Topic
Mist of Pandaria will be childish
|
It wasn't concluded by that alone bu also by your guild, being a PvEer, and having your name associated with generally idiotic posts in my memory. This from someone who has dressed their blood elf in as low a cut top as possible, slightly hypocritical pherhaps, i will leave it to you and your superior cognitive abilty to decide. Are you jealous that my character looks more attractive than yours despite having only an average item level of 390? |
When you have to notify people you're being sarcastic your post isn't probably very good in the first place. |
Orly? Ty for the information "mr.I know everything better then you". |
|
|
Yes, we know, because all the relevant information has been published many times over all over the internet. There will be no surprise whatsoever as to what the game will be (a more "streamlined" version of the game we know today with some new models), because being surprising isn't part of wow's DNA. Keep it going Eleris you never stop to amaze me(sarcasm off). My goal in life is clearly to amaze some random renovo moron. (it isn't) |
|
Edited by Harrianlar on 05/06/12 13:11 (BST)
False sentence. You claim you know everything, and I know everything better than you. But you admitted you was wrong when I told you about dem dere brackets telling people of sarcasm. So you don't know everything. LIAR. Ontopic. I agree with ebalina, you can only wait and see. But I'm waiting and see'ing more with gw2 and others than MoP. |
|
Not that im interested at all to whats happening here in this thread but just im really interested to ask from Eleris who seems to be an amazing person. What is it that would make wow a good game again? To reach the amazing skill level of your gameplay :<
|
Not that im interested at all to whats happening here in this thread but just im really interested to ask from Eleris who seems to be an amazing person. What is it that would make wow a good game again? To reach the amazing skill level of your gameplay :< I can answer that: To make the "world" in world of warcraft be an actual world with needed interaction. Not a glorified chat room. |
|
This thread is totally !@#$, i would add something to it but i really am at a loss as to what to even say, instead i will plug the beer franziskaner for it awesomeness, any lover of wheat beer should definately give this a go as its superb, unlike these forums in this day and age.
|
So just because you read something on the internet makes you think that you know everything there is about the game that you haven't even tried. It is amazing how should i put it shortsighted(spelling) are you. And i might be a moron for you but my point still stands you do not know what MoP will be you cannot now what MoP will deliver just by reading reports on the internet. If you cannot get that in to your thick skull then i'm afraid anything else that you post about MoP will just be seen as just you trying to be a smart !@#.
You can see what ever you want in GW2 good for you , you still have no game experience for MoP unless you've played the beta (where you just test random skills and zones) no interaction with actual players the way you want it ,be it wpvp/pve/arenas/rbgs . One thing i can agree is the world needs to be more alive and people not to rely on (LFR/LFD) bollocks. About the sarcasm remarks i just , well i have no words just laugthing my $%^ off. Have a good day/night. |
I'm sorry. We've both played this game long enough to have a short time with new skills and new mechanics and make predictions of whats going to happen. It was wide knowledge coming from the beta that in PvP hunter's was weak, Elementals couldn't last in PvP due to mana / damage, Mage's burst was too high, etc etc. In ANY game, making predictions at ANY stage is fine. Having some law on plugging your fingers in your ears and screaming la la la la la until you feel like you might care now is stupid. |
|
|
Edited by Eleris on 11/06/12 15:42 (BST)
Most of wow is PvE, which is entirely built out of a single basic gameplay element, which is killing mobs. Mobs have no ai and are therefore completely and utterly boring and unsatisfying to kill. You can make as many new models or gimmicky attacks as you want, you can make new scenery, you can add impressive effects and stuff, it won't change the fact that as long as the mobs stand there and throw random attacks they won't be interesting to kill. And killing them is all you do (that or right clicking bright objects on the ground). And regardless of any change they do, PvE will always play the exact same: you execute a well tuned rotation of attacks or heals designed to maximize your throughput, until the mob dies. It's the same for every mob, except that bosses have a handful of additional gimmicks that are still dealt with in a purely mechanical way. It is all just about rote memorization (or having the right addons that tells you "X is happening, do Y!") You could literally model the entirety of any pve player's tactics to kill any mob with a finite state machine (in other word, a computer program) If W happens, do X. If X just happened and Y happens, do Z. If a computer could literally play for you as well (or better because of flawless execution) than yourself, then I'm sorry but the game is utter !@#$. MOP brings new situations in which you fight mobs (in those stupid outdoor instanced things) and even more retarded concepts such as "single player battlegrounds". But at the end of the day, it will be the same "kill a mob that doesn't move or do anything remotely pertinent to the fight", loot, rinse and repeat. A boring thing repeated X times, or declined in N types of environments or situations where you do that boring thing is still boring. Of course perhaps you can like wow for its rich and compelling storyline... Hahahaha. Nope, couldn't say it with a straight face. Diablo III is the same thing, but even worse. I haven't even tried it, I really don't see any point to that "game". A friend of mine who have lots of geeky coworkers saw them play. They played for hours and got many levels and didn't die even once, they were just frantically clicking on things to kill them. This isn't a game if you can't possibly lose. What could improve wow would be actual mobs AI. Anything other than the current "stand still and throw attacks randomly" would be an improvement. For instance, why mobs don't try to stay in range or in melee (depending on their attack types)? Why don't they interrupt you? Why don't they cc you and heal? Why don't they try to stay behind you? None of those things is really difficult to do. Mobs don't do it. Of course, blizzard isn't interested in doing this since people like it like this. They like it like this because obtaining a reward (no matter how pointless, like achievements) is addictive. The last time I tried to do any world pvp with that char I tried ganking people doing the love is in the air quest in uldum. What struck me is that is was a patch of desert texture with some undead mobs roaming it randomly, and that were trivial to kill. And people did it. They had already killed the exact same mobs a million times over since they started playing wow, it offered no challenge, it didn't give them any reward they probably didn't already have on at least one character and those rewards weren't in any way interesting, but they did it. They dutifully did their silly little chores of kililng these mobs. And what's most amazing, while they were doing that extremely interesting thing, they resented me for attacking them and bringing any form of challenge to overcome in order to do that stuff. And their efforts to overcome the problem caused by my presence were more focused on finishing their stupid quest than on killing me. This is because of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning_chamber Personally, I like my challenges to be interesting (and therefore fun), and my rewards, if any, to be substantial (by which I mean that being in possession of the reward actually increases my opportunities to have fun, otherwise the reward is pointless and not worth pursuing unless the process of obtaining it is interesting by itself). Most people still playing wow are content with doing pointless boring %^-* for pointless boring rewards. This is why world pvp has been removed, because it doesn't fit that model. This is why I think you are stupid, and this is why I despise you all. |
That is exactly the same as PvP. The set of actions and reactions are exactly the same size for each individual class regardless of PvE and PvP due to the fact that the skill set is the same and the conditionals are also finite due to the fact that another class has also a finite skill set for an action or reaction. Then again you say:
Because this is a computer with input / output then of course they would be the same as all computation is taken place on a computer where it is based on FA's as you already said. The fact of the matter is with your definition, PvP is just as predictable as PvE which is opposite of what you was trying to say. I like the fact that you referenced Automata, though. |
|
Edited by Stabina on 11/06/12 18:00 (BST)
You could literally model the entirety of any pve player's tactics to kill any mob with a finite state machine (in other word, a computer program) If W happens, do X. If X just happened and Y happens, do Z. Except that it isn't. Players have access to a lot of non-binary type of actions that increase the number of different possible decision they can make by orders of magnitude compared to the non-existant mob ai. Players move around (unlike mobs) and use their environment to break los (unlike mobs). Players drop things on the ground (traps, totems, smoke bombs etc.), and the choice of location at which they do so can drastically change the course of the battle (some mobs do this but randomly) Players have orientation dependent attacks (such as cone of cold), which makes the use of cone of cold have as many possible variants at a given time as there is possible orientations for the player (mobs either always face the player or use telegraphed sweeping attacks) etc. |
|
Edited by Harrianlar on 11/06/12 19:06 (BST)
Except that it isn't. Players have access to a lot of non-binary type of actions that increase the number of different possible decision they can make by orders of magnitude compared to the non-existant mob ai. All of which are irrelevent to the DFA or any decision making on the DFA. Because you're 20 yards or 15 yards away from something doesn't make a difference to the fact that they're both qualified as IN RANGE of a target and thus the attack will go off.
But moving around only provides one thing for every skill, LoS. That's quantifiable by 1 state. It's easily countable. That rule also applies for NPC's in PvE, so a poor point.
With that arguement that Mobs drop things on the ground randomly then it also begs the case that you CAN'T do a DFA for a NPC. While you can still do a DFA for a people as you believe they're more predictable than the NPC dropping things.
What? NPC's have them features too, and more just the same. Regardless it's still finite even from a player because the only condition the DFA would look at is in range or not in range. For both. actions that increase the number of different possible decision they can make by orders of magnitude compared to the non-existant mob ai. That's also irrelevant. They still make a DFA which can be defined. While your arguement is:
and PvPer's can't do that. EDIT: While I agree with you that PvP is different to PvE fundamentally and can have POTENTIALLY limitless "valid" options, a DFA would see no difference between both besides a larger automata for one or the other. |
|
|
Being in or out of range doesn't only determines whether you can attack. It can also determine things such "should I try to get in range or run away and restealth" if you're a rogue, for instance. Of course that also depends on your hp, the enemy's hp, what cooldowns you still have, and what cooldown you know your enemy still have.
No, because LoS-breaking locations aren't all created equal, therefore if your opponent is out of los you won't always have the same options. Let me take an example: someone get out of your los behind a pillar: you have two possible direction to get to him, and he has two directions he can take to remain out of los. Now imagine someone get out of your los by entering a house in wsg. There is only one way for you to go to to reach him, and there is no way for him to stay out of your los if you decide to follow him inside. In both situation, your opponent got out of los, but you have different options. Therefore dealing with los is much more than dealing with a boolean state.
They don't intentionally seek to move out of los, do they?
You can because they drop their stuff in predictable places (usually right where they are). That's also irrelevant. They still make a DFA which can be defined. While your arguement is:You could literally model the entirety of any pve player's tactics to kill any mob with a finite state machine (in other word, a computer program) If W happens, do X. If X just happened and Y happens, do Z. PvPers can't do that if they wish to win. PvEers can do that and be guaranteed to win. Let me put it in a different way: ever had that one guy in a BG who lays out a tactic and conclude with "do this and we'll win"? The problem is what happens if the opposite side decide to also implement that "foolproof" tactic. Both sides can't be guaranteed to win, can they? Simple logic says that there can be no such thing as a tactic that guarantees you'll win in pvp. However, in PvE, there is. The only reason to fail in pve is to not know that foolproof tactic yet, or not to have the right gear yet (but it can be solved by doing some pve elsewhere so it does not constitute an element of challenge), or to fail to execute it properly (aka failing to remain focused on performing a predictable, robotic series of actions). EDIT: While I agree with you that PvP is different to PvE fundamentally and can have POTENTIALLY limitless "valid" options, a DFA would see no difference between both besides a larger automata for one or the other. If you're going to quibble about sufficiently large automata you may as well point out that since a supercomputer have successfully simulated a tiny portion of a brain by simulating neurons, a sufficiently large and complex (way beyond current technology's reach) automaton could achieve self-awareness. |
|
I'm not going to argue over a technicality of why your metaphor doesn't work. It doesn't.
I agree with your main arguement, although I would classify metagame (which is what you're trying to describe imo) as what you're arguing. Which cannot be computed as it takes a random form in computer games. |
