Tarnish wrote: » Hurf Derfman wrote: » AoC concepts translated into WoW speak. 10 man raids and 5 man dungeons= A full party is 8 players. 1tank, 1, healer, 1, buffer (bard) and 5 dps/off heals/tanks. A raid group is up to 40 players, that's 5, 8 man groups. World Boss, requires 40 players to down. Oddly enough this used to be the case in WoW, and will be the case in AoC. In AoC 80% of the dungeons will be open world, and may have a world boss in them. There will be pvp. The other 20% will be instanced. But we only know that cause Steve said so and hasn't provided any info beyond that. So imagine BRD and BWL from classic WoW being combined and open world. You're likely going to have to find a middle ground for playing PVP and "raiding" at the same time. My issue is exactly what you said, there is little no information on instanced raids and how many will there be. Instanced PVE content could be dungeons. I hopes is 16 man legit hard Raids. 80% to 20% doesn't sound like middle ground to me.
Hurf Derfman wrote: » AoC concepts translated into WoW speak. 10 man raids and 5 man dungeons= A full party is 8 players. 1tank, 1, healer, 1, buffer (bard) and 5 dps/off heals/tanks. A raid group is up to 40 players, that's 5, 8 man groups. World Boss, requires 40 players to down. Oddly enough this used to be the case in WoW, and will be the case in AoC. In AoC 80% of the dungeons will be open world, and may have a world boss in them. There will be pvp. The other 20% will be instanced. But we only know that cause Steve said so and hasn't provided any info beyond that. So imagine BRD and BWL from classic WoW being combined and open world. You're likely going to have to find a middle ground for playing PVP and "raiding" at the same time.
wArchAngel wrote: » The reasons games with somewhat similar models(Lineage, Archeage) started dying, is because all of the pvp content(read world bosses) started being transformed into instances or non-pvp zones. You dont come to an established vision of a world and start shaping it "like wow, because wow is successful", no one here wants a second wow, people want AoC.
Atiqa wrote: » Tarnish wrote: » Hurf Derfman wrote: » AoC concepts translated into WoW speak. 10 man raids and 5 man dungeons= A full party is 8 players. 1tank, 1, healer, 1, buffer (bard) and 5 dps/off heals/tanks. A raid group is up to 40 players, that's 5, 8 man groups. World Boss, requires 40 players to down. Oddly enough this used to be the case in WoW, and will be the case in AoC. In AoC 80% of the dungeons will be open world, and may have a world boss in them. There will be pvp. The other 20% will be instanced. But we only know that cause Steve said so and hasn't provided any info beyond that. So imagine BRD and BWL from classic WoW being combined and open world. You're likely going to have to find a middle ground for playing PVP and "raiding" at the same time. My issue is exactly what you said, there is little no information on instanced raids and how many will there be. Instanced PVE content could be dungeons. I hopes is 16 man legit hard Raids. 80% to 20% doesn't sound like middle ground to me. So you make two threads on this forum about how you won't be playing AoC that is 2-3 years away, because you don't know how it will work yet. If you just posted your opinion and worries about the game, while realizing that not every game is catered towards you, then I would be fine with that. But... You are basing a lot of your points on assumptions and unfinished/unknown parts of the game. Again, the game is 2-3 maybe more years away. Also, raids in other games make up a tiny tiny portion of the instanced content, so 20% of dungeons being instanced could still be a lot of content. Don't know if the devs have mentioned what type of content will be in instanced dungeons though, but neither do you, which is my point.
GodsThesis wrote: » Tarnish wrote: » GodsThesis wrote: » Tarnish wrote: » GodsThesis wrote: » Hold up, Isn't this just a differently-worded duplicate of the first thread, except now we got more than one paragraph? You should just respond to people that dislike your ideas in your threads if you think your own seem better, regardless of how they type or their tone. If you find your ideas worth defending then you should be able to defend them against the worst. post a topic and i will break it down, I am trying to figure out where the community disagrees the most and take it from there. You don't tell me what to do just as I can't tell you what to do. So you should probably stop that nonsense. I am assuming you meant to write it in a suggestive tone though, not a commanding one. Given the way you type, probably just poor wording on your part. you know what they say about assumptions. lol No, I don't actually.
Tarnish wrote: » GodsThesis wrote: » Tarnish wrote: » GodsThesis wrote: » Hold up, Isn't this just a differently-worded duplicate of the first thread, except now we got more than one paragraph? You should just respond to people that dislike your ideas in your threads if you think your own seem better, regardless of how they type or their tone. If you find your ideas worth defending then you should be able to defend them against the worst. post a topic and i will break it down, I am trying to figure out where the community disagrees the most and take it from there. You don't tell me what to do just as I can't tell you what to do. So you should probably stop that nonsense. I am assuming you meant to write it in a suggestive tone though, not a commanding one. Given the way you type, probably just poor wording on your part. you know what they say about assumptions. lol
GodsThesis wrote: » Tarnish wrote: » GodsThesis wrote: » Hold up, Isn't this just a differently-worded duplicate of the first thread, except now we got more than one paragraph? You should just respond to people that dislike your ideas in your threads if you think your own seem better, regardless of how they type or their tone. If you find your ideas worth defending then you should be able to defend them against the worst. post a topic and i will break it down, I am trying to figure out where the community disagrees the most and take it from there. You don't tell me what to do just as I can't tell you what to do. So you should probably stop that nonsense. I am assuming you meant to write it in a suggestive tone though, not a commanding one. Given the way you type, probably just poor wording on your part.
Tarnish wrote: » GodsThesis wrote: » Hold up, Isn't this just a differently-worded duplicate of the first thread, except now we got more than one paragraph? You should just respond to people that dislike your ideas in your threads if you think your own seem better, regardless of how they type or their tone. If you find your ideas worth defending then you should be able to defend them against the worst. post a topic and i will break it down, I am trying to figure out where the community disagrees the most and take it from there.
GodsThesis wrote: » Hold up, Isn't this just a differently-worded duplicate of the first thread, except now we got more than one paragraph? You should just respond to people that dislike your ideas in your threads if you think your own seem better, regardless of how they type or their tone. If you find your ideas worth defending then you should be able to defend them against the worst.
Hurf Derfman wrote: » If my army burns your node to the ground your dungeon just went away with it. Warcraft's business model is attracting new players with new expansions, not retention of old fans. This has been the case since Activation bought em. Less than 10% of their massive player base are actually "hardcore" raiders. The overwhelming majority are LFR hero's.
bigepeen wrote: » Tarnish wrote: » CaptnChuck wrote: » Challenging PvE content is indeed a big question mark when it comes to AoC. I also agree with you on your point about WoW. A lot of people say that this game isn't a WoW 2.0, but what they don't realize is that WoW has the largest MMO player-base out of all other MMORPGs. So if you want to be successful, you have to be able to attract its player-base as well. That's the reason why FF14 became so successful. The challenging PvE content in FF14, attracted a ton of players from WoW. So I hope that Steven understands this. Sacrificing a bit of social activity, for challenging PvE content, isn't really a bad trade-off in my books. I agree, I think in the long run it will benefit the community. I don't agree, I think it will harm the community. It will create a large portion of players sequestered off in basically an instanced mini-game, making the world feel less populated and lively. Additionally, these players will start whining about having to do any PvP and either start asking for non-PvP servers or making every dungeon instanced. In order to have a healthy, dynamic server, AoC needs players who want to join in on the PvP systems, and join in on sending caravans, joining castle sieges, joining node wars, etc..
Tarnish wrote: » CaptnChuck wrote: » Challenging PvE content is indeed a big question mark when it comes to AoC. I also agree with you on your point about WoW. A lot of people say that this game isn't a WoW 2.0, but what they don't realize is that WoW has the largest MMO player-base out of all other MMORPGs. So if you want to be successful, you have to be able to attract its player-base as well. That's the reason why FF14 became so successful. The challenging PvE content in FF14, attracted a ton of players from WoW. So I hope that Steven understands this. Sacrificing a bit of social activity, for challenging PvE content, isn't really a bad trade-off in my books. I agree, I think in the long run it will benefit the community.
CaptnChuck wrote: » Challenging PvE content is indeed a big question mark when it comes to AoC. I also agree with you on your point about WoW. A lot of people say that this game isn't a WoW 2.0, but what they don't realize is that WoW has the largest MMO player-base out of all other MMORPGs. So if you want to be successful, you have to be able to attract its player-base as well. That's the reason why FF14 became so successful. The challenging PvE content in FF14, attracted a ton of players from WoW. So I hope that Steven understands this. Sacrificing a bit of social activity, for challenging PvE content, isn't really a bad trade-off in my books.
wArchAngel wrote: » They STARTED dying and massively declining in population when they started losing their identity, instead of improving their current features, they tried to catter to the "everyone is a winner" mentality by putting epic bosses into a non-pvp zone or instanced zone, so everyone could go and farm them. Thats where the games lost all of their charm, and were massively dropped, that and the increasing p2w model.
Tarnish wrote: » bigepeen wrote: » Tarnish wrote: » CaptnChuck wrote: » Challenging PvE content is indeed a big question mark when it comes to AoC. I also agree with you on your point about WoW. A lot of people say that this game isn't a WoW 2.0, but what they don't realize is that WoW has the largest MMO player-base out of all other MMORPGs. So if you want to be successful, you have to be able to attract its player-base as well. That's the reason why FF14 became so successful. The challenging PvE content in FF14, attracted a ton of players from WoW. So I hope that Steven understands this. Sacrificing a bit of social activity, for challenging PvE content, isn't really a bad trade-off in my books. I agree, I think in the long run it will benefit the community. I don't agree, I think it will harm the community. It will create a large portion of players sequestered off in basically an instanced mini-game, making the world feel less populated and lively. Additionally, these players will start whining about having to do any PvP and either start asking for non-PvP servers or making every dungeon instanced. In order to have a healthy, dynamic server, AoC needs players who want to join in on the PvP systems, and join in on sending caravans, joining castle sieges, joining node wars, etc.. how do you think it will harm the community?
Tarnish wrote: » wArchAngel wrote: » They STARTED dying and massively declining in population when they started losing their identity, instead of improving their current features, they tried to catter to the "everyone is a winner" mentality by putting epic bosses into a non-pvp zone or instanced zone, so everyone could go and farm them. Thats where the games lost all of their charm, and were massively dropped, that and the increasing p2w model. all i see is a old dead game. This is 2020 i think it is much wiser to take the lessons we have learned over the last 15 years and implement them into this game to make it a original game unique with the pros from all the games of the past.
wArchAngel wrote: » Tarnish wrote: » wArchAngel wrote: » They STARTED dying and massively declining in population when they started losing their identity, instead of improving their current features, they tried to catter to the "everyone is a winner" mentality by putting epic bosses into a non-pvp zone or instanced zone, so everyone could go and farm them. Thats where the games lost all of their charm, and were massively dropped, that and the increasing p2w model. all i see is a old dead game. This is 2020 i think it is much wiser to take the lessons we have learned over the last 15 years and implement them into this game to make it a original game unique with the pros from all the games of the past. I can say the same about WoW, all i see is a game with faceless population and an identity of carebearing. Those things dont appeal in Ashes, as i said earlier, we dont need a second wow, nor do we care if wow gets killed by it, we want AoC. And AoC is built on competition and rivalry, you want to farm mobs in your "safe bubble", you go to wow and auto-lfr to clear and get BiS's. The problem is as i see it, you dont want "challenging content", you want a "challenging" pve content behind an instanced wall, so you could get the best loot without competing for it.
bloodprophet wrote: » Don't know if the devs have mentioned what type of content will be in instanced dungeons though, but neither do you, which is my point.
wArchAngel wrote: » I've said it earlier, i will repeat it again. I dont mind you carebearing as much as you want, i dont mind a lot of instanced content, it can be as hard as you wish. I DONT want those instances to drop BiS's(Best in Slots), or uniques, that will actually force people to go there, but will give an equal opportunity for free to everyone to get those BiS's and uniques. This kind of gear should be behind a competition wall, not some mob in a pvp-free separated area.
Tarnish wrote: » wArchAngel wrote: » I've said it earlier, i will repeat it again. I dont mind you carebearing as much as you want, i dont mind a lot of instanced content, it can be as hard as you wish. I DONT want those instances to drop BiS's(Best in Slots), or uniques, that will actually force people to go there, but will give an equal opportunity for free to everyone to get those BiS's and uniques. This kind of gear should be behind a competition wall, not some mob in a pvp-free separated area. the hardest instanced raid in the game should drop the bis items. however i think they should be materials that should be smelted or refined by masters, then forged by masters into something. just my opinion.
