NiKr wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Two parties (whether groups or raids) on one target is kind of a part of the design of the game. The game is designed around the idea of groups and/or raids competing with each other on the same encounter, with the group or raid that does the most damage to the mob getting all the rewards. That isn't the type of zerging the anti-zerging systems would be trying to prevent. Boss' abilities and environmental hazards will scale with attackers' quantity. I called that anti-zerg, but iirc it's just an intended mechanic to counter 2 groups from the same guild fighting a one-group boss. The same mechanic would apply when 2 groups from different guilds are present in the boss location.
Noaani wrote: » Two parties (whether groups or raids) on one target is kind of a part of the design of the game. The game is designed around the idea of groups and/or raids competing with each other on the same encounter, with the group or raid that does the most damage to the mob getting all the rewards. That isn't the type of zerging the anti-zerging systems would be trying to prevent.
Tragnar wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Two parties (whether groups or raids) on one target is kind of a part of the design of the game. The game is designed around the idea of groups and/or raids competing with each other on the same encounter, with the group or raid that does the most damage to the mob getting all the rewards. That isn't the type of zerging the anti-zerging systems would be trying to prevent. Boss' abilities and environmental hazards will scale with attackers' quantity. I called that anti-zerg, but iirc it's just an intended mechanic to counter 2 groups from the same guild fighting a one-group boss. The same mechanic would apply when 2 groups from different guilds are present in the boss location. where do you get that info? because we have a direct information that this is not going to be the case: "Bosses and mobs will not auto-scale based on group size.[19] (Interview, 19 July 2020 (17:12).)" this alone makes any of the "proposed" antizerg mechanics you listed unimplementable, because they all require dynamic adjustments based on the amount of player combatants
Tragnar wrote: » where do you get that info? because we have a direct information that this is not going to be the case: "Bosses and mobs will not auto-scale based on group size.[19] (Interview, 19 July 2020 (17:12).)" this alone makes any of the "proposed" antizerg mechanics you listed unimplementable, because they all require dynamic adjustments based on the amount of player combatants
Tragnar wrote: » that isnt a philosophy that can be used towards every encounter - some bosses very well could do that, but if you use it towards every boss then the fights become extremely stale and same anti-zerg mechanics should never limit boss design creativity
Tragnar wrote: » there needs to be some underlying system that prevents zerging, because you either severely limit the boss design or have bosses that are killed by calling together literally the whole population of the node to kill it
Tragnar wrote: » and that's the problem - you restrict the boss design to use mechanics that punish zergs, because bosses that won't have those will be just zerg fests there needs to be some underlying system that prevents zerging, because you either severely limit the boss design or have bosses that are killed by calling together literally the whole population of the node to kill it
Tragnar wrote: » Ye the famous body collision, so many people want to design it into a game, but it is every time universally hated also I honestly pity those fools who are going to play melee with body collision enabled (ye pretty much heavy ranged meta) I am personally not convinced that body collision will survive into the release without heavy criticism (just look at the last example of body collision in new world) fyi when you talk about aoe dmg scaling being anti zerg then it is true only if the aoe is unavoidable - because if you can avoid then the boss will die before even second mechanic happens just look at the math - a boss that should take 15 minutes for average dad guild of 40 players can be zerged by 200 people under a minute - and you know why? because there 100% are oging to exist damage cooldowns and proportionally you get higher percentage of pure dps classes, because the number of tanks stays the same and not many additional healers are needed - if any - also you will most likely get all of existing damage debuffs on the boss - which also boosts a ton
mcstackerson wrote: » You are removing the pvp element from the one of the most desire-able forms of content with the best rewards.
NiKr wrote: » Which is why I wanna see Intrepid's system first to know how exactly they plan to realize Steven's designs.
Dolyem wrote: » I for one welcome the archaic idea of trying to figure out builds and gear through testing stuff yourself and deciding if its good or not by how well it plays instead of only going off of numbers being spewed into a program and it doing the job for you.
Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » You are removing the pvp element from the one of the most desire-able forms of content with the best rewards. 2, as a counter/addendum to even my own point above, winning mayoralty of a node is a greater reward than any one item ever could be, so the PvE-less arena does what you are arguing against here even more than what I am suggesting.
mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » You are removing the pvp element from the one of the most desire-able forms of content with the best rewards. 2, as a counter/addendum to even my own point above, winning mayoralty of a node is a greater reward than any one item ever could be, so the PvE-less arena does what you are arguing against here even more than what I am suggesting. You will need to go into detail on how this is the case as the arena is not a part of linear gear progression but you are recommending making instanced pve part of it. Shouldn't the rewards for instanced pve and instanced pvp be the same and not part of linear progression? At least not directly part of it.
Otr wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Tragnar wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Two parties (whether groups or raids) on one target is kind of a part of the design of the game. The game is designed around the idea of groups and/or raids competing with each other on the same encounter, with the group or raid that does the most damage to the mob getting all the rewards. That isn't the type of zerging the anti-zerging systems would be trying to prevent. Boss' abilities and environmental hazards will scale with attackers' quantity. I called that anti-zerg, but iirc it's just an intended mechanic to counter 2 groups from the same guild fighting a one-group boss. The same mechanic would apply when 2 groups from different guilds are present in the boss location. where do you get that info? because we have a direct information that this is not going to be the case: "Bosses and mobs will not auto-scale based on group size.[19] (Interview, 19 July 2020 (17:12).)" this alone makes any of the "proposed" antizerg mechanics you listed unimplementable, because they all require dynamic adjustments based on the amount of player combatants The ability scaling he is talking about is different than the boss itself scaling. Think debuffs that cause you to damage people around you. The more people standing in an area, the more damage everyone in that area is taking. Running out of air. That could work to reduce player density in a tight zone. It would be fun to see 100 noobs running from all directions to a group of 10 veterans to try to suffocate them. Underwater fights should not be subject to suffocation ^^
mcstackerson wrote: » Tragnar wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Two parties (whether groups or raids) on one target is kind of a part of the design of the game. The game is designed around the idea of groups and/or raids competing with each other on the same encounter, with the group or raid that does the most damage to the mob getting all the rewards. That isn't the type of zerging the anti-zerging systems would be trying to prevent. Boss' abilities and environmental hazards will scale with attackers' quantity. I called that anti-zerg, but iirc it's just an intended mechanic to counter 2 groups from the same guild fighting a one-group boss. The same mechanic would apply when 2 groups from different guilds are present in the boss location. where do you get that info? because we have a direct information that this is not going to be the case: "Bosses and mobs will not auto-scale based on group size.[19] (Interview, 19 July 2020 (17:12).)" this alone makes any of the "proposed" antizerg mechanics you listed unimplementable, because they all require dynamic adjustments based on the amount of player combatants The ability scaling he is talking about is different than the boss itself scaling. Think debuffs that cause you to damage people around you. The more people standing in an area, the more damage everyone in that area is taking.
Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » You are removing the pvp element from the one of the most desire-able forms of content with the best rewards. 2, as a counter/addendum to even my own point above, winning mayoralty of a node is a greater reward than any one item ever could be, so the PvE-less arena does what you are arguing against here even more than what I am suggesting. You will need to go into detail on how this is the case as the arena is not a part of linear gear progression but you are recommending making instanced pve part of it. Shouldn't the rewards for instanced pve and instanced pvp be the same and not part of linear progression? At least not directly part of it. Simple. Being mayor of a node affords one influence. Influence allows one to get others to fight their fights for them, thus they don't even need gear (my turn for hyperbole). Additionally, should that node be a metropolis, you get a flying mount. Sure, being a mayor of a node doesn't advance you in regards to gear progression, but it absolutely has other rewards and perks. This is a fairly key aspect of Ashes, different rewards come via different activities. Gear is literally only acquired via PvE and crafting.
mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » You are removing the pvp element from the one of the most desire-able forms of content with the best rewards. 2, as a counter/addendum to even my own point above, winning mayoralty of a node is a greater reward than any one item ever could be, so the PvE-less arena does what you are arguing against here even more than what I am suggesting. You will need to go into detail on how this is the case as the arena is not a part of linear gear progression but you are recommending making instanced pve part of it. Shouldn't the rewards for instanced pve and instanced pvp be the same and not part of linear progression? At least not directly part of it. Simple. Being mayor of a node affords one influence. Influence allows one to get others to fight their fights for them, thus they don't even need gear (my turn for hyperbole). Additionally, should that node be a metropolis, you get a flying mount. Sure, being a mayor of a node doesn't advance you in regards to gear progression, but it absolutely has other rewards and perks. This is a fairly key aspect of Ashes, different rewards come via different activities. Gear is literally only acquired via PvE and crafting. So your whole argument is around the military nodes election system?
