PC Gaming News
Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 55

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Achievements:
    10 PostsVeteran1,000 Posts10000 Experience Points6 months registered
    CHIPS's Avatar
    Server

    Tarnished Coast
    Guild

    The Order of Dii (Commander)
    Posts

    1,941

    Mobs needs to start using battle tactics in world events and dungeons.

    Over the past month I had levelled a necromancer from 1 to 80. I noticed that the newbie areas are pretty empty. The reason, I believe, is that the mobs in world events do not really post an intelligent challenge. Most mobs just rush you like mindless zombies. The only way that humans would lose is if they are seriously out-gunned.

    I also spoke to a few people regarding the old dungeons (new ones are better). Many are disappointed with gang-banging, one hit killing and other general dungeon design flaws.

    A quick summary:

    1) In world events, mobs just mindlessly rush the players.
    2) Gang-banging by mobs is looked down upon.
    3) One hit killing is looked down upon.

    With this, in order to make this gaming challenging in a way that the players can enjoy, I conclude the following:

    Mobs in world events and dungeons needs to rely on battle tactics, instead of roar manpower and brute strength, to win their battles.

    If a group of un-organized humans (I will call these Human Balls) enters a new world events, one that they have never played before, and comes out victorious, and the mob had no chance of winning, the event was way too easy.

    We see world events like this everywhere. Defend this fort here. Escort this cargo there. I will be fair and say that, before level 60, the player is still considered a newbie, so it was alright. After level 60 however, this shouldn't be happening.

    The world events should be designed so that it would crush an un-organized group of player the first time they tries, in a fair way. That means gang banging and one hit kills are out of the question. I had been against this kind of design since GW1.

    So that left us with battle tactics. I want the mobs to pull a Hannibal on the players and rid them of all their pride and self proclaimed superiority. Its time to crush these humans and their little un-organized human balls.

    Instead of me explaining everything in words, watch this following video. Pretend the Roman legions are the human players, forming their little un-organized human balls, and rushing head long into the enemy. They plan to rely on their numbers and raw power alone. Hannibal on the other hand leads the calculating Centaurs. Watch how the Carthaginians use ambush and flanking to crush the Romans, who were more numerous and better trained.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oamuuuQpw-c

    So what did the Romans do wrong?

    1) First off they didn't form a line big enough to prevent flanking. Before the 19th century, line battle had been going on for over 2,000 years. They had good reasons: preventing flanking.
    2) They didn't check their surrounding well enough to avoid an ambush.
    3) Their fighting ability was weakened because they had just crossed an icy cold river.

    This is just one example of what Anet can do. And with battle tactics now a norn in high level world events, players will need to organize themselves much better if they hope to win. First off, they need to form a line to prevent flanking. Secondly, they need to sent a few scouts out to check for ambushes. etc

    And with that, PvE will becomes much more interesting. In fact, eventually guilds would need to discuss tactics and work together, just to kick the Centaurs out and restore things back to how they were. It won't be easy. :P

    Centaurs are no longer mindless and easy to dealt with. But remember the key: the Centaurs played fair. With good tactics, they don't even need superior numbers to crush the players.

    Anet, please feel free to crush these human balls and destroy their pride. Only though crushing defeats by a fair enemy will the players get better.
    Last edited by CHIPS; 26-11-2012 at 09:53.

  2. #2
    Achievements:
    100 Posts10 Posts1 year registeredBlogger1000 Experience Points
    EnoughAlready's Avatar
    Guild

    MVOP
    Posts

    290
    That would be brilliant.
    Imagine Centaur forming up lines for Norman style cavalry charges.
    Sons of Svanir in Viking shield walls, wheeling right/left, boarsnout for charge.
    The Nightmare court wouldn't change much, with the Welsh influence in their lore, the pre-roman Celts fought pretty much as the AI does now.
    Human republicans being the AngloFrancs... Pike walls knights & cannons.

    The AI for the battle tactics would be interesting

  3. #3
    Achievements:
    10 PostsVeteran1,000 Posts10000 Experience Points6 months registered
    CHIPS's Avatar
    Server

    Tarnished Coast
    Guild

    The Order of Dii (Commander)
    Posts

    1,941
    Quote Originally Posted by EnoughAlready View Post
    That would be brilliant.
    Imagine Centaur forming up lines for Norman style cavalry charges.
    Sons of Svanir in Viking shield walls, wheeling right/left, boarsnout for charge.
    The Nightmare court wouldn't change much, with the Welsh influence in their lore, the pre-roman Celts fought pretty much as the AI does now.
    Human republicans being the AngloFrancs... Pike walls knights & cannons.

    The AI for the battle tactics would be interesting
    The Nightmare court should be masters of jungle warfare. They would ambush the daylight out of their enemies. Teutoburg Forest would be an good example.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xEne0M9r9M

    Charrs are fully mobilized. Lightning War would be their game.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alaris View Post
    So, how would you implement this so it's interesting at the single-player level? I mean, sure, strategy games are fun, but it would be less fun if you are one of thousand of pawns, being commanded by others...

    Would it be sufficient if the foes used better tactics but that you, as a hero, don't necessarily need formations etc to beat, just better awareness and exploiting of local weaknesses?
    I think it depends. In minor world events, I would say the players should be expected to fail the first time they try. The second or third time they try, better awareness and exploiting local weakness should be enough to win. The idea I am trying to get though is, un-organized human balls shouldn't just win the first time they try some new world event.

    In major world events (e.g. Karka), the players would need to organize themselves ahead of time to have any chance of winning. Eventually, it would take a community effort to change the world. This will be a one step at a time process to slowly train up the players to be better skilled and better organized.

    One of the reason why people didn't like the Karka event, except for the loots, is that the mobs had zero chance of winning against human balls. There were at least 5 Lion's Arch districts in each server world, and there were 52 server worlds. That makes 260 Karka events. However, from my knowledge, not even one of the 260 Karka groups managed to beat the human balls. That is a clear indication that the Karka had no chance of winning.

    This shouldn't be happening. I repeat for the hundredth time, a group of disorganized human balls shouldn't win 100% of the time!

    Epic battle only happens if the players can lose. And if planning is needed, the players will eventually adapt. And that's where, in my opinion, fun should come from.

    Once again, gang banging and one hit kills are out of the question. So mobs must outsmart the humans in order to win. If the mobs plan well, they don't need to outnumber or out-power the players to win. Hannibal didn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lady Rhonwyn View Post
    I see this more for WvW. This would remove all casual play from the game. "Sorry, you cannot go here unless you are part of an army". We're heroes, not soldiers...
    You will not be forced to get organized. You can fight anywhere and however you want. But you will be much more effective if you do get organized. And as a community the organized players can achieve something greater then themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by BrettM View Post
    Most players, even in the smaller events, have less tactical awareness than the AI. For example, watch some event where a handful of players are defending a town from assault. Do they split up, with a team for each gate? No, because nobody wants to give up loot, so they run back and forth between gates, letting the enemy get a foothold and down some of the NPCs before they can get to that gate. Do they array themselves inside the gate and take advantage of NPC support, with some placing cripples and traps in the bottleneck to group up the wave and damage them as they enter? No, because everyone is concerned with tagging as much as possible, so the battle gets carried further and further outside the gates as everyone tries to be the first to meet the next wave. This gives the wave more maneuvering room, so the whole thing degenerates into a dogfight. Meanwhile the wave that entered the other gate has now taken control of the town and the event fails.

    I fear that most players don't find their fun in the battles, but put up with them only as the means to the end of killing more stuff and getting more loot. Getting them to think about tactics would not be an easy task.
    Battle tactics were not needed because the mobs were mindless zombies. Of course that, currently, the players find the fun purely in the loots and not in winning the battle itself. The battles were so easy. There is no satisfaction there at all.

    That's why I am begging Anet to do this. Crush the disorganized players with battle tactics, just once, in a world event. Destroy the players' pride of invincibility. Some players will undoubtedly get angry. But many would think back and say "Yes losing sucks. But hey the mobs didn't even cheat. We were so disorganized, what did we expect?"

    Only with the most crushing defeat will the players improve and remember the fun of winning itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by sorudo View Post
    you have to remember that GW2 is kinda based on the 100AC time period of europe, that that time armies were not so organized.
    the most organized ppl were the roman empire and they lost battles just as much, flanking the army is pretty easy with them because they focused more on what they see then what might happen.
    also, in GW2 you don't have an event with a real army attacking, it's maybe 6 enemies per wave depending on how many players there are so it's pretty easy to take them down.

    events can be improved by adding something more then gathering things from enemies and killing waves of enemies, what about setting up a trap for the enemy or preparing for battle other then standing on one place and zerg your way trough.
    in fact, i think that it's better to separate the strategic players from the mud balls, ppl who just stand there and expect to win trough zerging are more prown to damage then ppl who are standing on places that wins this battle.
    add places for every player that heightens the chance to win, the more players the better the chance.

    i think that the reason why allot of events are so boring and easy is because players can simply zerg trough the hordes and win easily, kinda punish the zergers and you see ppl cooperate allot more.
    That's exactly my point mate. Zergs shouldn't win.

    No one sets traps because it wasn't crucial to victory. When it isn't needed, no one will do it. Let's just mindlessly zerg!

    I don't think the age itself is 100 AD. Given that we got guns and tanks, I would say the age is closer to 1,700 AD in a steampunk world. But the way the mobs do battle, its probably before 10,000 BC or zombie apocalypse. :P

    Quote Originally Posted by Lady Rhonwyn View Post
    Welk, ANet made or like that, by making amour repairs and waypoints gold sinks... If I die in a tactical battle, where I might never do damage, I will get poor fast....
    I am sure they can remove armor damage and waypoint costs just for major world events. Similar to the Mad King. You can die as often as you want in there and its free.
    Last edited by CHIPS; 26-11-2012 at 19:56.

  4. #4
    GWOnline Content Team
    GWOnline Site Pal
    Achievements:
    Social10 PostsVeteranCreated Blog entry10K Posts
    Alaris's Avatar
    Server

    Kaineng
    Guild

    The Order of Dii [Dii]
    Posts

    22,615
    So, how would you implement this so it's interesting at the single-player level? I mean, sure, strategy games are fun, but it would be less fun if you are one of thousand of pawns, being commanded by others...

    Would it be sufficient if the foes used better tactics but that you, as a hero, don't necessarily need formations etc to beat, just better awareness and exploiting of local weaknesses?
    == Alaris & clone ==
    Proud Officer of The Order Of Dii [Dii] - join us
    You can tell the quality of life of people by what they complain about

  5. #5
    Moderator Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class10000 Experience Points1,000 Posts10K PostsBlogger
    Lady Rhonwyn's Avatar
    Server

    Aurora Glade
    Guild

    GWOnline [GWO]
    Posts

    11,033
    I see this more for WvW. This would remove all casual play from the game. "Sorry, you cannot go here unless you are part of an army". We're heroes, not soldiers...
    Lady Rhonwyn (sister of Danea, Katlinel, Gwendydd, and the rest)
    Guild leader of GWOnline [GWO]
    "Kind of a big mouth", "People Know Me, whether they like it or not", "I'm very vocal", "I wrote many leather bound books", "My Guild Hall is the forum", "Goddess posting amongst mere mortals" (courtesy of Cardinal Cyn)

  6. #6
    GWOnline Site Pal Achievements:
    10 PostsVeteran1,000 Posts1000 Experience Points6 months registered
    BrettM's Avatar
    Server

    Isle of Janthir
    Guild

    The Fuzzy Physics Institute
    Posts

    1,406
    Most players, even in the smaller events, have less tactical awareness than the AI. For example, watch some event where a handful of players are defending a town from assault. Do they split up, with a team for each gate? No, because nobody wants to give up loot, so they run back and forth between gates, letting the enemy get a foothold and down some of the NPCs before they can get to that gate. Do they array themselves inside the gate and take advantage of NPC support, with some placing cripples and traps in the bottleneck to group up the wave and damage them as they enter? No, because everyone is concerned with tagging as much as possible, so the battle gets carried further and further outside the gates as everyone tries to be the first to meet the next wave. This gives the wave more maneuvering room, so the whole thing degenerates into a dogfight. Meanwhile the wave that entered the other gate has now taken control of the town and the event fails.

    I fear that most players don't find their fun in the battles, but put up with them only as the means to the end of killing more stuff and getting more loot. Getting them to think about tactics would not be an easy task.

  7. #7
    Moderator Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class10000 Experience Points1,000 Posts10K PostsBlogger
    Lady Rhonwyn's Avatar
    Server

    Aurora Glade
    Guild

    GWOnline [GWO]
    Posts

    11,033
    Quote Originally Posted by BrettM View Post
    Most players, even in the smaller events, have less tactical awareness than the AI. For example, watch some event where a handful of players are defending a town from assault. Do they split up, with a team for each gate? No, because nobody wants to give up loot, so they run back and forth between gates, letting the enemy get a foothold and down some of the NPCs before they can get to that gate. Do they array themselves inside the gate and take advantage of NPC support, with some placing cripples and traps in the bottleneck to group up the wave and damage them as they enter? No, because everyone is concerned with tagging as much as possible, so the battle gets carried further and further outside the gates as everyone tries to be the first to meet the next wave. This gives the wave more maneuvering room, so the whole thing degenerates into a dogfight. Meanwhile the wave that entered the other gate has now taken control of the town and the event fails.

    I fear that most players don't find their fun in the battles, but put up with them only as the means to the end of killing more stuff and getting more loot. Getting them to think about tactics would not be an easy task.
    Yes, you'd also have to change the loot distribution somehow. But that fighting "outside" the battlefield is already not always possible as the foes running in are invulnerable until they reach a certain location.
    Lady Rhonwyn (sister of Danea, Katlinel, Gwendydd, and the rest)
    Guild leader of GWOnline [GWO]
    "Kind of a big mouth", "People Know Me, whether they like it or not", "I'm very vocal", "I wrote many leather bound books", "My Guild Hall is the forum", "Goddess posting amongst mere mortals" (courtesy of Cardinal Cyn)

  8. #8
    GWOnline Content Team
    GWOnline Site Pal
    Achievements:
    Social10 PostsVeteranCreated Blog entry10K Posts
    Alaris's Avatar
    Server

    Kaineng
    Guild

    The Order of Dii [Dii]
    Posts

    22,615
    The trick is doing it in a way that is casual-friendly, and yet also allows for growth. This is quite a challenge.
    == Alaris & clone ==
    Proud Officer of The Order Of Dii [Dii] - join us
    You can tell the quality of life of people by what they complain about

  9. #9
    I find it sad that so many players only care about the reward.

  10. #10
    GWOnline Site Pal Achievements:
    10 PostsVeteranBlogger10000 Experience Points6 months registered
    sorudo's Avatar
    Server

    far shiverpeak
    Guild

    the legendary alterans
    Posts

    9,552
    you have to remember that GW2 is kinda based on the 100AC time period of europe, that that time armies were not so organized.
    the most organized ppl were the roman empire and they lost battles just as much, flanking the army is pretty easy with them because they focused more on what they see then what might happen.
    also, in GW2 you don't have an event with a real army attacking, it's maybe 6 enemies per wave depending on how many players there are so it's pretty easy to take them down.

    events can be improved by adding something more then gathering things from enemies and killing waves of enemies, what about setting up a trap for the enemy or preparing for battle other then standing on one place and zerg your way trough.
    in fact, i think that it's better to separate the strategic players from the mud balls, ppl who just stand there and expect to win trough zerging are more prown to damage then ppl who are standing on places that wins this battle.
    add places for every player that heightens the chance to win, the more players the better the chance.

    i think that the reason why allot of events are so boring and easy is because players can simply zerg trough the hordes and win easily, kinda punish the zergers and you see ppl cooperate allot more.
    it's alive but cannot be living, it's dead but lives a mortal life.

    sorudo.9054

Posting Permissions

Posting Permissions

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off