Why did you nerf the Eater of Souls?

[Zaltys.7649]

Because the telemetries showed that too many players had trouble getting through the mission, I expect.

 

Hardly anything is done as a result of forum posts in this industry, because posters are a tiny fraction of the playerbase and tend to consist mainly of hardcore players (who've devoted their whole existence to the game). So anything said on the official forum tends to be lopsided.

 

Complaining that something's too easy (or too hard) gets ignored if there's no data to back it up.

[tenryuta.2014]

it had a break bar? my reaper couldnt swap wep a/b/shroud fast enough anyway, i had to dump melee minions and do double/triple tweaks on traits(theres no tp and i had either axe, scepter or GS to take em out).

 

and well i found this scapegoat part of story poorly done: "hey this happened and now you're here, but wait theres a way out, so kill that", too much convience for my taste.

[Tyger.1637]

It was broken and they fixed it. Hopefully next time I'll be able to go toe-to-toe with him instead of trapping him in scenery and spamming attacks from range.

 

[Rauderi.8706]

> @Tyger.1637 said:

> It was broken and they fixed it. Hopefully next time I'll be able to go toe-to-toe with him instead of trapping him in scenery and spamming attacks from range.

>

 

While I had my concerns that the fight was too ranged oriented, after a quick trip to the forum on how to minimize the life drain, I went toe-to-toe with him before the nerf. I had plenty of blocks and good sustain, so I saved my dodges for the leap and life drain.

 

It's not a "fun" fight, but totally doable. I think there's still this perception that a melee character should always be 100% in melee with their target, and that's just not the case. When the threat is too high, back off, kite, recover, then dive back in.

 

I consider it a good thing that the life drain was amped down, but I also understand that it dramatically lowers the threat and strategy in the fight, which is a little disappointing. The rest of the tweaks though :+1:

[Makai.3429]

I killed the thing in about a minute and didn't have any problems, but I can see how others would struggle. I'm all for inclusiveness, and am glad more players will be able to complete this content.

[Snowywonders.1378]

> @Castitalus.6359 said:

> > @Snowywonders.1378 said:

> > > @Castitalus.6359 said:

> > > > @Snowywonders.1378 said:

> > > > It's not about the boss being challenging, it's at the point now that people can't and WILL NOT deal with enemy mechanics that go beyond pressing skill 1. Are you a necromancer with minions? Dont summon them for this fight. Are you a mesmer with clones? Time your shatters or avoid summoning clones. Are you a ranger? Use a ranged pet or put it on peaceful mode. No, having to do this for one fight is not a personal attack on your "play how you want" freedom, no matter how much you think it is.

> > > >

> > > > GW2 is approaching yet another extreme when it comes to "balancing". The ONLY content that provides any sense of challenge is fractals/dungeons/raids. All group content. Anything solo, including just exploring the maps, is all watered down because people can't be bothered to learn.

> > >

> > > Please enlighten us on how pet/minion classes are supposed to have prior knowledge of a boss fight before they attempt it for the first time? Are we supposed to be waiting for dulfy guides for story missions now?

> >

> > You can change skills any time out of combat. I know right, wow.

>

> I suppose you missed the part where the boss is attacking you, but I suppose a trying to hard to be witty comment is the best you can manage for a reply.

 

I suppose you missed the part where you can run away or change skills when you die. I know right, wow.

 

[castlemanic.3198]

Thank god the issue was resolved in the proper way, though yes I do believe nerfing the actual amount of life-steal/health regen was unnecessary, extending the break bar, fixing the area of effect bug and preventing minions etc. from adding even more health were all amazing fixes to the situation.

 

Glad anet listened to reason on the matter and none of the people who wanted it to remain unfairly difficult for many.

[Haishao.6851]

> @Ashen.2907 said:

> > @Boysenberry.1869 said:

> > The fight was tuned higher than Anet wanted, so they changed it. To the many who boasted about how super easy the encounter was and that they one-shot the boss and did a dance on its head...nothing has changed for you so it doesn't matter.

>

> Well, no dancing on his head, and it took at least two attacks, but pretty much this^^^.

>

> It was easy, so nerfing it means nothing to anyone who prefers any degree of noticeable challenge.

 

Nerfing always mean something. It means the game gets dumbed down for people who often do not even play it more than a week. Today it's this, tomorrow will be something else.

I don't only want challenge for myself. I want others to be challenged too because I play a lot of open world and would love if people who join in events actually improved a little bit so they actually contribute instead of only upscaling it and forcing everyone else to do twice the work.

Like I said in another post the other day, if that fight could even teach 1 ranger that longbow skill 4 is used for more than just pushing things outside of AoE, it is mission accomplished.

 

 

> @Tyger.1637 said:

> It was broken and they fixed it. Hopefully next time I'll be able to go toe-to-toe with him instead of trapping him in scenery and spamming attacks from range.

>

 

Fights are not broken just because you're unable to win them.

Hundred of thousand of people didn't have problem killing it. Had it been broken nobody would have been able to do it.

[Dante.1763]

> @Haishao.6851 said:

> > @Ashen.2907 said:

> > > @Boysenberry.1869 said:

> > > The fight was tuned higher than Anet wanted, so they changed it. To the many who boasted about how super easy the encounter was and that they one-shot the boss and did a dance on its head...nothing has changed for you so it doesn't matter.

> >

> > Well, no dancing on his head, and it took at least two attacks, but pretty much this^^^.

> >

> > It was easy, so nerfing it means nothing to anyone who prefers any degree of noticeable challenge.

>

> Nerfing always mean something. It means the game gets dumbed down for people who often do not even play it more than a week. Today it's this, tomorrow will be something else.

> I don't only want challenge for myself. I want others to be challenged too because I play a lot of open world and would love if people who join in events actually improved a little bit so they actually contribute instead of only upscaling it and forcing everyone else to do twice the work.

> Like I said in another post the other day, if that fight could even teach 1 ranger that longbow skill 4 is used for more than just pushing things outside of AoE, it is mission accomplished.

>

>

> > @Tyger.1637 said:

> > It was broken and they fixed it. Hopefully next time I'll be able to go toe-to-toe with him instead of trapping him in scenery and spamming attacks from range.

> >

>

> Fights are not broken just because you're unable to win them.

> Hundred of thousand of people didn't have problem killing it. Had it been broken nobody would have been able to do it.

 

They literally said that it wasnt meant to be as hard as it was.

[Haishao.6851]

> @Dante.1763 said:

> > @Haishao.6851 said:

> > > @Ashen.2907 said:

> > > > @Boysenberry.1869 said:

> > > > The fight was tuned higher than Anet wanted, so they changed it. To the many who boasted about how super easy the encounter was and that they one-shot the boss and did a dance on its head...nothing has changed for you so it doesn't matter.

> > >

> > > Well, no dancing on his head, and it took at least two attacks, but pretty much this^^^.

> > >

> > > It was easy, so nerfing it means nothing to anyone who prefers any degree of noticeable challenge.

> >

> > Nerfing always mean something. It means the game gets dumbed down for people who often do not even play it more than a week. Today it's this, tomorrow will be something else.

> > I don't only want challenge for myself. I want others to be challenged too because I play a lot of open world and would love if people who join in events actually improved a little bit so they actually contribute instead of only upscaling it and forcing everyone else to do twice the work.

> > Like I said in another post the other day, if that fight could even teach 1 ranger that longbow skill 4 is used for more than just pushing things outside of AoE, it is mission accomplished.

> >

> >

> > > @Tyger.1637 said:

> > > It was broken and they fixed it. Hopefully next time I'll be able to go toe-to-toe with him instead of trapping him in scenery and spamming attacks from range.

> > >

> >

> > Fights are not broken just because you're unable to win them.

> > Hundred of thousand of people didn't have problem killing it. Had it been broken nobody would have been able to do it.

>

> They literally said that it wasnt meant to be as hard as it was.

 

Broken mean it doesn't work.

Something being "too hard" isn't broken. It just mean the skill level of people is much lower than what they expected.

The person who designed the fight obviously tried it out and figured it was fine. Then the QA and beta testers tried the story and found the fight was fine too. the 25000 people who had obviously done it during the first week didn't have problem with it either.

They said it wasn't meant to be this hard when they saw people cry about it. Had it been broken or even just "too hard", they would have fixed it right on the first few days, not 2 weeks later, especially when they say it was a "priority"

 

[castlemanic.3198]

Most people play slower than you or I, meaning that 2 weeks after launch, more than likely the vast majority of players would have encountered this boss and had issues, and not two days into the expansion. I didn't even get to the boss until day 5-6, and that's with some interference from daily life.

 

So, when they finally had the data to prove that too many people were having issues with this boss and being unable to beat it, they fixed the situation, and it was priority as soon as they had enough data collected.

 

It's extremely likely that QA testers know enough about GW2 to be able to beat bosses way harder than those the general community face, simply because it's their job to play things over and over and over again, and thus the higher skill floor of QA testers means things like this happen. There's no solution, because as soon as someone new becomes a QA tester, they'll play more hours a day than the vast majority of players will, and thus their skill improves greatly.

 

Not surprised it happened, not surprised it got fixed, glad it got fixed.

[Deihnyx.6318]

Anet, It's great that you made content without so much end game grinding. But by making things always easier, people can rush through your content even faster... and then complain they have nothing to do.

This fight required skill but wasn't difficult.

 

Could we at least get back original Caudecus or Eater of Souls as CM? So it's still possible to play the game as intended (and I say intended, because I don't believe in the "too hardcore mistake" as an excuse after each nerf anymore...)

 

Gosh I miss the good old GW1 days sometimes. Challenge meant something.

[Vyrulisse.1246]

If you're doing Path of Fire content you should understand basic mechanics such as CC, breakbars and dodging. The truth of the matter is that as said before, people just want to faceroll everything and press 1 maybe use their heal once in awhile. People think dying in this game is the ultimate slap in the face to their "play how you want" mentality and can't fathom how something could actually kill them. Do they change traits or skills? Do they change their approach to the battle? Nah, again... that's not how they want it.

 

Path of Fire is Level 80 content. It should be challenging whether it's story mode or not. A lot of people need to accept that this isn't Core Tyria and that it's time to learn how to do things.

[Deihnyx.6318]

> @Castitalus.6359 said:

> > @Snowywonders.1378 said:

> > It's not about the boss being challenging, it's at the point now that people can't and WILL NOT deal with enemy mechanics that go beyond pressing skill 1. Are you a necromancer with minions? Dont summon them for this fight. Are you a mesmer with clones? Time your shatters or avoid summoning clones. Are you a ranger? Use a ranged pet or put it on peaceful mode. No, having to do this for one fight is not a personal attack on your "play how you want" freedom, no matter how much you think it is.

> >

> > GW2 is approaching yet another extreme when it comes to "balancing". The ONLY content that provides any sense of challenge is fractals/dungeons/raids. All group content. Anything solo, including just exploring the maps, is all watered down because people can't be bothered to learn.

>

> Please enlighten us on how pet/minion classes are supposed to have prior knowledge of a boss fight before they attempt it for the first time? Are we supposed to be waiting for dulfy guides for story missions now?

 

That's the core of the issue right here. People can't seem to want to at least try figuring out things by themselves anymore.

Failing a fight and having to change your approach on your second try used to be part of the contract while playing a new game.

 

Today everything must be given to you, everything needs to be over explained with over scripted examples, and failing anything first try is a bug of the game, which didn't do a good enough job at showing you, and vocally telling you everything you had to do, and did not give you all the time in the world to perform a on key press action.

 

A sad development of video games in general, fortunately indie games are still fighting this trend.

[crashburntoo.7431]

> @mysticsicness.7598 said:

> I died once on my main, and it was a little jarring, but overall a fun fight. The achievement for the instance was much worse. If you rush any of the flashbacks, even a little, you have to do it alllllll over again.

 

This is what I'll be doing in the not too distant future. I still need to finish the whole story, but then I can return for achievements like this one.

 

Edit: I didn't even think that I rushed through anything... I listened to all of the flashbacks. :disappointed:

[ImTasty.2163]

> @Castitalus.6359 said:

> > @Snowywonders.1378 said:

> > It's not about the boss being challenging, it's at the point now that people can't and WILL NOT deal with enemy mechanics that go beyond pressing skill 1. Are you a necromancer with minions? Dont summon them for this fight. Are you a mesmer with clones? Time your shatters or avoid summoning clones. Are you a ranger? Use a ranged pet or put it on peaceful mode. No, having to do this for one fight is not a personal attack on your "play how you want" freedom, no matter how much you think it is.

> >

> > GW2 is approaching yet another extreme when it comes to "balancing". The ONLY content that provides any sense of challenge is fractals/dungeons/raids. All group content. Anything solo, including just exploring the maps, is all watered down because people can't be bothered to learn.

>

> Please enlighten us on how pet/minion classes are supposed to have prior knowledge of a boss fight before they attempt it for the first time? Are we supposed to be waiting for dulfy guides for story missions now?

 

Or you know go fight him, see that your current tactics aren't working, disengage, change tactics, then profit.

 

Honestly this boss is a prime example of what happens when people ignore mechanics. It's like if there was a boss that reflects all melee attacks 100% of the time and can never be killed using melee yet people just ignore that and keep smacking away with melee and wondering why they keep getting killed without doing 1% damage to the boss.

[Ashen.2907]

> @Haishao.6851 said:

> > @Dante.1763 said:

> > > @Haishao.6851 said:

> > > > @Ashen.2907 said:

> > > > > @Boysenberry.1869 said:

> > > > > The fight was tuned higher than Anet wanted, so they changed it. To the many who boasted about how super easy the encounter was and that they one-shot the boss and did a dance on its head...nothing has changed for you so it doesn't matter.

> > > >

> > > > Well, no dancing on his head, and it took at least two attacks, but pretty much this^^^.

> > > >

> > > > It was easy, so nerfing it means nothing to anyone who prefers any degree of noticeable challenge.

> > >

> > > Nerfing always mean something. It means the game gets dumbed down for people who often do not even play it more than a week. Today it's this, tomorrow will be something else.

> > > I don't only want challenge for myself. I want others to be challenged too because I play a lot of open world and would love if people who join in events actually improved a little bit so they actually contribute instead of only upscaling it and forcing everyone else to do twice the work.

> > > Like I said in another post the other day, if that fight could even teach 1 ranger that longbow skill 4 is used for more than just pushing things outside of AoE, it is mission accomplished.

> > >

> > >

> > > > @Tyger.1637 said:

> > > > It was broken and they fixed it. Hopefully next time I'll be able to go toe-to-toe with him instead of trapping him in scenery and spamming attacks from range.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Fights are not broken just because you're unable to win them.

> > > Hundred of thousand of people didn't have problem killing it. Had it been broken nobody would have been able to do it.

> >

> > They literally said that it wasnt meant to be as hard as it was.

>

> Broken mean it doesn't work.

> Something being "too hard" isn't broken. It just mean the skill level of people is much lower than what they expected.

> The person who designed the fight obviously tried it out and figured it was fine. Then the QA and beta testers tried the story and found the fight was fine too. the 25000 people who had obviously done it during the first week didn't have problem with it either.

> They said it wasn't meant to be this hard when they saw people cry about it. Had it been broken or even just "too hard", they would have fixed it right on the first few days, not 2 weeks later, especially when they say it was a "priority"

>

 

This ^^^

 

 

This was not a matter of some unforseen interaction between mechanics or code misfunction. The numbers did not enter themselves into the mob statistics, nor was there any indication of a mistake (entering a 9 instead of a 4 for damage scaling or something of the sort). Any alteration was because the encounter designer underestimated the willingness of some portion of the playerbase to apply the tools available to overcome what could be a truly trivial degree of challenge.

[Dante.1763]

> @Ashen.2907 said:

> > @Haishao.6851 said:

> > > @Dante.1763 said:

> > > > @Haishao.6851 said:

> > > > > @Ashen.2907 said:

> > > > > > @Boysenberry.1869 said:

> > > > > > The fight was tuned higher than Anet wanted, so they changed it. To the many who boasted about how super easy the encounter was and that they one-shot the boss and did a dance on its head...nothing has changed for you so it doesn't matter.

> > > > >

> > > > > Well, no dancing on his head, and it took at least two attacks, but pretty much this^^^.

> > > > >

> > > > > It was easy, so nerfing it means nothing to anyone who prefers any degree of noticeable challenge.

> > > >

> > > > Nerfing always mean something. It means the game gets dumbed down for people who often do not even play it more than a week. Today it's this, tomorrow will be something else.

> > > > I don't only want challenge for myself. I want others to be challenged too because I play a lot of open world and would love if people who join in events actually improved a little bit so they actually contribute instead of only upscaling it and forcing everyone else to do twice the work.

> > > > Like I said in another post the other day, if that fight could even teach 1 ranger that longbow skill 4 is used for more than just pushing things outside of AoE, it is mission accomplished.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > @Tyger.1637 said:

> > > > > It was broken and they fixed it. Hopefully next time I'll be able to go toe-to-toe with him instead of trapping him in scenery and spamming attacks from range.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Fights are not broken just because you're unable to win them.

> > > > Hundred of thousand of people didn't have problem killing it. Had it been broken nobody would have been able to do it.

> > >

> > > They literally said that it wasnt meant to be as hard as it was.

> >

> > Broken mean it doesn't work.

> > Something being "too hard" isn't broken. It just mean the skill level of people is much lower than what they expected.

> > The person who designed the fight obviously tried it out and figured it was fine. Then the QA and beta testers tried the story and found the fight was fine too. the 25000 people who had obviously done it during the first week didn't have problem with it either.

> > They said it wasn't meant to be this hard when they saw people cry about it. Had it been broken or even just "too hard", they would have fixed it right on the first few days, not 2 weeks later, especially when they say it was a "priority"

> >

>

> This ^^^

>

>

> This was not a matter of some unforseen interaction between mechanics or code misfunction. The numbers did not enter themselves into the mob statistics, nor was there any indication of a mistake (entering a 9 instead of a 4 for damage scaling or something of the sort). Any alteration was because the encounter designer underestimated the willingness of some portion of the playerbase to apply the tools available to overcome what could be a truly trivial degree of challenge.

 

And they really shouldnt be surprised by that anymore. Look at what happened with both the core story and the HoT story. The players en mass dont want the story of this game to be challenging, are there some who do like a challenge, sure, but by and large apparently players do not, and im very sure that Anet can see how many people try each instance, given that they can see how many times a mob killed a player.

[mXz.4512]

It wasn't even that hard. This is only a result of a L2P issue. I hate to say that, but if you can't learn game/fight mechanics, the next thing done is complain till so 'n so gets their way and ruin it for everyone else. SMH.

[Malediktus.9250]

Maybe Anet should finally add difficulty levels to instanced content. So people who like it faceroll and people like me who like a decent challenge are all satisfied.

[Ohoni.6057]

I didn't have any trouble with it myself, but they had every reason to fix it if it was negatively impacting players experiences.

[pah.4931]

If you have half a brain it's easy to see why it was nerfed. Some people commenting about "how easy" and "didn't even realize it was hard" and others saying they "spent hours on it" and "its impossible" ... it was clearly a bugged / unbalanced encounter. And if you create a block like this, where some builds demolish the encounter without even knowing what the mechanics are and others can't beat it (because minions, for example, without anyway of even knowing the minions are causing the problem), then you have a problem. Imagine if you will, a raid boss that REQUIRED only 10 necromancers to win (exaggeration to make a point). But for those 10 necros, it's super easy to beat. If a normal, average raid group throws their face at this encounter and fails and complains, the 10 necro group will be confused. "Why are you nerfing it, it was easy, why can't we have hard things in this game?" ... it doesn't mean the encounter was hard or easy. It just means the encounter was poorly designed for a game with THOUSANDS of players with THOUSANDS of builds and playstyles.

 

You cannot (maybe, should not?) ever impede "story-mode" by imposing certain playstyles or builds.

 

Of course this was all made even worse by the fact that the encounter came at the end of a 40-minute prelude that could not be skipped and if you quit out, had to reply.

 

Get off your hardcore high horses and think critically about game design for a little bit. This had nothing to do with casual vs. hardcore. Or even skilled vs. unskilled.

[pah.4931]

> > @Tyger.1637 said:

 

> Fights are not broken just because you're unable to win them.

> Hundred of thousand of people didn't have problem killing it. Had it been broken nobody would have been able to do it.

 

Hmmm. Not sure if I agree with your idea of game design and what is "broken." First of all, if you can't login and everyone else can ... would you consider that "broken" or would you be happy that at least everyone else can play and would go on your merry way?

 

Second of all. It was a poorly balanced fight. Simple as that. If I want to play a Ranger with a pet, I shouldn't be forced to stow my (stupid AI) pet for an encounter in story-mode. OR, at the very least, I should be TOLD why I am failing the fight.

[Vyrulisse.1246]

> @pah.4931 said:

> If you have half a brain it's easy to see why it was nerfed. Some people commenting about "how easy" and "didn't even realize it was hard" and others saying they "spent hours on it" and "its impossible" ... it was clearly a bugged / unbalanced encounter. And if you create a block like this, where some builds demolish the encounter without even knowing what the mechanics are and others can't beat it (because minions, for example, without anyway of even knowing the minions are causing the problem), then you have a problem. Imagine if you will, a raid boss that REQUIRED only 10 necromancers to win (exaggeration to make a point). But for those 10 necros, it's super easy to beat. If a normal, average raid group throws their face at this encounter and fails and complains, the 10 necro group will be confused. "Why are you nerfing it, it was easy, why can't we have hard things in this game?" ... it doesn't mean the encounter was hard or easy. It just means the encounter was poorly designed for a game with THOUSANDS of players with THOUSANDS of builds and playstyles.

>

> You cannot (maybe, should not?) ever impede "story-mode" by imposing certain playstyles or builds.

>

> Of course this was all made even worse by the fact that the encounter came at the end of a 40-minute prelude that could not be skipped and if you quit out, had to reply.

>

> Get off your hardcore high horses and think critically about game design for a little bit. This had nothing to do with casual vs. hardcore. Or even skilled vs. unskilled.

 

We need to get out of this mindset that just because something is "story mode" that means it should be faceroll easy. It shouldn't, it should present a challenge and crying because something killed you once and you might have to change skills up once in awhile isn't the way it should be. It killed me the first time and I changed what I was doing and my approach and I won rather handily. It's not about being "hardcore" as I'm far from that label, I just enjoy a challenge in my level 80 content. We aren't in Core Tyria anymore, the game has evolved and so should players.

[Zaklex.6308]

> @Ashantara.8731 said:

> > @Erulogos.2591 said:

> > Making him not snack on your (generally uncontrollable) minions/pets/etc is just good sense

>

> Not really. As a ranger, it encouraged you to use the Soulbeast pet-merge (which is highly efficient in general, plus Soulbeast is just the better condition ranger build than the previously used vanilla one), and as a Necromancer, it also encouranged those MM fanatics to finally try a decent Necromancer build for a change. That was **a good thing**.

 

Not necessarily, I did it on my normal ranger with my pet and still killed him, perhaps though it was my choice of pet as I was using the Juvenile Jacaranda. Either way I didn't even notice that the BB wasn't up for very long, and I stayed as far away as possible so he only stole the health from my pet, I didn't feel it was that difficult but then I like the movement based combat where I always end up using my endurance and having to kite. However, if the encounter was incorrectly set upon release and the designer has stated as such then the change was needed...as for those that say why two weeks later, have you ever considered that maybe that particular person was on vacation or ill...could be any number of reasons they weren't around to change it right away.