Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
High end PVP/PVE should be instanced.
When playing at the endgame, weather it is PVP or PVE you want a stable and controlled enviroment. The last thing you want as top guilds fighting each other is having the "Dwarven Bardhs drinking company" guild run in and troll everyone.
Also competitive "large" scale pvp in the form of 10 players (a very stable, realistic to organize number) can't compete while open world hazards and players get in the way. Serious pvp players want somewhere to compete in the 1v1,2v2,3v3,5v5 and 10v10 bracket where where all except 1v1 matter and where the game is balanced around 3v3 and 10v10 for pvp.
Large scale castle sieges and node battles are not skillbased,they are faceroll, PC spec based, and laggy. They are an Aoe lagfest. Dont define the game on this, it does not work.
Lastly, keep all the original open world aspects, just include instanced competitive pvp.
Also competitive "large" scale pvp in the form of 10 players (a very stable, realistic to organize number) can't compete while open world hazards and players get in the way. Serious pvp players want somewhere to compete in the 1v1,2v2,3v3,5v5 and 10v10 bracket where where all except 1v1 matter and where the game is balanced around 3v3 and 10v10 for pvp.
Large scale castle sieges and node battles are not skillbased,they are faceroll, PC spec based, and laggy. They are an Aoe lagfest. Dont define the game on this, it does not work.
Lastly, keep all the original open world aspects, just include instanced competitive pvp.
0
Comments
Complaining now may stop the developers from going down a stupid route. And again,keep all the open world stuff,just dont design the engame around it because it never works
Then there's the PvE content being in instances, that is awful. Populations just vanish because everyone is in these instances zones for themselves. Forget all the huge world that's created. And where's the challenge? Raid boss up in the wild you have to fight over it, that's what makes the game fun. Trying to create safe farming zones exempt from pvp would and does destroy all pvp aspects of the game. I'm ok with a solo instance for story purposes and even a raid instance here and there that has a unique boss fight that needs to be isolated. But everything else should be open world and contested.
The current plan for a grouping system is an in-world physical(ish) notice board where people post desired roles/dungeons/raids. If the system makes it to release, I wouldn’t be surprised if it carried over to PvP group-finding as well.
So while we have a few instances for certain content, it’s not like you just queue up in a Dungeon Finder and afk until your queue pops. That said, when asked directly in one Q+A session, Steven didn’t totally deny the possibility of some sort of matchmaking system being incorporated.
I’m sure that a part of that decision to have some instances was made on behalf of the competitive raiders who are out for records and first-time-clears. Intrepid is doing its best to make a place for everyone in Verra - meta raiders are no exception. Plus, closing that option off entirely would probably be a huge pain to work around.
tl;dr: The plan already includes a small minority of instanced dungeons/raids.
I told you it should be balanced around 3v3 and 10v10 since these are the most balanced and typical combat numbers. Why bring up 1v1?
And yes, you are right, in pve, "some" high end will be open world. But this content will not be the endgame. The truly hardest dungeon/boss in the game based on mechanics that will be regarded as competitive is bound to (and will be) instanced. This is because real life exists. Serious gamers and normal people with lives need to be able to schedule raids.
Ofc there will be some tank and spank world bosses and open world dungeons to make newbies feel good that give good gear and stuff but these will never be considered true endgame.
Lastly, 99% of the playerbase dont have time to gather a 29 man squad to transport a caravan for 10 min just to send some supplies, groups of 3-5 will be most common and we have 20+years of mmo to prove this.
Then again. I am not against open world content as it is. I am just explaining why forcing true endgame content to be open world is a terrible idea. Just imagine how much this would be exploitet.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Instancing
I get out of that there would be a majority of open world content with instanced pvp being more for arenas.
Especially since castle sieges will be ongoing, precisely because they aren't instanced.
I see no need for instanced max level PvX -except Arenas- since Node sieges will be plentiful even at max level.
Castle sieges and Node sieges are objective-based; not faceroll.
No way to tell, yet, how much skill will be required in direct, large scale PvP combat.
What I am trying to say is that when considering any single aspect of the game, make sure you understand its synergy with the other mechanics in the game, especially ones that you may not be familiar with or are new to you. I always have to remind myself about the lack of fast travel and other means of rapid congregation, about the weight limit, about the spawn mechanics after death.
When you are worried about non-instanced dungeons for example, keep in mind
- they will be big enough to accommodate multiple parties
- may have multiple bosses with non-linear progression between them
- about the fact that many dungeons and raids will only exist when certain world conditions are met which may cause them to cease existing
- due to the lack of fast travel nobody will be putting in the effort to run them unless in the immediate proximity (there will be closer dungeons elsewhere for others)
- the local population in general that has easy access to running a dungeon is much smaller than the server population
- because of adaptive & uncertain loot tables, people won't feel the need to hunt down certain dungeons or bosses
- guilds and alliances will have to take part in social interactions and negotiations to best exploit such resources
- reputation matters and being a di*k will haunt you in the future and have consequences
Overall, when our frame of reference is a game without all of these points, it may be easy to get worried about any single part of the game. For example, if you think about WoW with known loot tables, pre-known and always existing dungeons/raids, linear progression in many of them, ginormous server populations that all eventually need to follow the same progression path (dungeon A -> B -> C...) as they level and hit the end game (raid A -> B ...).This does not mean you should not ever be worried, but just something to think about. Also, I totally agree that feedback is important but it's not feedback if you have not yet been fed anything like actual content and systems to test and experience. Speculation is fine too, but again, try to keep these things in mind and I'm sure people will remind you of the relevant ones when warranted.
Real competitive players want arenas and true controlled enviroment. This is already verified to be in the final game. Arenas are the pinnacle of skill no matter what casuals think.
Large scale battles will forever be faceroll because no pc or player can tactically fight in a 20+ vs 20+ scenario. The best rotation is all AOE and no rotation. This holds true for every single pvp game in existemce with large scale battles in MMO history.
Meaningless victories and losses with no impact on the story that will be AoC.
Oh what, you need a perfectly controlled environment with strict rules and time and spacial limitaions to be good at PvP? Yeah, I was most competitive when I used training wheels in my dads driveway. True skill? Please....take all your WoW thoughts, and burn them.
I have been on siege fields with over 400 people and there is a great deal of tactical movements, timing, and providing they do cool downs of skills correctly, skill selection and timing. Also, no better experience in any game than that.
-CS
Let me amend his statement to "Arenas are the pinnacle of [individual/mechanical] skill ...".
Both Arenas and Sieges will be extremely competitive and require high skill, but not necessarily the same skill set. Valuing one over another or comparing them qualitatively doesn't really work... it's just a matter of opinion. And as we all know, arguing over opinions is super productive.
I'm going to be perfectly happy slaughtering my opposition in both environments, and I suggest that both of you, as well as the rest of Verra follow suit. Because the killing is what really matters.
Rolleplaying in rp topic is ok. Rolleplaying in design discussion is toxic, and only going to ruin the game.
The thing with arenas is that they allow greater skill ceiling. This is the very reason one on one fights in boxing are a lot more interesting than a moshpit. As a high level pvp player you want to compare yourself one on one/two on two etc vs the other best players in the world/server. Sure, large battles are fun, but we ALSO need an arena.
In a large fight you are limited by idiots ruining the fight, faceroll, aoe spam and lag. You cant be serious about "smashing" people in a 40v40, the only thing you will be smashing is low frame records.
Sieges will most likely be a zerg rush. One team will almost always outnumber the other or they would not have attacked in the first place. And these massive battles are more about coordination and meta class stacking (Just like real life). Your skill will have an impact in large battles but it will be very limited. having 3 noob magies spam aoe in the middle will be tons and tons more valuable than a skilled fighter lagging around on a healer
Historically, arenas and man on man/squad on squad combat have been used since the dawn of time to determinate winners of larger outcomes. They are not useless.
And fighting in the arena just because the hell of it is not meaningless. The most popular hobby in the world is just 11v11 players trying to kick a ball in a net, and sports are not meaningless. They inspire other, they give athletes (or in ashes case, adventurers) the possibility to test themselves in a balanced enviroment where outside world RNG hazards don't impact the outcome. It is the only way to really determinate if you are a better fighter than the other player.
And I am really sorry to drag you out from under the rock but even real life wars and battles are under strict regulations and controlled enviroment. There are dedicated locations where generals decide beforehand where to fight (to protect civilians and many other reasons). Also there are rules, you cant shot specific veichles or persons, the point is, even your fantasy COD wars are under a controlled enviroment.
"I was most competitive when I used training wheels in my dads driveway" This is stupid man, nobody holds your hand in an arena. But in the open world you may very well get help from someone or get RNG on your side. You can just stay in a safe zone inviting all your casual noob friends and gang up 14v3 on your so called wow pvpers. That is what I call training wheels, your kind of gameplay.
Also 400v400? Lol. "there is a great deal of tactical movements, timing" I guess you mean from your PC to your Router and tactically positioned faceroll macros? Mate, those battles are a lagfest and faceroll. Show me one video of a 400v400 battle where I can see "tactical gameplay".