In GW1 certain mobs have certain armor strength and weaknesses. For example Ice Golems are specially weak vs fire, Tengus are specially weak vs lightning, and undead are specially weak vs holy. Here is the list of damage types and creature type.
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Damage_type
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Creature_type
My question is, for GW2, how big of a role should the relationship play between damage type and creature type? In GW1 I will say it played a minimal role, as most mobs have neither strength or weakness in their armor. Would you like to see the importance of this expanded?
Example:
1) All Plant/tree mobs takes only 50% of earth damages and 75% of physical damage. But they take 25% extra damage from fire. Also takes a additional 10 damage a second if they are burning. Burning effect on them lasts for double the duration.
2) All airborne mobs (e.g. Harpies) have a natural 33% chance to block ranged attacks and moves 25% faster. However when crippled they are crippled for 3 times as long, and when crippled they take 50% more physical damage.|||In a team game, it's easy to have a diverse damage type across your team so you're not faced with a foe that suddenly takes 50% less damage. But in solo play, it's really tough to have builds that lets you adapt to this.
I remember in Diablo 2 some monsters were dual-elemental immune or immune to physical damage. Imagine being a sorceress with the wrong elements, or a barbarian with very little ability to do anything but physical damage respectively.
-----
Also, it's more fun to adapt to gameplay behaviors (like centaur is blocking now, time to walk sideways because he's about to charge). It's more fun because (1) this is something you learn about by observing behavior, and (2) it's something you can usually adapt to fairly well regardless of profession.
If they do implement resistances though, they should clearly indicate it. Text description is boring but functional. A bunch of "0" saying you don't do damage (even worse if you do little damage) is bad because it's not informative as to why you're not effective. Your character saying "I should use fire against this foe" or "Lightning is not very effective against this foe" would be better.|||I like how it is in GW1: You can still defeat mobs without exploiting their weakness, but it is far easier to exploit. As Alaris points out, having a mob take little-to-no damage while you're solo could effectively end your game. I guess GW2 is a bit different because of the "change on the fly" mechanics (ex. Elementalist just changes their attunement), but it's kind of annoying, especially if you consider something like Ice Golems where they are mixed in with groups of other enemies.... you'd have to keep switching.|||I think it's possible it could play a bit of a larger role to play up the cross profession combos. For example, if an Ice Golem takes more damage from fire and or buring, all classes can deal that type of damage with an elementalist or guardian on their team. If the ele puts down a fire wall, suddenly all players can deal added damage to the mob, which would encourage the players to actually use the combo instead of ignoring it.
That said, I don't think it should be the end all be all of gameplay. Defeating a monster should never be impossible because they are immune to all or most of your class's damage types. So that if you are playing solo, you can still complete most content regardless of your class. In short I think this should affect things a bit more than in GW1, but not excessively.|||You don't just need the profession, you need the profession with the right skills. And I think BuildWars is not what we're looking for in GW2.
Here's an idea...
You could make a monster more susceptible to fire, but only if he's also somewhat weak to professions that don't have easy access to fire to compensate in solo play. For example, that monster might also be a bit slower so thieves won't have a hard time evading his attacks.
Or specific resistances might be a way content scales up to more players, so it doesn't show up in solo play but becomes pretty important when there's already plenty of people helping out.|||I voted to increase it slightly. My main reason is the (proposed) ability to change build focus in the field. I would also support some form of randomization of mobs in explorable areas due to that ability. If you can change your build to suit the enemies, you should be less able to identify what enemies you will be facing (exactly) in the explorable areas. I think this would make the game more interesting in a multitude of ways.
I'm not talking about fully random foes, just differences in what mobs may be present (shouldn't this depend on the current state of the Dynamic Events in the area?) and what enemies each mob or group consists of. The lack of any randomness in the mob composition or location is one of my major disappointments with GW1.
While I'm not crazy about making enemies "immune" to certain types of damage, there is nothing wrong with that if it's skill based (and not something they can easily maintain permenantly without a few possible counters). Higher armor is not the same thing (assuming armor is realatively the same in GW2)....you CAN kill a Titan with Fire damage...it just takes forerver and there are smarter ways to skin that cat.|||Dynamic events will take care of that, thanks. What you will face will depend on what's going on, so there will be plenty of variability there.
Storyline missions and dungeons however... those are more static afaik (though not as static as in GW1)|||Quote:
I'm not talking about fully random foes, just differences in what mobs may be present (shouldn't this depend on the current state of the Dynamic Events in the area?) and what enemies each mob or group consists of.
If they manage to implement over a thousand events in the final version, I doubt there will be many static mob groups at all. Mobs which spawn for events are at least moderately scripted.|||i like the weakness/strength system for mobs, it gives me a "know your enemy" sense.
it doesn't have to be a huge role, but big enough to notice the difference on the battlefield.
No comments:
Post a Comment