kind of Boring?
Posted
on 10 December 2012 - 01:47 PM
This game has some realy bad social aspects, and for an mmo thats fatal.
#2113641 PvE Kind of Boring?
Posted
on 10 December 2012 - 01:18 PM
Jump_N_Move, on 09 December 2012 - 11:46 PM, said:
The people who want a challenge, who are bored by everything else being produced, they are all neglected. They aren't the money makers. They don't shell out the money for the cash shop items. Those people just aren't the market. They never have and never will be the target of any AAA or brand-name producer.
There is just isn't an incentive for them in a profit-driven/greed-driven capitalist society. Quality is always sacrificed either in the name of time or profit. Your opinions just don't matter unless you're generating profit or have money to compensate/support them.
That's enough ranting. But everyone needs to be aware of it. I'm tired of the stupid people in this world who are too naive to see that they are being taken advantage of to their face. But that's partly their own fault, so the only option I have is to educate people in hopes they can grow and expand their knowledge. Only then can maybe these trends change. Then again they say ignorance is bliss yea?
There is just isn't an incentive for them in a profit-driven/greed-driven capitalist society. Quality is always sacrificed either in the name of time or profit. Your opinions just don't matter unless you're generating profit or have money to compensate/support them.
That's enough ranting. But everyone needs to be aware of it. I'm tired of the stupid people in this world who are too naive to see that they are being taken advantage of to their face. But that's partly their own fault, so the only option I have is to educate people in hopes they can grow and expand their knowledge. Only then can maybe these trends change. Then again they say ignorance is bliss yea?
What truely keeps surprising me is that there hardly seem to be any companies that dare to believe in the quality of their own product. Because quality sells, it really does. I really wish there was a company with enough determination, resources and finances to make something really good. A publisher with at least some idealism to want to make a very high quality game.
Instead gameplay usually seems to be a (cowardly) mix of common denominator and max profit. Safe and profitable. So some people want horizontral progression? Throw it in the mix! Wait, most mmo's also have gear grind? Throw it in the mix too!
And sadly, people are generally still ok with it. Partially, of course, because there's no good alternatives, which make a lot of people believe that it's not even possible to make a good, enjoyable, intelligent quality game at all.
Duskwolf, I'm happy there's still idealists like him that have faith in game maker's ability to really make something remarkable. And won't settle for mediocrity, like most of us do.
#2113554 PvE Kind of Boring?
Posted
on 10 December 2012 - 10:32 AM
DuskWolf, on 10 December 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:
GW2 does absolutely nothing at all to even begin to test hand-eye coordination. And that's sad.
#2113488 PvE Kind of Boring?
Posted
on 10 December 2012 - 08:20 AM
Here's a truth based upon what I've been saying: The training dummy minigame of Free Realms requires more accuracy and smarter player inputs than anything in GW2 does. I can't imagine the average GW2 player doing any better than this guy, because GW2 does absolutely nothing at all to even begin to test hand-eye coordination. And that's sad.
I just had to use this to illustrate things a bit. I've been using Mass Effect 3, but maybe that's just going over too many heads. It's nice to have something that can challenge you tactically, that requires forethought, and then requires fast reaction times to execute. Rather than standing there and pushing butan for pellet.
All I want is a challenge that isn't tremendously worse than even the most casual games I've played. And no, time investment is not a challenge.
Why is that too much to ask?
I just had to use this to illustrate things a bit. I've been using Mass Effect 3, but maybe that's just going over too many heads. It's nice to have something that can challenge you tactically, that requires forethought, and then requires fast reaction times to execute. Rather than standing there and pushing butan for pellet.
All I want is a challenge that isn't tremendously worse than even the most casual games I've played. And no, time investment is not a challenge.
Why is that too much to ask?
#2113479 PvE Kind of Boring?
Posted
on 10 December 2012 - 07:58 AM
Shadow Warrior, on 09 December 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:
While I do agree that there can come a point where you spend too much time bashing another person's treasure, I don't think that his comparison with games from other genres is invalid. People do that all the time, including professionals within the game industry. It comes down to what, specifically, you are comparing. In the quote you mentioned, he is speaking of the complexity/non-complexity of the AI. Is there any reason why he can't compare the AI from other genres with the AI in Guild Wars 2? What cardinal rule is he breaking here?
I feel that if a game responds intelligently to me as a player, the developer respects me as a person. They didn't "streamline" the game to the point where you're pushing a button (or a couple of buttons) to receive a pellet. I want to be impressed by the ingenuity of design. I bring up Mass Effect 3 because its AI won awards.
What I'm saying is basically this: GW2 takes liberally from the WoW style of AI - mobs make a beeline for the nearest player and you trade blows until you or the mob falls over (it's decided by numbers internally who actually falls over). ME3's multiplayer actually makes your input matter. Live or die, it depends more upon you than numbers.
I'd like to see less games that focus on numbers. I don't want to abandon my social life to grind for [Super Leet E-Peen of the Candied Whale +10], I want to just be able to play a game and have fun. I don't want to play a game, work a lot, and hope to eventually have fun.
When you look at a good game... well, it's something you load up and you just have fun, innit?
GW2? Not so much a good game, because you can't just load it up and have fun.
