I don't think we are trying to argue that the current game design is that open world dungeons DO flag you, we are saying we think Intrepid should consider it because it has potential to give incentive for pvpers to participate in dungeon type content. Without auto flagging, even taking the pvpers are bodyguards to keep others from taking the boss kill is pointless because the other group just won't fight back and then your bodyguards are corrupted and are no longer useful due to stat reduction.
That's what you are arguing. That's not what Gothix stated. I understand that there are people that want auto-flagging for the potential incentive for more PvP. There are also people who think there is already too much potential for unwanted PvP.
I don't think players in Ashes will be able to "take the boss kill". Everyone who participates will get credit for their participation - the same as our xp goes to nearby nodes. Nodes track everything we do, so participating in the dungeon means that everyone gets credit for what they do. You can choose to prevent people from participating in ridding the dungeon of the boss if you want to, but you risk gaining Corruption if they don't flag, so... probably better to cooperate than compete.
That's what you are arguing. That's not what Gothix stated.
I have, in several of my previous posts (in different threads too).
We will have instanced dungeons for pure PvE experience. Open dungeons should balance that by allowing some PvP experience (without corruption) so people that love PvP can enjoy as well.
To the point. Don't be too greedy, leave some toys for other kids to play as well.
A nice discussion, but is this all theoretical based on what
we would like to see or what we think would work best, or be the most fun? Can
anyone actually provide any actual examples from the games they have played? I
know there must be some.
We know that the devs have been looking at current MMOs and deciding what is
working and what is not, and working out what they want for Ashes. I am just
wondering what games they might be drawing on for open world dungeons. All
three of the dungeons in the Alpha Zero will be open so they obviously want to
test how it goes, but are they drawing on experience or just from theory?
I have been doing some research but can’t really find much
other than Darkness Falls from 15 years ago.
The open world already allows some PvP experience - with the risk of Corruption. Some dungeons will come with a mix of areas within, so it's not impossible there could be pockets of a dungeon that allow for auto-flagging... But, it's not going to be the common design for fighting in dungeons nor the common experience for fighting dungeon bosses.
I'm sure the devs are drawing from both experience and theory. Always great if we can find which games they're hoping to model for Ashes features. But, this is really more an issue of the devs' philosophy regarding PvP combat in the open world (including dungeons) than modeling dungeons in other games.
Do the devs want us auto-flagging in free-for-all dungeons or do they want Corruption to still be in play? I'm asserting that if the devs wanted auto-flagging to be the common experience in dungeons, they would have included dungeons when describing PvP for caravans, sieges, arenas and battlegrounds.
Battlegrounds aren't instances. Steven clarified that when he talks about battlegrounds, he is talking about open world areas where the pvp flagging system is shut off like sieges, castles, caravans, and other high value areas in the world. He has talked here and there about people being able to fight over bosses. To me, it sounds like all the higher end drops will be in battlegrounds to allow people to fight over them.
Battlegrounds aren't instances. Steven clarified that when he talks about battlegrounds, he is talking about open world areas where the pvp flagging system is shut off like sieges, castles, caravans, and other high value areas in the world. He has talked here and there about people being able to fight over bosses. To me, it sounds like all the higher end drops will be in battlegrounds to allow people to fight over them.
Like how he uses "Battlegrounds" as a general term for zones in the open world that ignore the flagging system i think "Hunting grounds" is a general term he uses to describe mob spawns. Though i'd image that in this case he is only talking about high value mob spawns like bosses and/or areas with elite mobs.
STEVEN: A quick clarification with regards to our terminology when using the term battleground is, because we're instituting a flagging system that allows PvP to erupt anywhere, I consider battlegrounds to be kind of interchangeable with a zone that exists within the open world that does not include our flagging mechanics but instead flags everyone for battle - so it's a battle ground...it's open PvP. And that includes the caravan system, it includes castle sieges and node sieges and objective-based guild wars and things like that. But, in addition to that, we have arena systems.
Let's see if we can find a quote where the devs include dungeons and dungeon bosses as part of free-for-all, contested PvP - as general/common gameplay. I'm not sure that hunting grounds are different from battlegrounds. But, that's a great question to confirm, sure.
Battlegrounds aren't instances. Steven clarified that when he talks about battlegrounds, he is talking about open world areas where the pvp flagging system is shut off like sieges, castles, caravans, and other high value areas in the world. He has talked here and there about people being able to fight over bosses. To me, it sounds like all the higher end drops will be in battlegrounds to allow people to fight over them.
Ah, I knew that I wasn't just assuming. Though I did assume that the "static areas" would be zones that would have auto-flagging and be the PvP hotspots.
I can only hope we will have a huge zone in which to roam with our warbands.
"He has talked here and there about people being able to fight over bosses."
Yes, world bosses. The kind that is likely to spawn outside a dungeon, rampaging or something. Much like FF14's Behemoth and Odin. People would fight over boss credit, too, not necessarily literally (unless they don't mind corruption). Though I guess people being attacked would often retaliate in this kind of scenario, to not let the other party win the boss credit.
Only games I have played with open world dungeons were faction based so the problem of AoE damaging your own side wasn't a problem. Not sure how they deal with that in a factionless game - but it's the same with pvp, can you get flagged if someone else runs through your AoE?
It was a bit cheesy to have the dungeon itself open but the final boss be instanced. So what happened is our side piled up just before the instance line and just waited for the opposition to spend time killing trash, only to be killed by us prior to having a chance at the boss.
I lasted about 10 minutes before I wanted to actually finish the dungeon and do the boss. So my group did, but others stayed there and denied the boss for more than three hours.
I actually found it boring, others found it fun, but I bet the other side that wanted to do the dungeon, spent 20 minutes working their way to the end only to be killed and denied would not have enjoyed the experience.
I look forward to some chaos. I am all for danger in the world and having to think on my feet. My only worry is that some people, a lot actually, don't actually thrive on chaos, they don't like it, in fact they hate it and actively avoid it.
I hope this all balances well because if the concept or implementation turn off a large enough part of the PvE crowd then the community suffers.
I think the Alpha Zero is under NDA, but I am really looking forward to some feedback on the Open Access Dungeons they have implemented.
Darkness Falls from DAoC is always hailed as the way to do this brilliantly. That, though, was a faction based game. Maybe instead of Faction Locking they could have Alliance Locking. I think Guild Locking would be too restrictive.
That to me is an interesting concept - but once again, it becomes restrictive as there will be many people not in an alliance that will ever do this so does this mean they can simply never experience this content? Maybe so, but is this a bad thing? It might spur some almighty battles and long-term rivalries - the life-blood of a PvX game.
I hope the Ashes devs can significantly change the concept of dungeons away from simply clearing the dungeon and killing the boss.
The people who spent 20 minutes working their way to the lair of the boss should still have accrued credit for their participation in defeating the threats within the dungeon. What are the ramifications on the rest of the ZOI for purging diseases and revealing hidden paths and destroying Corrupted altars? Just because they failed to defeat the final boss, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be compensated for decimating the boss' minions.
In an Ashes dungeon, would two groups even end up at the same the same entrance to an instance? Perhaps the second group is pursuing a different objective? Or perhaps they use their set of utility skills to gain access to a section of the dungeon the first group can never reach. Perhaps the first group triggers a cave in that blocks off the path to their instanced both while the second group is funneled to their own instance.
In a world that is dynamic rather than static, we should be able to move beyond people camping the entrance to the boss lair. And we should also be able to move beyond defeating the boss being the only objective/motivation for adventuring in the dungeon.
Hopefully, chaos doesn't have to be all about players attacking other players. Experiencing content in a dungeon should be dynamic rather than static - it should commonly be the case that once a dungeon is cleared, other players can't experience the exact same content.
Do dungeons always have to be about killing a boss? Maybe after the dungeon is cleared the first time, the next quest that takes place in that dungeon involves building altars and establishing a temple. Perhaps different sects will be competing to defend their altars in order to have their temple be the one that is completed. Perhaps an established temple triggers a completely different dungeon population with a boss in a different area within the dungeon. And, perhaps, the specific mobs and the specific layout is determined by the race as well as the religion that establishes the temple.
That might be too ambitious for Ashes - especially for launch. But, that is the potential of how the design concepts for nodes might eventually be used to ensure that dungeons are no longer static. And that's why I backed the game. So, that even if Ashes is vaporware, the devs have the opportunity to perfect the implementation of these concepts and eventually we can have dynamic encounters in MMORPGs, rather than repeatable, static encounters.
@Dygz I think everyone loves some dynamism, the problem I have with the proposed dungeon design here is that it means that only the first group through will ever experience that content, so a lot of work to go to for 8 people.
Then you have tens of thousands who will not get to experience it and I think that is just too huge a waste of resources, and also pretty unfair. I'm no "everyone get's a trophy guy" but let's be realistic - this is a game in which we all want to experience the world and that means dungeons too.
So there has to be some level of static content and replayability. I fully expect there to be incidents and occurrences that may be one time only, or very short duration, and I love that idea, but I don't think they should be dungeons.
To riff slightly on you post though, if there was a cycling reset then that would be really cool. The instance has 3 or 4 (arbitrary number) stages and cycles through these depending on player interaction.
So the movement between a stage may take one week or one month or 3 months. But over time everyone will have a chance to experience each stage if they are diligent and attentive.
I can see that adding in a nice balanced level of dynamism and allowing everyone to enjoy all the content. Let's have our cake and eat it too!
I think you both, @Dygz & @Bajjer, make good points. I was hoping that the dungeon content in nodes would cycle with the nodes level, dominant race, dominant religion, and type of node. Potentially allowing a single dungeon to have multiple iterations. Then, if the node was reset to 1, 2, or 3, the base content of the dungeon would restart and potentially change as the node levels to 4-5.
This would mean some dungeon content in constantly non-developed nodes would be static. For more desirable nodes the dungeon content could be ever changing.
I do not necessarily agree that everyone should have the opportunity to experience the exact same dungeon. Having the opportunity to clear the dungeon, not specific content, I think matters more. However, if the dungeons did cycle and the opportunity existed I would not be an elitist about clearing content.
I think everyone loves some dynamism, the problem I have with the proposed dungeon design here is that it means that only the first group through will ever experience that content, so a lot of work to go to for 8 people. Then you have tens of thousands who will not get to experience it and I think that is just too huge a waste of resources, and also pretty unfair. I'm no "everyone get's a trophy guy" but let's be realistic - this is a game in which we all want to experience the world and that means dungeons too.
So there has to be some level of static content and replayability. I fully expect there to be incidents and occurrences that may be one time only, or very short duration, and I love that idea, but I don't think they should be dungeons.
To riff slightly on you post though, if there was a cycling reset then that would be really cool. The instance has 3 or 4 (arbitrary number) stages and cycles through these depending on player interaction.
So the movement between a stage may take one week or one month or 3 months. But over time everyone will have a chance to experience each stage if they are diligent and attentive.
I can see that adding in a nice balanced level of dynamism and allowing everyone to enjoy all the content. Let's have our cake and eat it too!
Already there will be tens of thousands who don't get to experience some Ashes content because Ashes is a dynamic world, rather than a static world. That is an inherent repercussion. It's not a waste of resources when the dynamism is created by procedural generation. We all want to experience the world - we don't all want to experience static, repeatable content.
If the devs want massive numbers of people to have an opportunity to kill a boss that ends a month-long narrative that everyone participated in, then yeah, there should be an instanced dungeon that allows everyone an opportunity to fight that boss, so that it's not just the one group who happens to be online at the right time of day on the right day of the week to defeat the boss for the entire server. The event for defeating that boss should last for at least a week - so everyone has the opportunity to fight the boss during the time they normally play. But, that means that players should not be able to camp the location of that boss in order to prevent other players from having that opportunity - without risking Corruption.
Once a group kills Saru's Hunger, they should not be able to return through the dungeon and camp the lair of Saru's Hunger in order to prevent a different group from killing Saru's Hunger. Players should not be able to kill Saru's Hunger multiple times. Either Saru's Hunger remains dead for the entire server the first time it's killed because it's not a significant boss in the world narrative or it's instanced in a way that once each group completes the event, the members of that group can't repeat it.
There wouldn't be a cycling "reset", just like there isn't a cycling reset with the rest of the game. It would all based on the procedural generation caused by nodes (and however that is also updated by the devs). The content of the dungeon would be dependent upon the tasks, quests and events the nodes generate. Which all change based on player interaction with the nodes (along with some updates from the devs).
Dungeon content is already tied to nodes, so should be moving through stages in some fashion anyway - as the nodes in the area generate new tasks, quests, events and dungeons. It's already the case that dungeons don't last forever. The appear and disappear (and possibly relocate) based on how players are interacting with the nodes. Really the only thing that I've suggested that may be farther than the devs have already planned is that the meaningful objectives of the dungeon don't always culminate with killing a boss.
This would mean some dungeon content in constantly non-developed nodes would be static.
Dungeons in non-developed areas would not necessarily be static because developed nodes can change the available content of ZOIs far away. The tasks, quests and events provided for players can send those players far across the map to complete. The repercussions of our interactions leveling a node aren't always only local. Building a town at Node B could cause a dungeon to appear and/or change the content within dungeons all the way over in ZOI W. Even though Node W remains at Stage 0.
Half the fun of open world dungeons is running into a stranger and having that tense couple of seconds where you both decide to fight or mind your own business. Ultima Online had this and it makes the game so much more fun.
I didn't play UO for long. But I couldn't tell NPC AI bandits from human players. There wasn't something over their head or a distinctive feature.
It seems pvp in UO was renowned as cheap, though. Paralyze, Ebolt, Ebolt, dead (and unable to do anything at all once paralyzed). So I never saw fit to even try. At least it wasn't that weird 5 minutes duration paralyze seen in Sword Art Online. Amazingly long for a true-PK game. I'd think even 5-10 seconds much of an advantage. 5 minutes you can take a nap before you kill.
Comments
I understand that there are people that want auto-flagging for the potential incentive for more PvP.
There are also people who think there is already too much potential for unwanted PvP.
I don't think players in Ashes will be able to "take the boss kill".
Everyone who participates will get credit for their participation - the same as our xp goes to nearby nodes.
Nodes track everything we do, so participating in the dungeon means that everyone gets credit for what they do.
You can choose to prevent people from participating in ridding the dungeon of the boss if you want to, but you risk gaining Corruption if they don't flag, so...
probably better to cooperate than compete.
I have, in several of my previous posts (in different threads too).
We will have instanced dungeons for pure PvE experience. Open dungeons should balance that by allowing some PvP experience (without corruption) so people that love PvP can enjoy as well.
To the point. Don't be too greedy, leave some toys for other kids to play as well.
A nice discussion, but is this all theoretical based on what we would like to see or what we think would work best, or be the most fun? Can anyone actually provide any actual examples from the games they have played? I know there must be some.
We know that the devs have been looking at current MMOs and deciding what is working and what is not, and working out what they want for Ashes. I am just wondering what games they might be drawing on for open world dungeons. All three of the dungeons in the Alpha Zero will be open so they obviously want to test how it goes, but are they drawing on experience or just from theory?
I have been doing some research but can’t really find much other than Darkness Falls from 15 years ago.
Some dungeons will come with a mix of areas within, so it's not impossible there could be pockets of a dungeon that allow for auto-flagging...
But, it's not going to be the common design for fighting in dungeons nor the common experience for fighting dungeon bosses.
I'm sure the devs are drawing from both experience and theory.
Always great if we can find which games they're hoping to model for Ashes features.
But, this is really more an issue of the devs' philosophy regarding PvP combat in the open world (including dungeons) than modeling dungeons in other games.
Do the devs want us auto-flagging in free-for-all dungeons or do they want Corruption to still be in play?
I'm asserting that if the devs wanted auto-flagging to be the common experience in dungeons, they would have included dungeons when describing PvP for caravans, sieges, arenas and battlegrounds.
I hope that is so, at least.
STEVEN: A quick clarification with regards to our terminology when using the term battleground is, because we're instituting a flagging system that allows PvP to erupt anywhere, I consider battlegrounds to be kind of interchangeable with a zone that exists within the open world that does not include our flagging mechanics but instead flags everyone for battle - so it's a battle ground...it's open PvP.
And that includes the caravan system, it includes castle sieges and node sieges and objective-based guild wars and things like that. But, in addition to that, we have arena systems.
Let's see if we can find a quote where the devs include dungeons and dungeon bosses as part of free-for-all, contested PvP - as general/common gameplay.
I'm not sure that hunting grounds are different from battlegrounds.
But, that's a great question to confirm, sure.
I can only hope we will have a huge zone in which to roam with our warbands.
Yes, world bosses. The kind that is likely to spawn outside a dungeon, rampaging or something. Much like FF14's Behemoth and Odin. People would fight over boss credit, too, not necessarily literally (unless they don't mind corruption). Though I guess people being attacked would often retaliate in this kind of scenario, to not let the other party win the boss credit.
The people who spent 20 minutes working their way to the lair of the boss should still have accrued credit for their participation in defeating the threats within the dungeon.
What are the ramifications on the rest of the ZOI for purging diseases and revealing hidden paths and destroying Corrupted altars?
Just because they failed to defeat the final boss, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be compensated for decimating the boss' minions.
In an Ashes dungeon, would two groups even end up at the same the same entrance to an instance? Perhaps the second group is pursuing a different objective? Or perhaps they use their set of utility skills to gain access to a section of the dungeon the first group can never reach.
Perhaps the first group triggers a cave in that blocks off the path to their instanced both while the second group is funneled to their own instance.
In a world that is dynamic rather than static, we should be able to move beyond people camping the entrance to the boss lair. And we should also be able to move beyond defeating the boss being the only objective/motivation for adventuring in the dungeon.
Hopefully, chaos doesn't have to be all about players attacking other players.
Experiencing content in a dungeon should be dynamic rather than static - it should commonly be the case that once a dungeon is cleared, other players can't experience the exact same content.
Do dungeons always have to be about killing a boss?
Maybe after the dungeon is cleared the first time, the next quest that takes place in that dungeon involves building altars and establishing a temple.
Perhaps different sects will be competing to defend their altars in order to have their temple be the one that is completed.
Perhaps an established temple triggers a completely different dungeon population with a boss in a different area within the dungeon. And, perhaps, the specific mobs and the specific layout is determined by the race as well as the religion that establishes the temple.
That might be too ambitious for Ashes - especially for launch.
But, that is the potential of how the design concepts for nodes might eventually be used to ensure that dungeons are no longer static.
And that's why I backed the game.
So, that even if Ashes is vaporware, the devs have the opportunity to perfect the implementation of these concepts and eventually we can have dynamic encounters in MMORPGs, rather than repeatable, static encounters.
Then you have tens of thousands who will not get to experience it and I think that is just too huge a waste of resources, and also pretty unfair. I'm no "everyone get's a trophy guy" but let's be realistic - this is a game in which we all want to experience the world and that means dungeons too.
So there has to be some level of static content and replayability. I fully expect there to be incidents and occurrences that may be one time only, or very short duration, and I love that idea, but I don't think they should be dungeons.
To riff slightly on you post though, if there was a cycling reset then that would be really cool. The instance has 3 or 4 (arbitrary number) stages and cycles through these depending on player interaction.
So the movement between a stage may take one week or one month or 3 months. But over time everyone will have a chance to experience each stage if they are diligent and attentive.
I can see that adding in a nice balanced level of dynamism and allowing everyone to enjoy all the content. Let's have our cake and eat it too!
This would mean some dungeon content in constantly non-developed nodes would be static. For more desirable nodes the dungeon content could be ever changing.
I do not necessarily agree that everyone should have the opportunity to experience the exact same dungeon. Having the opportunity to clear the dungeon, not specific content, I think matters more. However, if the dungeons did cycle and the opportunity existed I would not be an elitist about clearing content.
It's not a waste of resources when the dynamism is created by procedural generation.
We all want to experience the world - we don't all want to experience static, repeatable content.
If the devs want massive numbers of people to have an opportunity to kill a boss that ends a month-long narrative that everyone participated in, then yeah, there should be an instanced dungeon that allows everyone an opportunity to fight that boss, so that it's not just the one group who happens to be online at the right time of day on the right day of the week to defeat the boss for the entire server.
The event for defeating that boss should last for at least a week - so everyone has the opportunity to fight the boss during the time they normally play.
But, that means that players should not be able to camp the location of that boss in order to prevent other players from having that opportunity - without risking Corruption.
Once a group kills Saru's Hunger, they should not be able to return through the dungeon and camp the lair of Saru's Hunger in order to prevent a different group from killing Saru's Hunger.
Players should not be able to kill Saru's Hunger multiple times.
Either Saru's Hunger remains dead for the entire server the first time it's killed because it's not a significant boss in the world narrative or it's instanced in a way that once each group completes the event, the members of that group can't repeat it.
There wouldn't be a cycling "reset", just like there isn't a cycling reset with the rest of the game. It would all based on the procedural generation caused by nodes (and however that is also updated by the devs).
The content of the dungeon would be dependent upon the tasks, quests and events the nodes generate. Which all change based on player interaction with the nodes (along with some updates from the devs).
Dungeon content is already tied to nodes, so should be moving through stages in some fashion anyway - as the nodes in the area generate new tasks, quests, events and dungeons. It's already the case that dungeons don't last forever. The appear and disappear (and possibly relocate) based on how players are interacting with the nodes.
Really the only thing that I've suggested that may be farther than the devs have already planned is that the meaningful objectives of the dungeon don't always culminate with killing a boss.
The tasks, quests and events provided for players can send those players far across the map to complete.
The repercussions of our interactions leveling a node aren't always only local.
Building a town at Node B could cause a dungeon to appear and/or change the content within dungeons all the way over in ZOI W.
Even though Node W remains at Stage 0.
It seems pvp in UO was renowned as cheap, though. Paralyze, Ebolt, Ebolt, dead (and unable to do anything at all once paralyzed). So I never saw fit to even try. At least it wasn't that weird 5 minutes duration paralyze seen in Sword Art Online. Amazingly long for a true-PK game. I'd think even 5-10 seconds much of an advantage. 5 minutes you can take a nap before you kill.