Nighthold, a step backwards in terms of encounter design?

[Manabomb]

Gonna get lynched for this, but I actually really, really liked HFC. Granted, I didn't have to continuously raid it week after week for 10 months straight like a lot of people. This was during a time in the game where I'd been on an extended break, only logging in for garrison (lol) missions. I only cleared it less than 10 times while it was current.

It had a great sense of apocalyptic risk once you got to the upper reaches of the citadel. It was very clear that the Legion was coming back to fuck us up. The different colored, tri-wing layout also reminded me of ICC, so that's always welcome.

That said, I really like Nighthold as well. The art team has really outdone themselves on the visuals of Suramar City and Nighthold, they're absolutely gorgeous. I've got hella ants in the pants to see what they've got up their sleeve for Tomb of Sargeras and Argus.

That is one thing I will fervently agree with, the art team is on point. I don't think the game has ever looked more beautiful in terms of pure visuals and animations, with NH being just stunning. With that in mind, 7.2 does sound better and better.

[Deleted]

My only complain about NH is that Legion bosses like Tich or Gul'dan doesn't seem "demonic" at all.EN was a shit raid but the theme was strong; NH has a very strong theme that i like, but Tich and Gul just seem to be randomly placed there for fun. Even in Arcway, the Fel Lord boss had his fel room to be thematically appropiate.

[Lashiec]

so you like "soft" enrage timers then

Quite a few of those throughout the years :P

No, those are both hard enrages, it's just one makes logical sense (you die because the bridge is gone) vs. the usual , where the boss decides to kill you in one hit (why wouldn't the boss just do that in the first place)

[Temp name]

so you like "soft" enrage timers then

Quite a few of those throughout the years :P

So a soft enrage is when the boss literally one shots your entire raid? Okay..

Soft enrage is something that can potentially be out-played somehow, either through CD stacking or something else. Hard enrage can't be avoided or played around (other than being beaten).

[Captain Proton]

So far you've presented no facts, just your anecdotal rambling. I refer to each patch of raiding as a tier, it's not really my problem you don't agree with it.

The word "tier" is an English word. It refers to separate rows or levels. EN was on a different level of raiding than NH. Your opinion, or Blizzard's terminology for that matter, doesn't change the English language.

Words only have meaning when people agree to a definition of that word. Words also change in the context that their being used. Raid tier, in the context of their game, has a specified meaning which is agreed upon. You using it incorrectly doesn't change that.

EN 1 Tier, ToV 2 Tier, NH 3 Tier

NO MORE RAIDS THIS EXPANSION GUYS.

[Soulfròst]

No, those are both hard enrages, it's just one makes logical sense (you die because the bridge is gone) vs. the usual , where the boss decides to kill you in one hit (why wouldn't the boss just do that in the first place)

Haha, I always wondered the exact same thing about bosses! Glad I'm not alone.

[Aggrophobic]

It's almost as if they took design effort out of raiding and put it back into the rest of the world.

And gee, would you look at that. Legion is a better expansion on the whole!

Encounter design wise I actually enjoy Gul'dan far more than Blackhand. Blackhands phase changes were always so damn clunky. Looked cool, but clunky as shit.

Ehm... Legion is way worse than WoD.

Gul'dan was ok but it's also pretty much the only fight in there thats intresting at all and the raid just looks like another part of Suramar. Been there, seen that.

[Soulfròst]

Words only have meaning if people agree on it? Huh? If that were the case, then your argument is invalid because I disagree, therefore the word has no meaning? I'm pretty sure the definition of words don't change, even if people disagree. You guys sure do come up with some interesting concepts. First guy thought I was trying to change the world with my opinion. Wow. And now I'm learning, after 30 years of living, that the definitions of words only mean anything if people agree on it? Fascinating.

While I agree with you that context does have some bearing, I didn't use the word incorrectly. Shall I fetch a definition of the word for you to clear this up? The fact that Blizzard uses the term to describe raids of relative difficulty doesn't change the definition of the word. I'm not sure why you guys think Blizzard sets the bar for the real world. Stay in school!

Nice try!

Blizzard sets the bar for the usage of terms in their own game. When speaking of said game, you use the definition they set. I understand your preference to use the more definitive meaning of the word "tier" to reference each different raid zone. Whatever you wanna do man, not gonna try and stop you. But when people are speaking of Blizzard's "Tier X" raids, you shouldn't try to counter that with your preference.

When in Rome...

[Captain Proton]

Words only have meaning if people agree on it? Huh? If that were the case, then your argument is invalid because I disagree, therefore the word has no meaning? I'm pretty sure the definition of words don't change, even if people disagree. You guys sure do come up with some interesting concepts. First guy thought I was trying to change the world with my opinion. Wow. And now I'm learning, after 30 years of living, that the definitions of words only mean anything if people agree on it? Fascinating.

While I agree with you that context does have some bearing, I didn't use the word incorrectly. Shall I fetch a definition of the word for you to clear this up? The fact that Blizzard uses the term to describe raids of relative difficulty doesn't change the definition of the word. I'm not sure why you guys think Blizzard sets the bar for the real world. Stay in school!

Nice try!

Yes, words only have meaning if people agree. It's how fucking language works. Words are symbols. They stand for something. My argument isn't invalid because one person uses the word incorrectly. And yes, words DO take on other meanings as language evolves. Please do stay in school.

Also, we're not talking about a vague definition of tiers. We're talking about RAID TIERS. Please do look up RAID TIERS in a dictionary.

Try again.

[ribthanwa]

To this day, Blackhand is one of the best encounters ever made.

Blackhand was a pretty bland encounter. Each person in your raid was assigned to do something each phase, and there wasn't much layering or interaction of mechanics. He was just really tightly tuned. If he was tuned looser, then he could easily be the boss 1-2 before the actual end-of-tier boss. He honestly reminds me a lot more of Elisonde than Gul'dan, but even Elisande has the whole raid dealing with every mechanic, even if in different ways.

- - - Updated - - -

Words only have meaning if people agree on it? Huh? If that were the case, then your argument is invalid because I disagree, therefore the word has no meaning? I'm pretty sure the definition of words don't change, even if people disagree. You guys sure do come up with some interesting concepts. First guy thought I was trying to change the world with my opinion. Wow. And now I'm learning, after 30 years of living, that the definitions of words only mean anything if people agree on it? Fascinating.

While I agree with you that context does have some bearing, I didn't use the word incorrectly. Shall I fetch a definition of the word for you to clear this up? The fact that Blizzard uses the term to describe raids of relative difficulty doesn't change the definition of the word. I'm not sure why you guys think Blizzard sets the bar for the real world. Stay in school!

Nice try!

Yes, words absolutely change meaning if people decide that it means something else. No, one person can't change it, but if a word is used the majority of the time in spoken word to mean one thing, and the dictionary says another, the dictionary is the thing that needs to change. What you need to realize here is that a dictionary is a tool used to notate and explain things that ALREADY EXIST, meaning that the person who writes the dictionary isn't at liberty to make up new words. People who speak the language are at liberty to make up new words and change the definitions of words that already exist, and if a meaning sticks, the dictionary will follow. Not immediately, mind you, which is why people that quote the dictionary in contextual arguments are laughably misguided.

[BadguyNotBadGuy]

So a soft enrage is when the boss literally one shots your entire raid? Okay..

Soft enrage is something that can potentially be out-played somehow, either through CD stacking or something else. Hard enrage can't be avoided or played around (other than being beaten).

i have always thought that a soft enrage is an enrage where one of the boss mechanics will eventually kill you, like purticide shit on ground etc.

[tikcol]

Comparing it to Blackrock Foundry (the second raid of the launch tier) I can't help but feel that the bosses pale in comparison to it. Every boss but Krosus does not interact with the environment at all, they just stand in an empty room and do shit.

Compare that to bosses like Hansgar, the train guy or Blackhand. Maybe it's just me but I really loved BRF, probably the one good thing that came out of WoD.

What do you think??

Why are bosses that interact with the environment inherently better than those that don't?

[Jastall]

i have always thought that a soft enrage is an enrage where one of the boss mechanics will eventually kill you, like purticide shit on ground etc.

That was my understanding, too. Soft enrage is boss mechanics stacking up until you just can't possibly deal with them (such as the aura getting too much on Tyrant or the slew of debuffs on Elisande). Hard enrage is the boss either berserking or just one-shotting the raid (ala Star Augur).

Anyway, thinking about it, the bosses in Nighthold make decent use of the environment. Adds on Skorpyron spawn from a breach (rather than appearing out of thin air), Anomaly channels from the Nightwell, Mythic Trilliax spawns adds from the remains of nearby constructs, Krosus destroys the bridge of course, Star Augur changes his room based on his phase (or vice-versa?), Elisande also channels from the Nightwell, and Gul'dan uses his bubble as well as knocking players off the platform if he can. So I don't see how the place is notably inferior in this regard.

[Onikaroshi]

It's the whole he said she said thing. I didn't like BRF at all, it was bland and only had a few interesting mechanics (trains were more annoying than fun, stampers too). On the other hand I have a LOT of fun with the mechanics and style of NH. Skorp is great when people fuck up mechanics and you get to aoe down 9 billion adds (ok like... 20 but whatever), Anomaly is both wonderful and annoying with the time dilution, Trill is just fucking HILARIOUS, and that's just the start. But I can see why people don't like it, and I guess I can see why people liked BRF. But hey, opinions! People love and hate every instance ever! (Except ruby sanctum, i don't think anyone loves that)

Edit: My vote for best room of all time though goes to Star Augur, damn that room.

[Taeldorian]

I disagree.

I like NH a lot honestly. It's quite obvious that there's a few cakewalk bosses, a few hard bosses and a few really hard bosses which imo is good. I feel that most of the encounters like Aluriel, Auger, Elisande, Tichondrius and Gul'Dan are all really well designed.

BRF was good as well. I like both raids and both have really good encounters. BRF was really bland though in terms of aesthetics while NH is extremely visually pleasing. So that's what puts NH ahead of BRF for me.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Nighthold is good but maybe that's because Emerald Nightmare was the most horrible raid I can remember in recent memory. Not only was the encounter design dumb and the mechanics overly simple trash; they decided to make the whole place was a horrible monochromatic red. It looked like a child with a red crayon went crazy.

I feel it's the same as BRF though BRF was probably one of the best Raids ever IMO. I remember all the fights and thought all the fights were fun except for furnace which was a weird coordination check.

Nighthold is worse than BRF but it's about average given raids in WOW. Going over the bosses.

Skorpion - Boring Fight. Just a lot of AOE ... whatever.
Chromatic Anomaly - Boring. The tanka basically does everything. DPS just kills adds and avoids stuff.
Cake Boss - Meh. Eating the cake is kind of funny. Then the joke gets old really quick.
Aluriel - The first good boss. Pretty memorable. Lots of interesting things for dps, heals, and tanks to do. Challenging in a fun way.
Krosus - There's always a boss like this in each raid tier it seem. You have to all run into pools yet again. He has some kind of smash mechanic but the smash is kind of cool because everyone falls off if you fail which is pretty funny. At least there is something interesting for all roles to do.
Tichondrius - Pretty good fight for dps and tanks with target switching. Kind of boring for healers.
Botanist - Massive Coordination Check. Fun but seems kind of like a throw-everything-at-the-board in terms of mechanics.
Etraeus - Level reminds me of my favorite fight ever Algalon which is cool. Too bad the fight isn't as good. Fight itself is fun enough but forgettable.
Elisandre - The first really really memorable fight. Braid and WOW mixed together make for a great fight. A+
Gul'Dan - Same thing as Blackhand. Big fight with lots of stages and mechanics. Good stuff.

So basically 2 good bosses, a few bad ones, and mostly decent ones.

Probably a C+ Tier and looks amazing to the D- that was Emerald Nightmare.