Feedback talk:User/Qaletaqa/PvE Balancing System

It's an interesting idea, but it is of course dependent on how much time and effort is put into it. A well-done version of this system would be great, but a sloppy system would just ruin things more. ~Shard  02:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it has the option to be great or it can just ruin the game. If they want to put a system like this in the game it should be tested for a long period of time on a large scale, 6-12 months with hundreds or thousands of players (that's what I would do). [[Image:User_Qaletaqa_sig_icon.jpg|talk]] Qaletaqa Hania  02:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can understant what your stabbing at, but if it wasnt done right you would just get a lame metagame for PvE where everyone farms 600 for a while, then when they all get damage reductions and daze skills, everyone is perma soloing, and then when they start signet and touch skill whoring everyone pops on their other character and yada yada... My variation would be: each character gets different skillsets for the build they have, not neccesarilly a pure counterbuild, like, a WoH healer would get degen necros and mesmers and rupter rangers, and pure damage assassins would fight punishment loaded melees. This could put the challenge back into the game, or it may just turn it into a grindfest. Teh Eviscerator 10:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You could have database of builds for each class and the groups of mobs are semi-random collections of classes. For instance, in higher level areas you may set the restriction that every group contains at least 1 "healer" archetype. If you did it right then players couldn't build wars an area (because you can't predict what will appear) but you could prepare for the archetypes you know you're likely to see. Also, if you REALLY did it right, then you wouldn't have to worry about countering stuff like Shadow Form because you wouldn't be retarded enough to give players maintainable invincibility spells. Mr J 10:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The point I forgot to make is that if you implement a reactive environment, you really need to do it in such a way that players don't have the ability to decide how they are "challenged" by the game. Mr J 10:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * @Teh Eviscerator: Like the lame metagame we currently have?
 * "each character gets different skillsets for the build they have"
 * You mean like some kind of sealed deck for PvE?


 * @Mr J: That was exactly what I had in mind first but it still would be somewhat predictable that's why I changed it. [[Image:User_Qaletaqa_sig_icon.jpg|talk]] Qaletaqa Hania  21:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding dynamics to the PvE monsters is a great idea and adds to the realism. The suggestion you posted seems extremely difficult to implement. Each type of monster will respond differently. And they will respond differently to each type of skill used against them. There would have to be a very sophisticated AI to handle this. Also, there would need to be a database recording information (monster type, location, in-game time, skill used against it) for each time a monster get hits with a skill. This doesn't even account for the human party's heals/prots. Gathering all this information is the easy part. The hard part is having the monsters respond to it.

Another possible solution was mentioned here. Killing (or not killing) a type of monster in a particular location will affect its spawn rate. Here, we would need a database recording similar information (monster type, location, in-game time) for each death. Spawn rate (of a particular monster type, in a particular location, at a particular in-game time) would simply vary inversely with its death count in the past day.

By these mechanics, the "easy" monsters will spawn less often, making "hard" monsters more prevalent in that area. Overall, that area will become harder and players will inevitably have to kill more "hard" monsters and only a few of the available "easy" monsters.

There is a possibility that by implementing any PvE balancing system, equilibrium will be found and there will be very little fluctuation, voiding the idea of a dynamic environment. --Arngrim 05:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "The suggestion you posted seems extremely difficult to implement."


 * True.


 * "By these mechanics, the "easy" monsters will spawn less often, making "hard" monsters more prevalent in that area. Overall, that area will become harder and players will inevitably have to kill more "hard" monsters and only a few of the available "easy" monsters."


 * That is what I call a placebo. People will just make different builds for the "easy" and the "hard" monsters wich eliminates the dynamic factor, wich makes it useless and all the work put in that "system" would've been a waste of time.


 * "equilibrium will be found and there will be very little fluctuation, voiding the idea of a dynamic environment."


 * Equilibrium, that would actually be the goal of a system like this. And there will always be "fluctuations" because there will always be people trying something different. And I think any dynamic environment becomes a constant at a certain point.


 * Maybe I should add another factor to the list, migration. --[[Image:User_Qaletaqa_sig_icon.jpg|talk]] Qaletaqa Hania  06:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)