Improve champion scaling so that events don't lose their challenge?

[Skotlex.7580]

> @"mauried.5608" said:

> GW2 is a MMO.

> Anet dont define what is required in order to play the game, and they especially do NOT define that only skillful *whatever that means" players are entitled to rewards for doing something.

> All MMOs are like this.

> Its a game simply to provide entertainment , not to promote elitism.

>

 

I am pretty sure ANet does define all that, they created the game and the game mechanics. :P

 

Elitism is the other extreme of the situation, but can we even have open world elitism, when anybody can just walk into "someone else's" event?

 

I do think many other mmos don't have event scaling, so it would be natural there to make any open world events trivial by just adding more players. But here ANet can choose how an event can scale up. Maybe it works already as they intended, or it can be improved, that's why we have these discussion topics in the forums. Sometimes they pick the ideas that they like for implementing in the game.

 

Granted, whether ANet can do it right is another matter entirely (six years into GW2 and I still can't hide my pet or squadmate nameplates ._.).

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Skotlex.7580" said:

> > @"Mackowidz.4629" said:

> > "I could have left them more neutral, would "yes", "no", and "meh" be preferable? :P"

> >

> > Well, yeah, I mean, if you want your poll to be at least somehow accurate, you should make the options as neutral as possible.

>

> Well I did try to keep the wording neutral enough to not include some kind of bias.

In that case you failed spectacularly, because the bias in the questions is massive. I really don't like polls that are so condescending in the wording used. When i see them, i just can't stop thinking that someone must have very low opinion about my intelligence.

[Biff.5312]

> @"Ben K.6238" said:

> If players wanted a challenge, they'd flock to Serpents' Ire.

 

Serpens Ire is not challenging for a large group. I've done it a few times recently and it's never required anything close to my full attention.

[Cynder.2509]

Yes, scale them! So noobs actually learn what CC is and how to play effective builds with effective gear as well as teaching ranger scrubs how to control their stupid pets!

[hugo.4705]

Cannot still understand that peeps are against champ looting bags at world bosses whereas thay are enjoying looting phylacteries at palawadan/great hall which are champ bags. #logic

 

More peeps, more champions are spawning, more loot, sound legit for me.

[Khisanth.2948]

> @"Skotlex.7580" said:

> > @"Khisanth.2948" said:

> > If only ANet went with their original plan for event scaling instead of what they described as the bad approach. :/

>

> what? Could you explain?

 

There was a thing from pre-release. Pretty sure it was in a video interview with Colin at one of the conventions where they were showing off the Shatterer fight but it might have been an article instead. There was a brief description of how events were going to scale. At different scales it would unlock additional abilities for the mob to use against players. It was not directly stated but presumably the unlocked skills would be something appropriate for that scale. That approach would have given a lot more flexibility than simply increasing some numbers but it does mean more work to do. They also said that simply increasing a mobs HP and damage was boring(paraphrasing obviously) so you can imagine my surprise and disappointment when the game released with that boring scaling system.

 

Then some time after released they announced that they were going to update events to have improved scaling and give mobs additional skills. I though "ah ha! They didn't have time to finish the system they described maybe they finally got around to it!" but I was disappointed a second time because IIRC that update only gave some additional skills to kraits(regardless of scaling) and added elites to the scaling spawn.

[Turkeyspit.3965]

> @"Rauderi.8706" said:

> Large groups don't necessarily make a champ easier. Players just have more insurance when more players are around. More healing, more people who can rez, way more buffs. But kill times are stupid-slow compared to 5- or 10-man groups.

>

 

You're making a lot of assumptions there. I'd hazard a guess that for open world bosses or champs, in a large crowd, many of the players in that mob are just pressing 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1

 

[ricky markham.8173]

leave then be its mainly when too many do an event i cant see anything due to visual effect so i wouldnt know when to react with less people i have to keep my eyes open but at least i can see when i need to react

[Skotlex.7580]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Skotlex.7580" said:

> > > @"Mackowidz.4629" said:

> > > "I could have left them more neutral, would "yes", "no", and "meh" be preferable? :P"

> > >

> > > Well, yeah, I mean, if you want your poll to be at least somehow accurate, you should make the options as neutral as possible.

> >

> > Well I did try to keep the wording neutral enough to not include some kind of bias.

> In that case you failed spectacularly, because the bias in the questions is massive. I really don't like polls that are so condescending in the wording used. When i see them, i just can't stop thinking that someone must have very low opinion about my intelligence.

 

I see. Strange, I didn't think it would be demeaning to state people who like easy zerg events may be doing something else that takes their attention as well, like watching Netflix.

 

I mean, it doesn't seem demeaning at all to me since my cousin does this all the time (or more accurately, he keeps a Korean stream running at all times on his second monitor). But the poll is written, and I can't change the wording afterwards. n_n;

 

However, there are a few comments in the thread which do sound a lot more judging of the players in zergs.

 

anyway, visual clutter also totally needs to go. But suggestions on how to fix that could go in another thread.

[Blude.6812]

Poll questions are reflective of a personal bias and loaded questions. Not answering a single one. Events are fine.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @"Skotlex.7580" said:

> Elitism is the other extreme of the situation, but can we even have open world elitism, when anybody can just walk into "someone else's" event?

 

To find out: adjust scaling so that larger numbers make open world events much more difficult. Once this happens, enough players of lower skill showing up will cause events to fail. Watch what happens when the players who think they're good don't get their loot. Wince at the blame train. Question answered, yes, we can.

[Skotlex.7580]

> @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> > @"Skotlex.7580" said:

> > Elitism is the other extreme of the situation, but can we even have open world elitism, when anybody can just walk into "someone else's" event?

>

> To find out: adjust scaling so that larger numbers make open world events much more difficult. Once this happens, enough players of lower skill showing up will cause events to fail. Watch what happens when the players who think they're good don't get their loot. Wince at the blame train. Question answered, yes, we can.

 

I remember how any random player could cause such a map chat outrage when they triggered a champion out of order back in the Queensdale champion trains days.

 

So, ANet would have to be very careful if scaling makes the game actually harder due to the player backlash that can happen.

 

Well, I guess the original suggestion to have champion skills have no target cap should be safe enough.... unless ANet thinks that inclusiveness means allowing random players to work as a meat shield for the rest. o_Ⓞ

 

[Rhyse.8179]

Better idea, nerf all classes down to pre-HOT dps levels. Has the bonus effect of improving PVP modes by removing instagib.

[Neural.1824]

> @"Skotlex.7580" said:

> Well, I do toss around the hypothesis that lazy players don't learn because they don't need to, just run in the safety of a zerg.

>

And whether or not they learn matters to Arenanet because?

 

They're not in the business of teaching people to have better eye-hand coordination, they are in the business of providing entertainment.

 

[Skotlex.7580]

> @"Neural.1824" said:

> > @"Skotlex.7580" said:

> > Well, I do toss around the hypothesis that lazy players don't learn because they don't need to, just run in the safety of a zerg.

> >

> And whether or not they learn matters to Arenanet because?

>

> They're not in the business of teaching people to have better eye-hand coordination, they are in the business of providing entertainment.

>

 

I have a lot more entertainment when I do metas with the bare minimum of players than with a full squad. I understand there are others who enjoy a mindless zerg rush instead.

 

One could argue that ANet designs content to provide a certain degree of challenge, yet all that tuning seems to make no impact once you toss a full squad against it. That can't really be on purpose? If so, why even make content challenging for a small group if eventually only the zerg can do it (and be much better rewarded for it)? That just doesn't seem right: better rewards for less effort. May as well just remove scaling? (see the experience of core Tyria events during a daily, do we want that level of easy?)

 

I've come to develop the habit to only play at really late times when there's few people around because that way the challenge remains, and I enjoy that, even if it means I get less rewarded for it, it's entertainment for me.

 

So, I made this thread, and poll, to attempt to gauge the community's feelings about how scaling is impacting their experience. At least, so far, the majority are leaning towards wanting better scaling in place so the challenge isn't lost. Thus, for those people we could argue that ANet is failing to deliver on the entertainment front...

[FrizzFreston.5290]

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> I don't like the way that the options are worded so I didn't choose one. However, I lean toward leaving things as they are. For those seeking more difficult content, they should do fractals or raids.

>

> /me shrugs

 

I guess I wouldnt necessarily look for difficult or challenging content in the open world, but, definitely something more engaging.

 

I guess i would like to see more complexity within larger events, so that players feel more like theyre 'doing just as much' as they would in a 5 man dungeon party.

 

Often enough, events, even the larger ones feel like they are either being steamrolled or its one big monster, which 30 players are mobbing and hitting for 10-15minutes.

 

One of the reasons the marionette event is so nostalgic is because it successfully managed to split up a larger group of players into smaller parties, where every single player felt it was important to succeed.

 

And while making events scale, to the extend that multiple objectives spawn as soon as more people join in, would be fairly hard to develop, I do think that is what ArenaNet should try to strive for in certain occassions.

[Skotlex.7580]

> @"FrizzFreston.5290" said:

> And while making events scale, to the extend that multiple objectives spawn as soon as more people join in, would be fairly hard to develop, I do think that is what ArenaNet should try to strive for in certain occassions.

 

well, I sometimes think that this could work if events spawned dangerous adds that need to be dealt with (or at least kept away from the main boss), as that would help spread a bit more the participants.

 

Sadly it doesn't really work that way because adds are, even more than the boss itself, a loot piñata. :(

 

the threat level of champions against large zergs is an absolute joke for almost all events. >_<

[Riku.4821]

I think the game mechanics need to be broken down.

Some events won't make sense if scaled too high or too hard.

But Map Meta Events for sure could and should use the entire map.

The less you separate the player base the more zerg/snooze fest the events will be.

 

Some meta events do this to a small extent. But the mechanics need to back up this splitting up mechanic. So no one can go "Yeah I could go do X, or I could just DPS and accomplish more, ignoring that mechanic". The only downside is these events would need more communication (while this is good for the game, people will complain),

The second thing people will feel they are mini raids.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Skotlex.7580" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"Skotlex.7580" said:

> > > > @"Mackowidz.4629" said:

> > > > "I could have left them more neutral, would "yes", "no", and "meh" be preferable? :P"

> > > >

> > > > Well, yeah, I mean, if you want your poll to be at least somehow accurate, you should make the options as neutral as possible.

> > >

> > > Well I did try to keep the wording neutral enough to not include some kind of bias.

> > In that case you failed spectacularly, because the bias in the questions is massive. I really don't like polls that are so condescending in the wording used. When i see them, i just can't stop thinking that someone must have very low opinion about my intelligence.

>

> I see. Strange, I didn't think it would be demeaning to state people who like easy zerg events may be doing something else that takes their attention as well, like watching Netflix.

Yes, surely claiming that everyone that disagrees with you that events should be made harder is a lazy bum that is only against it because they "want to watch netflix while farming" is neither condescending, nor biased. Not even in the slightest.[/sarcasm]

Seriously, i think you can safely assume that at least some of the readers _are_ smart enough to see what you're doing here.

 

 

[Skotlex.7580]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Skotlex.7580" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > @"Skotlex.7580" said:

> > > > > @"Mackowidz.4629" said:

> > > > > "I could have left them more neutral, would "yes", "no", and "meh" be preferable? :P"

> > > > >

> > > > > Well, yeah, I mean, if you want your poll to be at least somehow accurate, you should make the options as neutral as possible.

> > > >

> > > > Well I did try to keep the wording neutral enough to not include some kind of bias.

> > > In that case you failed spectacularly, because the bias in the questions is massive. I really don't like polls that are so condescending in the wording used. When i see them, i just can't stop thinking that someone must have very low opinion about my intelligence.

> >

> > I see. Strange, I didn't think it would be demeaning to state people who like easy zerg events may be doing something else that takes their attention as well, like watching Netflix.

> Yes, surely claiming that everyone that disagrees with you that events should be made harder is a lazy bum that is only against it because they "want to watch netflix while farming" is neither condescending, nor biased. Not even in the slightest.[/sarcasm]

> Seriously, i think you can safely assume that at least some of the readers _are_ smart enough to see what you're doing here.

 

You might be projecting a bit too much into thinking you can read my intention. People wanting to chill while farming is not necessarily because they are "lazy bums". I understand some people just enjoy this sort of activity and aren't looking for a challenge (like, for instance, after a long day of work).

 

Regardless, the idea behind the poll was to grasp the general consensus of the forum goers regarding the way events currently scale. I was wondering if that many people actually preferred that events becoming much easier as more people join, or of they'd want the difficulty to not change that much.

 

Yet, it seems some people just want to read a different kind of statement where none was intended. Granted, I understand it's nearly impossible to prove people wrong when they believe they know your thoughts, so this tangent of the topic will go nowhere.

 

Have a good day.

[kharmin.7683]

> @"Skotlex.7580" said:

 

> Regardless, the idea behind the poll was to grasp the general consensus of the forum goers regarding the way events currently scale. I was wondering if that many people actually preferred that events becoming much easier as more people join, or of they'd want the difficulty to not change that much.

You seem to be attempting to measure two different things. Those who come to the forums are such a small sampling of the entire player base that the poll is flawed from its inception. The small sample here is not indicative of a significant portion of the whole to be statistically relevant.

 

I would hazard to say that ANet has enough statistics showing what content generates the most attention which is why they continue to build events in the manner which we see them.

 

 

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @"Skotlex.7580" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"Skotlex.7580" said:

> > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > > @"Skotlex.7580" said:

> > > > > > @"Mackowidz.4629" said:

> > > > > > "I could have left them more neutral, would "yes", "no", and "meh" be preferable? :P"

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Well, yeah, I mean, if you want your poll to be at least somehow accurate, you should make the options as neutral as possible.

> > > > >

> > > > > Well I did try to keep the wording neutral enough to not include some kind of bias.

> > > > In that case you failed spectacularly, because the bias in the questions is massive. I really don't like polls that are so condescending in the wording used. When i see them, i just can't stop thinking that someone must have very low opinion about my intelligence.

> > >

> > > I see. Strange, I didn't think it would be demeaning to state people who like easy zerg events may be doing something else that takes their attention as well, like watching Netflix.

> > Yes, surely claiming that everyone that disagrees with you that events should be made harder is a lazy bum that is only against it because they "want to watch netflix while farming" is neither condescending, nor biased. Not even in the slightest.[/sarcasm]

> > Seriously, i think you can safely assume that at least some of the readers _are_ smart enough to see what you're doing here.

>

> You might be projecting a bit too much into thinking you can read my intention. People wanting to chill while farming is not necessarily because they are "lazy bums". I understand some people just enjoy this sort of activity and aren't looking for a challenge (like, for instance, after a long day of work).

>

> Regardless, the idea behind the poll was to grasp the general consensus of the forum goers regarding the way events currently scale. I was wondering if that many people actually preferred that events becoming much easier as more people join, or of they'd want the difficulty to not change that much.

>

> Yet, it seems some people just want to read a different kind of statement where none was intended. Granted, I understand it's nearly impossible to prove people wrong when they believe they know your thoughts, so this tangent of the topic will go nowhere.

>

> Have a good day.

 

I can't say whether the phrases "bored of the snoozefest" and "farming while watching Netflix" are neutral to you. Neither is neutral in general. Both have appeared (exactly, or in the form of similar terms such as "braindead," "faceroll" or "spam [sic] 1 to win") many times on these boards. Almost always, the person using them is using them to state his/her displeasure with the state of the game, or with a post by someone who prefers less challenge. Given that overall context, phrases like those are pejoratives, and risk creating bias. The real problem is what the poll takers are going to make of a statement. If the wording invokes bias in the _audience_, then the wording is biased -- regardless of the poll maker's thinking.

 

[Skotlex.7580]

> @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> > @"Skotlex.7580" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > @"Skotlex.7580" said:

> > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > > > @"Skotlex.7580" said:

> > > > > > > @"Mackowidz.4629" said:

> > > > > > > "I could have left them more neutral, would "yes", "no", and "meh" be preferable? :P"

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Well, yeah, I mean, if you want your poll to be at least somehow accurate, you should make the options as neutral as possible.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Well I did try to keep the wording neutral enough to not include some kind of bias.

> > > > > In that case you failed spectacularly, because the bias in the questions is massive. I really don't like polls that are so condescending in the wording used. When i see them, i just can't stop thinking that someone must have very low opinion about my intelligence.

> > > >

> > > > I see. Strange, I didn't think it would be demeaning to state people who like easy zerg events may be doing something else that takes their attention as well, like watching Netflix.

> > > Yes, surely claiming that everyone that disagrees with you that events should be made harder is a lazy bum that is only against it because they "want to watch netflix while farming" is neither condescending, nor biased. Not even in the slightest.[/sarcasm]

> > > Seriously, i think you can safely assume that at least some of the readers _are_ smart enough to see what you're doing here.

> >

> > You might be projecting a bit too much into thinking you can read my intention. People wanting to chill while farming is not necessarily because they are "lazy bums". I understand some people just enjoy this sort of activity and aren't looking for a challenge (like, for instance, after a long day of work).

> >

> > Regardless, the idea behind the poll was to grasp the general consensus of the forum goers regarding the way events currently scale. I was wondering if that many people actually preferred that events becoming much easier as more people join, or of they'd want the difficulty to not change that much.

> >

> > Yet, it seems some people just want to read a different kind of statement where none was intended. Granted, I understand it's nearly impossible to prove people wrong when they believe they know your thoughts, so this tangent of the topic will go nowhere.

> >

> > Have a good day.

>

> I can't say whether the phrases "bored of the snoozefest" and "farming while watching Netflix" are neutral to you. Neither is neutral in general. Both have appeared (exactly, or in the form of similar terms such as "braindead," "faceroll" or "spam [sic] 1 to win") many times on these boards. Almost always, the person using them is using them to state his/her displeasure with the state of the game, or with a post by someone who prefers less challenge. Given that overall context, phrases like those are pejoratives, and risk creating bias. The real problem is what the poll takers are going to make of a statement. If the wording invokes bias in the _audience_, then the wording is biased -- regardless of the poll maker's thinking.

 

The nuances of dealing with humans are limitless. Sort of stops one from trying to communicate at times. <_<

 

there are reasons to be displeased with the current state of the game (or the forums would be a lot less active :P), there are also reasons why people are fine with having less challenge.

 

Even if the poll options were just "yes" and "no", would it not be implicit that those voting with "yes" are displeased at the status quo, while the "no" vote are fine with it (which IS less challenging)?

 

Granted, the comments would inevitably bring out the biases their authors have against those who aren't their group (be it calls of elitism or laziness), so I wonder if anything would have changed in the outcome... besides erasing the comments related to poll wording bias. ._.

 

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> You seem to be attempting to measure two different things. Those who come to the forums are such a small sampling of the entire player base that the poll is flawed from its inception. The small sample here is not indicative of a significant portion of the whole to be statistically relevant.

 

indeed, polls do all share that limitation here. Would it had been better to just leave it out, without having any quantification of the forum participants' posture?

 

> I would hazard to say that ANet has enough statistics showing what content generates the most attention which is why they continue to build events in the manner which we see them.

 

Back when GW2 was launching, I remember event scaling was one of the great things that made this game different than others. Or at least I recall the Devs back then talking about how great it would be to have events scale up to preserve the experience (which implies not trivializing content through numbers).

 

Perhaps things have changed over the years, and at least that aspect doesn't matter anymore, except for events specifically tuned for large groups of players.

 

This all sort of saddens me, poor scaling is what keeps me from doing core map dailies, and it's what bores me when going to any popular map. One of the design goals of GW2 was that we should be glad of bumping into other players. Currently, I just avoid many of the metas because of how scaling works. When more players actually ends up removing the difficulty of the event to nothingness, then I don't want to see those excess players. :(

[mauried.5608]

Should events scale down when there arnt enuf players to do them ?

 

[Skotlex.7580]

> @"mauried.5608" said:

> Should events scale down when there arnt enuf players to do them ?

 

That's technically already possible, ANet just has to get rid of "group events" and just allow every single event to scale up to champion level and beyond once there are five players at least.

 

Though, there's probably a minimum degree of challenge that ANet wants for specific content, which is why they are tagged as group events with the minimum scaling already in place.

 

Granted, the whole topic here is (or was supposed to be about) how events scale up poorly in the presence of large number of players.