Best Of
Re: Loot System Changes
Players can also to be kicked out from the group before the looting starts.
That is not a good thing
A guild need to fill to manage a raid.
They invite a couple of players, just to kick them before loot starts to ensure the guild gets the loot.
Or any raidleader really who want to make sure his competition is gone before the loot, so he kicks everyone who might need on the same drops.
don't group with that guild then ;3
Thank you for demonstrating the point. These sort of loot systems discourage players from assisting each other because the game enables very easy, unpunished ways for the group lead to screw people over.
you are only thinking about the immediate consequences, not future ones. A system like that promotes good behavior. this isn't a game where you will be running instances 24/7 and using cross server queues to go into them and never see the same person again (or be stuck with them). you can literally choose who you play with. play wit the good people. your actions have consequences. ruin your reputation in a server and you are doomed.
I’m thinking of the overall social atmosphere the game will create if these sort of loot systems are the norm. It’s not about immediate consequences, it’s about how players will not be encouraged or want to cooperate with others because the systems at play are designed to not reward them.
You are vastly overestimating how much influence a reputation will have when the large guilds most likely to abuse these systems are already set up to have immense influence over castles/nodes/etc. Most of the community will just shrug and tell slighted players the same thing: ‘well, that’s on you for not picking a group better’ as if it were their fault some people decided to be an ass.
As for the other portion of your post, if 1000 people show up to nuke a lvl25 dragon, I would first expect the dragon to scale up significantly so it doesn’t just fall over like a sack of flour.
Secondly, many games use some kind of metric to grant looting rights in the event of zerging like that. Whether that’s a fixed amount of damage done, time engaged with the boss, average threat held, healing done, damage mitigated, buffs contributed etc, would be up to the devs, but contributors to a fight should all be rewarded in some way even if it’s only crafting materials they’ll then have to take to a node and craftsperson to turn into something actually useful.
again, different game. the game promotes not doing shitty things like that to other people because of the social consequences. it promotes good behaviour. you do that to most people who play ow pvx games and you get perma camped out in the open world, for example. cant do that when you are in instance queues 24/7.
2nd point. raid wont scale depending amount of players., confirmed by steven. all contributors shouldn't be rewarded. as you said, other games do that, not ashes. not everybody is a winner here ;3
Social consequences should exist in addition to gameplay mechanics that minimize abuse potential rather that enable it. They are not a replacement for mindful reward systems, if they even work at all, which they're definitely not going to when that big toxic guild owns a castle or node. Good luck blacklisting the Patron Guild of the economic node.
Also, link the source for that change in raid approach, because it would be, in no uncertain terms, extremely idiotic to not have a scale-up mechanic on open world bosses.
Not a single person here is after an easy street farming experience, but everyone deserves to be rewards for taking on and defeating challenging content at risk of their time, gear degradation, PvP and PvE death penalties. I'm in full favor of instituting merit requirements to get looting rights as I said before, but that should be handled by the game, not by other players.
Players have proven many a time that they cannot responsibly handle those player-controlled loot systems.
no, nobody deserves to be rewarded. ppl don't deserve things. they earn it. do you think the big toxic guild you mention is gonna invite you when they could invite their own members? please xD
these type of games work differently. bosses will be fought over by warring guilds. winning the boss is still important and rewarding even if you don't get an item. not letting your opponents get it its still as good. you will eventually get the item you want. just see it as doing multiple runs of an instance to get that 1% drop or whatever. you don't always get something you need on each run and that's okay.
also, no need to link anything. watch the dragon stream again, steven mentioned it in a q & a
You're a shining example of why these loot systems are a bad idea. Anti-social behavior is bad for an MMO, and systems that directly encourage that sort of behavior while leaving the majority of contributors with nothing means you're going to have a very sparce population willing to do the difficult content.
Why would I or anyone waste hours of time for no gain? Why would I or anyone volunteer to help when the systems at play practically beg the group I'm helping to give me nothing for it? If bosses don't drop much of anything, why would I even care to go fight off another group to deny them it? Oh no, they got one armor piece for their 20man team and a pittance of crafting materials.
Whereas if I know there is a large stock of materials on the line because everyone gets Gathering drops and I have a lot of high-level players with maxed Gathering lines, I'll be fighting tooth and nail over control of those bosses to deny other groups looting rights. They can't contribute toward the merit thresholds if they're at respawn, and I stand to gain a lot.
Edit: The world boss was confirmed to adjust attacks based on the number of players engaged with it in the stream. Not sure what you were listening to that gave you the idea they wouldn't implement any anti-zerg mechanics. Here, timestamp 01:01:40 https://youtu.be/pfdnNWkUov4?si=rKKhZUK8E5Ncl2-F&t=3700
lmao I've never screwed anyone over loot in my 20 years of mmorpg. I've been screwed sometimes though. what a shining example I am of whats wrong.no, nobody deserves to be rewarded. ppl don't deserve things. they earn it.
We’re talking about the groups that did earn it.
So far not a single person has tried to claim every single person who so much as breathes on the boss should get a payout.
What is being asked for is that the successful raid group actually get rewarded in a way that isn’t prone to gm/office abuse. Players shouldn’t have loot control like that, loot distribution should be handled entirely by the game itself.
no it shouldn't. just join a guild that doesn't do gm/officer abuse. the game will give you different loot options. pick one you like and play with people who like the same one.
not everybody should get rewarded, or even rewarded equally anyways. not everybody contributes equally. its nice to get things, but if not, you should keep trying.
what happens to those people who managed to pvp and kill everybody trying to kill your pve raiders and take the boss? they never touch the boss or are in the same group as the people killing it but their contribution is significant. how do you reward them?
giving the loot to the guild bank and distributing it based on different parameters and merit isn't a bad system.
The game should absolutely handle the loot dispersal. Anything beyond the initial distribution can be handled as the guild wants and the guild members will agree to.
Crowd funding (we’re asking everyone chip in) vs communism (we’re setting lootmaster and you get no input to how we hand it out)
ok lets say we do as you wish. the game gives an item to everybody who participated in killing the raid. then the guild master/officer says "hey, everybody go and deposit everything you got for redistribution based on XYZ". so whats the difference then? you are still subject to gm/officer abuse. if you don't deposit whatever you got, then you never get invited again to anything or you get kicked, the only difference is you get to "steal" something first.
That scenario is done willingly by players giving up what they earned to better the guild, which is how it should be if the guild has fostered a community environment. Better yet, players in the raid just swap between each other because they know who needs what in there.
And even if someone doesn’t give up what they got, that isn’t ‘stealing’. They earned their drop just like everyone else and the guild isn’t entitled to sucking up the rewards from their players with no input from those players.
Opt-in is always better for loot sharing than mandated.
It all boils down the this: One selfish player in a personal loot system doesn't affect anyone but themselves. One bad GM in a Lootmaster system can ruin the experience for dozens of players at once and leave them empty handed for hours of their time.
Caeryl
1
Re: Is there a problem for solo players
You specifically said that at best, 50% of people are in guilds.AirborneBerserker wrote: »Since I have never stated anything like 50+% of players were unguilded in any game there's no reason for me to answer that.
What I have said is Solo players. So if you want to know how many games I have played like that literally all of them with the exception of EQ (the original not PJ 99).
Here is a refresher for you.
Now, if st most 50% of players are in guilds, and a game only has two states in terms of guilds (in a guild, not in a guild) that means basic math demands thst you are saying that 50%+ people are not in guilds.AirborneBerserker wrote: »First there is no reason to assume most people are in guilds given most MMO players are solo, meaning at best your looking at 50% of people being in guilds.
So, you did in fact say it. That is why I am waiting for your answer as to which games you are talking about.
Noaani
1
Re: The Impact of Strategy and Coordination in Group vs. Group Combat
Yeah, that's what I've meant with my "hopefully that turns out to work" with the huge part of meaningful balancing, otherwise it will be just a matter of group-size and power of ranged and AoE abilities, as we know from several other MMOs with large scaled pvp out there. As long as the group is massive and large, it will zerg down all the rest - up to the point where another huge, large group is showing up. But in between everybody else will be terminated just because size matters.It’s a tough balancing act, but one that could lead to a more dynamic and engaging PvP experience if done right.
And balancing for 64 classes and thus hundrets of skills will be no fun. I'm convinced that there will be painful overpowered meta-builds and a small developer like intrepid will face serious troubles in reacting and balancing that as fast as possible.
Just imagine the set of skills (and there is no limit of 5 skills or whatsoever like in other MMOs), but the actionbar is wider, so you can use a lot of skills, with a lot of classes, and a lot of weapons (and skills affecting weapons) and so on and so on. And we have everything we know from other MMOs: Quite all known buffs and debuffs, gap filler, counterspells, espace skills, oh-shit-buttons. It's all there. And that's cool and this complexity will make fun. But it will be a painful way due to lack of possibility to balance this meaningful.
One of the best ways to decrease (not to stop) this meta/fotm builds is not to show a build to another player, so there should be no possibility to check the build of another player ingame (gear perhaps if needed, but not skills). Invested players anyhow will watch offsite the game in youtube/twitch to follow the meta, but normal players won't, because the login, play, logout. Another meaningful way is to reduce bursting as good as possible, because a lot of players tend to like big numbers and will follow classes, combinations and skill that emphasize that. Potent health points can help, so a 1v1 fight should not be over in 5sec. If that is happening, the balance can be a huge issue. It's fun to pop up as rogue and burst your enemy down, I know (I've played rogue since 20y now), but it's bad balancing wise, especially if you cannot avoid being attacked, even not as non-combantant.
For 2v2, 3v3 battles, that's managable. Perhaps in slightly bigger groups. Up from large groups it will be really really hard that it will be no AoE event, where all the ranged AoE classes and playstyles will excel whereas some classes will not have an efficient slot to fill.
I'm very interested in the gameplay of the rogue coming in later alpha stages because this class always is very crucial when it comes to balancing, especially in MMOs where the rogue has real and permanent stealth abilities (and I understood, in AoC rogues will have this). Thereofre their gameplay will show, what they will do in large scaled battles and it will show, how this will work together with open world pvp, corruption and stealth mechanics. I'm looking forward to this with high interest.
Still I hope they will get good data during upcoming test phases and I gues sthey will do their very best to balance as good as possible, but to be realistic, it will not be balanced all over. Yes, there will be AoE machines, yes there will be burst-classes, yes there will be those tanky not killable classes where you need 3 guys to get them down. You cannot avoid this because of the complexity AoC is offering us (which is a good thing).
Chaliux
1
Re: My PvE combat impressions so far: Enemy numbers, enemy type variety and group combat complexity
You could very easily make different enemies immune or resistant to different sorts of cc. A mage enemy isn’t going to leave themselves magically defenseless to sleep. A warrior in plate isn’t going to be downed by a basic stun.
Caeryl
2
Re: The Impact of Strategy and Coordination in Group vs. Group Combat
@ChaliuxHopefully that turns out to work, otherwise it will be an AoE fight, smashing ranged and AoE effects all over again and again.
But, this will be the huge, and I mean huge, part of the balancing continuously to be done. Balancing is never a point of time, but a cycle. There will be classes (class-combinations) that are overpowered solo, or overpowered in small groups or overpowered in large scale fights. That's the job of intrepid to work continuously on that, because there will always be somebody (some class) on the throne. After ~20 years of MMO experience I cannot remember one single game and point of time, where a perfect or optimal balance was reached. And that's okay, because it's too complex (and players find out every single meta build ;-) to handle it at every single moment.
It's interesting that you bring up the challenge of balancing in AoE-heavy PvP environments. One thing that stood out to me, especially when comparing to other MMOs, is the simplicity of large-scale PvP combat in games like Throne and Liberty. In that game, large-scale battles often boil down to the size and strength of the group—bigger and stronger groups almost always come out on top, making the outcome somewhat predictable and less dependent on strategy or skill.
This contrasts with what we're hoping to see in Ashes of Creation, where even smaller, more coordinated groups might have a fighting chance against larger forces through strategic use of AoE abilities, positioning, and synergies. It’s a tough balancing act, but one that could lead to a more dynamic and engaging PvP experience if done right.
ReLamas
1
Re: Is there a problem for solo players
If single player shared world games like GW2 exist already, why build a other one?
Are we looking for a good MMO or another pretender/clone of something else with no challenge handing out gold stars everytime someone does something?
Are we looking for a good MMO or another pretender/clone of something else with no challenge handing out gold stars everytime someone does something?
Re: The Impact of Strategy and Coordination in Group vs. Group Combat
It's not about if the game allows it, more coordinated groups will always outsmart the less organised ones even if they are more.
Now obviously if you are 20 vs 100 things are gonna be pretty rough.
Now obviously if you are 20 vs 100 things are gonna be pretty rough.
Re: The Impact of Strategy and Coordination in Group vs. Group Combat
Yes.
It is hard to coordinate a group of 40 players, especially if it's pugs. With guilds that are on the same page, who can actually practice, it's easier.
And coordination really should and probably will matter a lot, because if half of the raid is too slow to execute commands, then that raid is simply at a disadvantage.
- Let's take an example where it's a slightly unbalanced fight, you are fighting vs 60 people, and you only have 40:
Imagine you want to fall back to a different position. You issue a command to fall back, or to follow the raid leader, and only half of the raid does it, while the other half slacks around or is just slow to do it. In just a few moments, the enemy raid will collapse on that position, and now they don't have to fight 40 ppl, but only 20. Easy win for them, while you now cannot fight them with such low numbers.
- Similarly, imagine you are fighting as a group of 20 people that are highly organized, against a group of 40 unorganized people.
You can pull the enemies around, baiting them to chase you, then turn on them while they're disorganized, you can manipulate where and when you want to fight, and how many of them you want to fight, and it's only easier if they're overconfident due to their superior numbers.
Strategy and teamwork should absolutely play a key part.
It is hard to coordinate a group of 40 players, especially if it's pugs. With guilds that are on the same page, who can actually practice, it's easier.
And coordination really should and probably will matter a lot, because if half of the raid is too slow to execute commands, then that raid is simply at a disadvantage.
- Let's take an example where it's a slightly unbalanced fight, you are fighting vs 60 people, and you only have 40:
Imagine you want to fall back to a different position. You issue a command to fall back, or to follow the raid leader, and only half of the raid does it, while the other half slacks around or is just slow to do it. In just a few moments, the enemy raid will collapse on that position, and now they don't have to fight 40 ppl, but only 20. Easy win for them, while you now cannot fight them with such low numbers.
- Similarly, imagine you are fighting as a group of 20 people that are highly organized, against a group of 40 unorganized people.
You can pull the enemies around, baiting them to chase you, then turn on them while they're disorganized, you can manipulate where and when you want to fight, and how many of them you want to fight, and it's only easier if they're overconfident due to their superior numbers.
Strategy and teamwork should absolutely play a key part.
iccer
1
Re: The Impact of Strategy and Coordination in Group vs. Group Combat
Hopefully that turns out to work, otherwise it will be an AoE fight, smashing ranged and AoE effects all over again and again.
But, this will be the huge, and I mean huge, part of the balancing continuously to be done. Balancing is never a point of time, but a cycle. There will be classes (class-combinations) that are overpowered solo, or overpowered in small groups or overpowered in large scale fights. That's the job of intrepid to work continuously on that, because there will always be somebody (some class) on the throne. After ~20 years of MMO experience I cannot remember one single game and point of time, where a perfect or optimal balance was reached. And that's okay, because it's too complex (and players find out every single meta build ;-) to handle it at every single moment.
But, this will be the huge, and I mean huge, part of the balancing continuously to be done. Balancing is never a point of time, but a cycle. There will be classes (class-combinations) that are overpowered solo, or overpowered in small groups or overpowered in large scale fights. That's the job of intrepid to work continuously on that, because there will always be somebody (some class) on the throne. After ~20 years of MMO experience I cannot remember one single game and point of time, where a perfect or optimal balance was reached. And that's okay, because it's too complex (and players find out every single meta build ;-) to handle it at every single moment.
Chaliux
1
Re: The Impact of Strategy and Coordination in Group vs. Group Combat
Yes, I hope party synergies will allow well-coordinated groups to defeat larger groups of enemies.
Ludullu
1