Raiding in AoC 40 mans easy or difficult?

ArchivedUser

I know that the devs have stated that they are bring back 40 man raids with AoC. When heard about this I had very mixed feelings. On one hand, I love the idea because it allows you to meet so many people that all have one goal. To kill the big bad guy in front of us. This brings up the concern of making a boss to easy and face roll. On the other hand, I am afraid that with a 40 man raid, having complicated boss mechanics will be almost impossible to do unless the room is the size of a town. I was just wondering if anyone has heard about how raiding is going to work. Will raiding be focused more on simple mechanics like not standing in fire and tank switching. Or will it be like WoW is today with multiple phases and at least 1 one shot mechanic per phase. I say this because I mostly raid. I have raided in WoW for many years and it is the funniest thing for me to do in a mmo. Thank you for all your discussions and feedback

ArchivedUser

40 person raids will most likely be open world, so plenty of room to run around. Since the combat is meant to be all about meaningful positioning and multi-person combo procs  with spell collision being a factor, you are most likely not going to see "Tanks swap when low, everyone else stack right behind the boss and spam your aoe!!" Player and spell collision will take positioning and planning to down the world bosses mean something in even 40 man groups. So adjust your feelings towards the difficult side.

ArchivedUser

Wont know till we see it tested. Anything more us just opinions. 

ArchivedUser

UnknownSystemError said:

40 person raids will most likely be open world, so plenty of room to run around. Since the combat is meant to be all about meaningful positioning and multi-person combo procs  with spell collision being a factor, you are most likely not going to see "Tanks swap when low, everyone else stack right behind the boss and spam your aoe!!" Player and spell collision will take positioning and planning to down the world bosses mean something in even 40 man groups. So adjust your feelings towards the difficult side.

I'm going to guess that the 40 person raids vs. NPC's will not be open world, but instanced.. only because its very difficult to plan and tweak these and make them meaningful without controlling for the amount of players who can engage with it.

ArchivedUser

You will see examples of partial instancing where they want to gate the number of players to balance vs content. We know that the 5 pvp castles will be populated by lore specific npcs while unclaimed, and since they give metropolis level benefits are not going to be something that you just faceroll as the first group to take it. Testing of course will address many of those issues, but they have stated that certain "phases" of castles sieges will be instanced.

ArchivedUser

I think that'd mostly be up to the mechanics. A 40 man can be a snoozefest if it is just a tank and spank. A 40 man with a rage timer and challenging mechanics can be really hard to beat. A 40 man with challenging mechanics but no rage timer could be beaten with a corpse run spam. I'm hoping good mechanics and no rage timer because rage timer is a lazy mechanic.

ArchivedUser

Loyheta said:

I think that'd mostly be up to the mechanics. A 40 man can be a snoozefest if it is just a tank and spank. A 40 man with a rage timer and challenging mechanics can be really hard to beat. A 40 man with challenging mechanics but no rage timer could be beaten with a corpse run spam. I'm hoping good mechanics and no rage timer because rage timer is a lazy mechanic.

Corpse run might not be as easy here because we have a decent death penalty. You will be gaining negative exp which makes you weaker. There is also the durability lose. If our gear ever hits 0 dura, it breaks and needs a crafter+materials to fix it. I believe it was mentioned early on that dura lose might be tied to how much damage you are overkilled by. If this is the case, dying to a boss means your dura would probably get chunked down so you probably have many attempts.

ArchivedUser

UnknownSystemError said:

40 person raids will most likely be open world, so plenty of room to run around. Since the combat is meant to be all about meaningful positioning and multi-person combo procs  with spell collision being a factor, you are most likely not going to see "Tanks swap when low, everyone else stack right behind the boss and spam your aoe!!" Player and spell collision will take positioning and planning to down the world bosses mean something in even 40 man groups. So adjust your feelings towards the difficult side.

Coule be open world sea raids too  https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/256164085366915072/455387725416103957/d1509cf04590a7b2e64805a3f4e9b288.png

ArchivedUser

ArisingSun said:

UnknownSystemError said:

40 person raids will most likely be open world, so plenty of room to run around. Since the combat is meant to be all about meaningful positioning and multi-person combo procs  with spell collision being a factor, you are most likely not going to see "Tanks swap when low, everyone else stack right behind the boss and spam your aoe!!" Player and spell collision will take positioning and planning to down the world bosses mean something in even 40 man groups. So adjust your feelings towards the difficult side.

Coule be open world sea raids too  

If you go to attach image and put the link you can have the pic in the post.

Also, there will be naval raids as the large boats will be for raid sized groups. 

ArchivedUser

Imo the best solution is to implement lots of different kind of variations. Way that there will be lots of different difficulties and mechanics in place. I hope there will be something to everybody even i personally enjoy to have some challenge.

ArchivedUser

@McStackerson
The normal death penalty includes xp debt; not negative xp.
We don't get stat reduction from the normal death penalty; rather we get stat reduction from Corruption.
There is durability loss to gear.

During castle sieges, it's possible to add time to respawn rate of your opponent(s).
So, the efficacy of corpse runs will be impacted by winning or losing the intermediate objectives.

ArchivedUser

@Dygz

http://www.aocwiki.net/The_Dungeon_Crawler_Network_Q&A_2017-05-03#.5B43:05.5D_Karma.2C_flagging.2C_theft.2C_death.2C_bounty_hunters:

It's been called a few things, negative exp, exp dept. It's all the same to me. It does weaken your character.

ArchivedUser

Hard for plebs, easy for vets. I mean people still complain that organizing 40 people is hard while i am sitting here, thinking what unicorn did they ride?

ArchivedUser

I loved 40 man raids in the WoW days, but I agree with that many people it needs to be done right. I will truly be in love if I have to sit in trade chat and recruit people.. that was the best part about raids when you couldnt match make for them and wernt guilded up 

ArchivedUser

We used to run 2 raids groups made out of 6 guilds XD idk how people have issues with organizing stuff. Organizing your group or raid is part of the job.

ArchivedUser

Don't forget, there will also be Monster Tokens!

They showed them off with the kickstarter campaign, or shortly after.  It allows the player who uses it to essentially become an enemy... depending on the Monster Token, possibly up to a 40-man raid boss.  I can't remember, but pretty sure they'll only be usable with certain events related to a node leveling up, so they won't be used on regular big bosses.

But a player controlled raid boss?  Sounds crazy difficult, if you ask me.

ArchivedUser

McStackerson said:

@Dygz

http://www.aocwiki.net/The_Dungeon_Crawler_Network_Q&A_2017-05-03#.5B43:05.5D_Karma.2C_flagging.2C_theft.2C_death.2C_bounty_hunters:

It's been called a few things, negative exp, exp dept. It's all the same to me. It does weaken your character.

It's not the same thing.
XP debt does not weaken your character, it just takes more time to gain XP.
Negative XP can result in de-leveling your character. XP debt cannot delevel or weaken your character.
Ashes has XP debt; not negative XP.

ArchivedUser

Dygz said:

McStackerson said:

@Dygz

http://www.aocwiki.net/The_Dungeon_Crawler_Network_Q&A_2017-05-03#.5B43:05.5D_Karma.2C_flagging.2C_theft.2C_death.2C_bounty_hunters:

It's been called a few things, negative exp, exp dept. It's all the same to me. It does weaken your character.

It's not the same thing.
XP debt does not weaken your character, it just takes more time to gain XP.
Negative XP can result in de-leveling your character. XP debt cannot delevel or weaken your character.
Ashes has XP debt; not negative XP.

When you die, you gain something called negative exp and/or exp debt. It does not de-level your character but it does weaken your character.

ArchivedUser

McStackerson said:

Dygz said:

McStackerson said:

@Dygz

http://www.aocwiki.net/The_Dungeon_Crawler_Network_Q&A_2017-05-03#.5B43:05.5D_Karma.2C_flagging.2C_theft.2C_death.2C_bounty_hunters:

It's been called a few things, negative exp, exp dept. It's all the same to me. It does weaken your character.

It's not the same thing.
XP debt does not weaken your character, it just takes more time to gain XP.
Negative XP can result in de-leveling your character. XP debt cannot delevel or weaken your character.
Ashes has XP debt; not negative XP.

When you die, you gain something called negative exp and/or exp debt. It does not de-level your character but it does weaken your character.

Well, not entirely right, negative exp removes your exp.. so you go from 35/100 exp to 30/100 exp for example. On the other hand, exp debt is different... you'd go fro 35/100 to 35/100 with -5 exp.

Now if you lost 30 more xp you'd lose a level with negative xp (like ffxi has) and you'd be at 99/100 of the previous level. If you lost 30 more exp as the second example you'd go to 35/100 with -35 exp... you'd still be the same level but you'd need to gain 35 exp just to get to the point in which you gain exp.

Negative exp and exp debt are different things. It still takes the same amount of exp to get you back to where you were before... however only with exp debt do you remain the same level.

ArchivedUser

Loyheta said:

Well, not entirely right, negative exp removes your exp.. so you go from 35/100 exp to 30/100 exp for example. On the other hand, exp debt is different... you'd go fro 35/100 to 35/100 with -5 exp.

Now if you lost 30 more xp you'd lose a level with negative xp (like ffxi has) and you'd be at 99/100 of the previous level. If you lost 30 more exp as the second example you'd go to 35/100 with -35 exp... you'd still be the same level but you'd need to gain 35 exp just to get to the point in which you gain exp.

Negative exp and exp debt are different things. It still takes the same amount of exp to get you back to where you were before... however only with exp debt do you remain the same level.

This is semantics. In the past, they used the term negative exp which is something separate then exp. You did not get -1 exp you got 1 negative exp, negative exp being separate then exp. They now call it exp debt probably to help avoid this confusion.

Please watch this: https://youtu.be/eCvcB4S-tZM?t=43m40s

ArchivedUser

McStackerson said:

Loyheta said:

Well, not entirely right, negative exp removes your exp.. so you go from 35/100 exp to 30/100 exp for example. On the other hand, exp debt is different... you'd go fro 35/100 to 35/100 with -5 exp.

Now if you lost 30 more xp you'd lose a level with negative xp (like ffxi has) and you'd be at 99/100 of the previous level. If you lost 30 more exp as the second example you'd go to 35/100 with -35 exp... you'd still be the same level but you'd need to gain 35 exp just to get to the point in which you gain exp.

Negative exp and exp debt are different things. It still takes the same amount of exp to get you back to where you were before... however only with exp debt do you remain the same level.

This is semantics. In the past, they used the term negative exp which is something separate then exp. You did not get -1 exp you got 1 negative exp, negative exp being separate then exp. They now call it exp debt probably to help avoid this confusion.

Please watch this: https://youtu.be/eCvcB4S-tZM?t=43m40s

Next you'll be telling me that being in debt is the same as having a bill. I also like how you completely ignore my ffxi statement which used negative xp and would cause you to delevel and how that is completely different than an exp buffer.

ArchivedUser

Loyheta said:

McStackerson said:

Loyheta said:

Well, not entirely right, negative exp removes your exp.. so you go from 35/100 exp to 30/100 exp for example. On the other hand, exp debt is different... you'd go fro 35/100 to 35/100 with -5 exp.

Now if you lost 30 more xp you'd lose a level with negative xp (like ffxi has) and you'd be at 99/100 of the previous level. If you lost 30 more exp as the second example you'd go to 35/100 with -35 exp... you'd still be the same level but you'd need to gain 35 exp just to get to the point in which you gain exp.

Negative exp and exp debt are different things. It still takes the same amount of exp to get you back to where you were before... however only with exp debt do you remain the same level.

This is semantics. In the past, they used the term negative exp which is something separate then exp. You did not get -1 exp you got 1 negative exp, negative exp being separate then exp. They now call it exp debt probably to help avoid this confusion.

Please watch this: https://youtu.be/eCvcB4S-tZM?t=43m40s

Next you'll be telling me that being in debt is the same as having a bill. I also like how you completely ignore my ffxi statement which used negative xp and would cause you to delevel and how that is completely different than an exp buffer.

I didn't ignore anything you said. I'm pointing out the exp debt has been called negative exp before and how it can be rationalized as such. You are the one asserting that FFXI interpretation of negative exp is the only way to see it which i disagree with. 

I like how you ignored my links where he calls it both negative exp and exp debt.

ArchivedUser

It is not semantics.
With negative xp, you can lose levels and lose stats.
With xp debt, you do not lose levels or stats, it just takes you longer to reach the next level.
Negative XP can make your character weaker at respawn. XP debt does not make your character weaker at respawn.

ArchivedUser

https://youtu.be/HEXWRTEbj1I

ArchivedUser

McStackerson said:

Loyheta said:

McStackerson said:

Loyheta said:

Well, not entirely right, negative exp removes your exp.. so you go from 35/100 exp to 30/100 exp for example. On the other hand, exp debt is different... you'd go fro 35/100 to 35/100 with -5 exp.

Now if you lost 30 more xp you'd lose a level with negative xp (like ffxi has) and you'd be at 99/100 of the previous level. If you lost 30 more exp as the second example you'd go to 35/100 with -35 exp... you'd still be the same level but you'd need to gain 35 exp just to get to the point in which you gain exp.

Negative exp and exp debt are different things. It still takes the same amount of exp to get you back to where you were before... however only with exp debt do you remain the same level.

This is semantics. In the past, they used the term negative exp which is something separate then exp. You did not get -1 exp you got 1 negative exp, negative exp being separate then exp. They now call it exp debt probably to help avoid this confusion.

Please watch this: https://youtu.be/eCvcB4S-tZM?t=43m40s

Next you'll be telling me that being in debt is the same as having a bill. I also like how you completely ignore my ffxi statement which used negative xp and would cause you to delevel and how that is completely different than an exp buffer.

I didn't ignore anything you said. I'm pointing out the exp debt has been called negative exp before and how it can be rationalized as such. You are the one asserting that FFXI interpretation of negative exp is the only way to see it which i disagree with. 

I like how you ignored my links where he calls it both negative exp and exp debt.

In most structured arguments you refute before you come back with your assertion. So you are linking an interview from over a year ago. One of, if not the, first interview. Since then they have cleaned up their nomenclature and refined their wording on their systems. For example in this interview from less than two months ago where he only refers to it as experience debt since it does not de-level you. I'm sure there was a lot of confusion because of the wording he used in your interview which caused this confusion.

ArchivedUser

Dygz said:

It is not semantics.
With negative xp, you can lose levels and lose stats.
With xp debt, you do not lose levels or stats, it just takes you longer to reach the next level.
Negative XP can make your character weaker at respawn. XP debt does not make your character weaker at respawn.

Please watch this: https://youtu.be/eCvcB4S-tZM?t=44m12s

This argument is really becoming silly. It's a word used to describe a variable in a game and i'm pretty sure the game's creators can call it whatever they want. They could call it experience bloopens if they wanted to.

In ashes the words negative exp and exp debt have been used for the same thing. If you want we can call it bad exp or maybe corrupted exp. Whatever you call it, you it gain when you die and it weakens your character. 

At this point, i'm not sure if i'm being trolled.

@Loyheta To me, your argument is games have used negative experience one way so that's how it always has to be. I disagreed with that and said experience and negative experience could be names for different things.

According to dygz they are going to have to change the word again.

ArchivedUser

Not really.
In the linked interview, Steven uses one term and then corrects himself.
But, you are the one arguing semantics rather than discussing the actual mechanics.
During a siege, the death penalties are minimal, so it's highly unlikely that gear will hit 0.
It's people with Corruption who really need to be concerned about that.

ArchivedUser

On this topic I believe McStackerson is correct, at least in the spirit of what he's trying to say.

Direct Quote from Stephen in the video (And I've heard him say it in other instances)

"Our flagging mechanic revolves around death penalties in general like what type of death penalties occur in the game.  And while you cannot de-level from dying, you can accrue negative experience and this experience debt reflects certain penalties that you'll experience from a combat effectiveness both in PvE and PvP stat degredation, lowered health and mana, less proficiency and gear equipment and being able to do things.  The more you accrue, the more difficult it will be to perform.  Which is why through death you need to recover that negative experience and you can do that by continuing to adventure or do quests...."

"If you die as a non combatant , you're going to experience a normal death penalty, if you die as a combatant (a person who is involved in PvP) you will experience less death penalties.  If you die as a corrupted player (somebody who has killed a non combatant) then you're going to experience 3 or 4x the penalties"

ArchivedUser

Eh I made my point. Words have different meanings (debt vs negative) and they are going with exp debt. Sure the debt may have a growing amount of debuffs that go along with the size of the debt... but it is still a debt and you still do not de-level. Your exp is not being subtracted as it would be in FFXI and EQ to the point in which you can de-level. 

How did we even get to this? Were we talking about corpse-running bosses or something? If that is the case I think it would be a mild hindrance that would end up costing them for being mindless/uncoordinated. If they don't do it right they end up dying and getting a debuff buffer. That would end up hurting them overall as the raid will get weaker and weaker. I think it is a fair system. Hopefully nobody is raiding in red. 

ArchivedUser

dracdoc said:

UnknownSystemError said:

40 person raids will most likely be open world, so plenty of room to run around. 

I'm going to guess that the 40 person raids vs. NPC's will not be open world, but instanced.. 

40 player raids can easily be both and i would not be suprised if there will be open world bosses which needs even two or three 40 man raid groups to kill.

If these 40 man raids will be instanced in dungeon like environment, then there needs to be lots of space to fight. Especially if player collision will be implemented.

ArchivedUser

There were so many reasons Blizzard dropped 40 man size. All of them made sense. I hope they reconsider this. Don't any of you remember those days? if they are going to move forward with this I hope raid timers are adjusted. 40 people waiting between pulls for the tanks timers to reset was a nightmare! AQ was fun at the beginning, not so much in the end. Will this game allow PUGS?