Open world raids

There is not much information about this, but it seems that there is no limitation for the amount of raid groups inside open world raids.

Do you think it is plausible that people will just take every guild member that is online and divide them into 40m raid groups to cheese all bosses by the sheer number of people?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Warth

@Noaani
@Tragnar

just look at the Design of each Dungeon revealed so far. Every single one of them has a portal as the entrance to the boss of the raid room.

Why do you think that is? Because Intrepid got bored of the seamless open world they have praised so much?Probably not. Its much more likely that they simply inhibit other people from joining the boss fight while in Combat, the same way these kind of portals has been used time and time again in other open World MMOs.

Putting difficult PvE mechanics into an open world boss fight isn't that hard. You merely need to inhibit players from joining the boss room and fucking the raid trying to kill it.

How you do that? You simply block anybody, that is currently infight, from using the portal. Which means you have a PvE Raid inside the portal trying to kill the boss, while you have a PvP Raid outside the portal trying to prevent other players from screwing the PvE raid.

Like... you know... what Intrepid has proclaimed from the start, PvE and PvP players having to work together in order to kill these Open World Raid Bosses. aka PvE and PvP being intertwined. After that

- all they gotta do, is: make the boss hard

- implement anti zerg mechanics

Voila, you have challenging PvE Content in a Open World PvP environment.

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

Let me understand this, you're all still crying for 40 man instance raids? How come none of you can figure out how this can be accomplished in an open world? How come each time you write your understanding of the scenario it involves you showing up to the "location" and anyone else who gets there simply interrupts you? You all have these grand illusions that it's your group of 40 and that's it.

Do you not believe that the 40 man dungeon raid is supposed to be a guild event where the whole guild shows up to defend it, to stake claim to slaying the dragon, while 40 members may do the PvE fight the rest of the guild defends them while it occurs?

Do you not think that it's possible to take turns fighting the best mobs in the dungeon? That guilds and people can have open dialog about taking turns or not engaging each other simply because the option is available to them? Do you not believe there would be some quorum regarding not killing each other during this?

You're all so caught up in this illusion that unless you can zone into a new place to have this fight there is no chance it could be done. Do you really need 100% of the engagements to go exactly as you expect? You want an experience, but you don't for a second consider how much cooler the experience would become if your entire guild gets to take part in it instead of just the lucky 40 who get to slay this epic monster. None of you have had to negotiate an alliance or talk an enemy down from attacking you because someone in your group, guild or yourself did something stupid. Open your eyes it's time to grow up, take responsibility and learn to play in a game world that doesn't protect you - figure out how to do it on your own.

I will concede this point. If it's true that all of you want just some 40 man boss raid for nothing more than the experience of killing an NPC w/out interference from PvP during the "raid" then I will support it IF and ONLY IF you concede the following. 1) There can be zero loot drop or EXP gain for killing the elite mob inside of the instance. 2) After killing the monster each character gets an item that can not be dropped or destroyed preventing summon(s) until you reach the nearest level 3+ node. 3) You can't enter the instance if in combat or corrupt.

If the three of you want to agree to my points above I'll start fighting for your epic mob instance(one) which they can update to your hearts content)). Otherwise I really think you three need to take a break from the argument because if you can't agree to this then it's simply you want safety fighting while epic loot and exp are available.

In terms of a top end PvE guild, the guild size is tied exclusively to the size of raids in the game in question. This allows the guild to focus the gear they get in to the smallest number of characters, meaning each character will be stronger sooner, meaning the raid as a whole will be stronger sooner.

If the game offers up 20 person raids, a top end guild will have 22 - 24 people.

If a game offers up 40 person raids, the guild will have 48 - 52 people. So basically, the entire guild already is taking on that 40 person encounter.

This is because top end guilds will always conform to the size and shape of guild that is needed to get the best equipment the game has to offer.

Your entire point about how "wouldn't it be good if the whole guild was involved" is essentially saying you want all raid content to be based on who has the biggest zerg - as that is what it always comes down to. If this is how all top end content is added to the game, then all top end guilds will adopt the size and shape of a zerg guild.

I don't want a game that is that mindless. Admittedly, Ashes is heading in the direction of being such a mindless game to play, but that doesn't mean I will go quietly.

I do have to say, I am surprised that you would advocate for zerg tactics being the only actual option for all raid content, which is what you are doing in this post. I was under the impression you were not a fan of zerging in general.

Rest assured though, if the most viable tactic for getting the kill on top end encounters is to just zerg it, top end guilds will be zerg guilds - or more likely alliances with a top end guild running the show and having smaller guild bonuses, and three other guilds of 300 people each to do the main guilds dirty work.

If top end content is all open world, full PvP, no restrictions, then that is without any doubt going to be the meta for the game.

That is a really odd thing to be championing.

Noaani

Warth wrote: »

just look at the Design of each Dungeon revealed so far.

We have to assume that nothing we have seen so far will end up in the finished game - and that is more true for the world design than it is for any other aspect of the game.

That said, psuedo-instancing like this will deal with some of the issues presented, but not all.

The main issue it will not deal with is providing guilds with the piece of mind that they have content that they can take on, content that they can plan guild events around.

This is key to guilds remaining together.

Now, they could make it so the psuedo-instance will always have a boss (quest or item trigger or some such), and this would be a fairly decent idea. At that point though, I would argue that it should lose it's psuedo moniker. At that point it is players going through a portal to a portion of the world where they know the encounters will be there, and they know others can't get it.

That is an instance.

That is exactly the mechanic we are arguing for, that others are saying no to.

Bricktop

Noaani wrote: »

The main issue it will not deal with is providing guilds with the piece of mind that they have content that they can take on, content that they can plan guild events around.

This is key to guilds remaining together.

It's not the devs jobs to handhold every single guild in the game and make sure they have plenty of content. Guilds will forge their own paths and some of them will fall apart, it's the nature of the beast. Not everybody is gonna kill bosses and get the best gear in the game because the game isn't fair. If my guild falls apart I failed as a leader, it's not the devs fault for not keeping my guild together.

Noaani

Bricktop wrote: »

It's not the devs jobs to handhold every single guild in the game and make sure they have plenty of content. Guilds will forge their own paths and some of them will fall apart, it's the nature of the beast. Not everybody is gonna kill bosses and get the best gear in the game because the game isn't fair. If my guild falls apart I failed as a leader, it's not the devs fault for not keeping my guild together.

Providing content is not hand holding. I said nothing about the best gear in the game, either.

Also, providing content to players is literally the job description of a content developer. That is a stupid argument you are making there.

There are games out there where developers have done a poor job of providing the right type of content to players - we have discussed them in this thread.

The results of not providing the right type of content to players are as follows - increased botting and other forms of cheating, players demaning a pay to win cash shop, and games failing financially.

I am not sure about you, but I want Ashes to still be around in 6 years, and I want it to not have a pay to win cash shop, nor be ruined by cheating.

If Intrepid only provide content for players where one group is able to completely cut off content from all other groups, then that eventuality is simply not a possibility.

baconbread

Being a mostly only PvE player, I must say some of you that wants better PvE just need to chill with the name callings and just how rude you can be. With that said, some of the hardcore PvP players in here does the same thing.

We all can agree on that this game isn’t finished yet and it’s good to give opinion about what we want to see changing and what we want to stay, but in the end everyone will not be happy. A game can’t please everyone.
So if a lot of people wants something in the game and IS like it, it may happen. So just because you don’t like it or don’t want that change to happen, it doesn’t mean that change will not happen.
For example:
Maybe IS realize that instanced raid bosses is better or smarter, maybe they disagree, but let people discuss it without calling them stupid. Say that you disagree if you do and why, but you don’t need to comment on every post that disagrees with what you want and tell them they are wrong. We get it, you don’t want it like that.

Here is my opinion on this topic:
I prefer instanced raids over open world raids, that’s just because I suck at PvP and would like to do it as little as possible.
But I do want really hard raids that needs everyone in the raid to pay attention at all times and makes it impossible to do if you don’t. I don’t want it to be just standing in one spot and spamming the attacks. And this is what I think most PvE players in this thread are saying, and that this is hard if not impossible to do for raids that can be ganked in the middle of the fight.
But I understand it’s a PvX game, and that I’ll probably need to PvP, and I understand if I will need it for the raids as well. But make it before the boss and after. You still need to do PvP and you can still loose material if you die after. But let it be a fair fight when one group doesn’t fight a huge boss at the same time. Let the group prepare and do a proper PvP fight and not a PvPvE fight.
This way you have pvp and pve, and you need to be good at both to do the raids. And of course some raids could be open world and the boss It self isn’t as hard. But my opinion is that most should not be entirely open world.

With that said, let’s see how it turns out and hopefully we all get something we like at least.

Bricktop

Noaani wrote: »

Bricktop wrote: »

It's not the devs jobs to handhold every single guild in the game and make sure they have plenty of content. Guilds will forge their own paths and some of them will fall apart, it's the nature of the beast. Not everybody is gonna kill bosses and get the best gear in the game because the game isn't fair. If my guild falls apart I failed as a leader, it's not the devs fault for not keeping my guild together.

Providing content is not hand holding. I said nothing about the best gear in the game, either.

Also, providing content to players is literally the job description of a content developer. That is a stupid argument you are making there.

There are games out there where developers have done a poor job of providing the right type of content to players - we have discussed them in this thread.

The results of not providing the right type of content to players are as follows - increased botting and other forms of cheating, players demaning a pay to win cash shop, and games failing financially.

I am not sure about you, but I want Ashes to still be around in 6 years, and I want it to not have a pay to win cash shop, nor be ruined by cheating.

If Intrepid only provide content for players where one group is able to completely cut off content from all other groups, then that eventuality is simply not a possibility.

I genuinely don't understand the point you are making here. There is content in the game, it's your guilds job to secure it for yourselves, that's sortakinda how open world pvp-centric games work. I too want Ashes to have success and still be around and stay right up there with highly successful games like Lineage 2 and EVE. I hate to hurt you here but it WILL be very possible for groups of players to cut off content from other players in this game. That's kind of the point in games where certain resources or areas are scarce and highly sought after and it encourages players to fight.

Noaani

Bricktop wrote: »

pvp-centric

Intrepid have never said this game is PvP-centric.

Bricktop

Noaani wrote: »

Bricktop wrote: »

pvp-centric

Intrepid have never said this game is PvP-centric.

It's pretty obvious if you just look at the writing on the wall. The two biggest inspirations are Archeage and Lineage 2. I mean how much more obvious can they make it?

Noaani

Bricktop wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Bricktop wrote: »

pvp-centric

Intrepid have never said this game is PvP-centric.

It's pretty obvious if you just look at the writing on the wall. The two biggest inspirations are Archeage and Lineage 2. I mean how much more obvious can they make it?

And is being made by staff that are mostly from EQ/EQ2 - any writing you are seeing in regards to a PvP-centric game is in your head.

That said, two games that both made the same mistake.

Steven has said many times that he is taking insperation from those games, but attempting to not make the same mistakes that they made.

The mistake that both of those games made was not giving players that fall behind a means to catch up.

So what, you want Steven to make a game taking insperation from L2 and AA but not attempt to fix the one biggest mistake both games made?

Bricktop

This is just very obviously a PvP-centric game. Let's break it down rationally shall we?

First of all it's 80% open world, that right there tells you that you will need to PvP. Open world games function through risk versus reward, which is one of the Design pillars of the game. You can see all the games they took inspiration from. EQ and WoW aren't on the list. Instances aren't risky, paying repair bills aren't risky. Guilds hunting you down for months, trying to put spies in your guild to drain your gbank, trying to make all your members miserable are all examples of some actual small amounts of risk.

Caravan system is all focused around PvP. Resources are gonna be localized to certain nodes and you will need caravans to move them around. Caravans will constantly be attacked by enemy guilds and random oppurtunists. This is PvP.

The game is driven by players and Guilds. Guilds will constantly going to war with one another and fighting over resources and making caravan routes safe or unsafe. They will be fighting over control of dungeons that has a very small chance to drop that really good recipe. They will be fighting over control of castles so they can tax the nodes around it and make themselves wealthier. They will be fighting over bosses to craft the best gear. All of this is PvP.

Node control? Also completely centered around PvP. Node sieges are the only way to change the world and unlock new content such as dungeons and world bosses (For people to fight over).

Could you explain to me how this game isn't quite obviously PvP-centric?

Noaani

Bricktop wrote: »

Could you explain to me how this game isn't quite obviously PvP-centric?

Simple. You are only talking about the PvP aspects of the game.

Intrepid have gone to great lengths to say the game is PvX - that if you are PvP or PvE focused you will not do well - that you need to do both.

Now, you have pointed out some of the PvP aspects of that PvX paradigm, and I don't disagree with any of them.

However, in order to make that fit in to a PvX game as Intrepid have said they want, all that needs to happen is some PvE aspects need to be added to the game, which is both what we are asking for here, and is also the easiest way to fix the issues that both L2 and AA had with their individual game design as a whole.

I'm not sure how you don't get that.

Bricktop

Noaani wrote: »

Bricktop wrote: »

Could you explain to me how this game isn't quite obviously PvP-centric?

Simple. You are only talking about the PvP aspects of the game.

Intrepid have gone to great lengths to say the game is PvX - that if you are PvP or PvE focused you will not do well - that you need to do both.

Now, you have pointed out some of the PvP aspects of that PvX paradigm, and I don't disagree with any of them.

However, in order to make that fit in to a PvX game as Intrepid have said they want, all that needs to happen is some PvE aspects need to be added to the game, which is both what we are asking for here, and is also the easiest way to fix the issues that both L2 and AA had with their individual game design as a whole.

I'm not sure how you don't get that.

I'm not sure how you don't get that PvE aspects are already in the game, and you will need to PvP for them.

I'm sorry if this is breaking your whole world down that Ashes isn't the amazing instanced raiding game you thought, and never will be. I truly do apologize. Be ready to PvP though if you end up playing, because EVERYTHING is centered around it.

Kneczhevo

@Bricktop

Not knocking you, friend. But Intrepid is making a PvX Sandbox MMORPG.

I'm not trying to be condescending, but once you understand the concept, it will be clear. Again, I know this might be confusing and foreign (a lot of AoC is.), just get your head out of the box, and you will see the light. 😁

Edit: I'm not advocating for more instances. I really don't know where I stand. As I haven't been in game, yet. But, if zerging becomes the norm, I am all for instancing.

Noaani

Bricktop wrote: »

I'm sorry if this is breaking your whole world down that Ashes isn't the amazing instanced raiding game you thought, and never will be.

What I am suggesting will not turn the game in to a great raiding game - I am suggeting 3 - 5 instanced raid encounters at a time.

A great raiding game will have 6 times that many.

Part of the problem here is that since you have never played a game with the content we are talking about, you have no perspective on what it is we are talking about.

Archeage is the MMO I have spent the second most amount of time in (a total of almost 5 years), so I fully understand what you are saying.

It's just that you are wrong.

Bricktop

Kneczhevo wrote: »

@Bricktop

Not knocking you, friend. But Intrepid is making a PvX Sandbox MMORPG.

I'm not trying to be condescending, but once you understand the concept, it will be clear. Again, I know this might be confusing and foreign (a lot of AoC is.), just get your head out of the box, and you will see the light. 😁

I like you Knec, you make some solid posts around these forums that I've seen so far. I have played this exact type of game before in the form of Lineage 2 and Archeage and I feel very aware how the meta game will play out.

The game is indeed PvX. PvX in that all systems are intertwined and dependent on 1 another. PvP, PvE, and crafting. You need to be able to do all of those things to find success in Ashes of Creation. To secure open world bosses you will need to be able to PvP other groups in order to secure the boss and make it safe for your group to kill. After you secure the area and kill the boss (PvE) it will drop crafting recipes and materials. You will need to utilize high level crafters to make the best gear in the game and reach an end game state. You can very easily see how it is PvX and all the systems are dependent on one another.

You can apply this to pretty much any part of the game. Your guild will (possibly) fight for control of an open world dungeon entrance. Once you kill all the opposing guild members inside who you are at war with, your group starts to grind mobs inside the dungeon trying to get a recipe to drop or something along those lines. Your group will have to defend that grind spot and dungeon from other groups. You are PvPing and PvEing during this.

I promise you this is very much what the devs meant when they said PvX. I agree it is confusing and foreign to a lot of people. I'm very confident you will understand though.

Bricktop

Noaani wrote: »

Bricktop wrote: »

I'm sorry if this is breaking your whole world down that Ashes isn't the amazing instanced raiding game you thought, and never will be.

What I am suggesting will not turn the game in to a great raiding game - I am suggeting 3 - 5 instanced raid encounters at a time.

A great raiding game will have 6 times that many.

Part of the problem here is that since you have never played a game with the content we are talking about, you have no perspective on what it is we are talking about.

Archeage is the MMO I have spent the second most amount of time in (a total of almost 5 years), so I fully understand what you are saying.

It's just that you are wrong.

3-5 instanced raid encounters at a time is just absurd for you to suggest. It's an open world game and instanced raids take tons of time and money to develop, not to mention completely take away from the entire vision. They are the premier feature of a themepark game, and ashes of creation is not one. The devs will end up spending the entire dev cycle keeping the players who log in only on tuesdays and thursdays happy instead of adding to the open world.

Kneczhevo

I really don't see many issues with contention with Raid Spawns.

Chances are; people will will use diplomacy, when it comes to contented areas. That's the spirit of MMORPGs.

Of course there will be bullies and griefers. That's human nature. But, overall... I believe guilds will come to compromises.

"If you wipe, mind if we take a shot? We'll give you the same courtesy. If not, this can be a very long night".

Bricktop

Kneczhevo wrote: »

I really don't see many issues with contention with Raid Spawns.

Chances are; people will will use diplomacy, when it comes to contented areas. That's the spirit of MMORPGs.

Of course there will be bullies and griefers. That's human nature. But, overall... I believe guilds will come to compromises.

"If you wipe, mind if we take a shot? We'll give you the same courtesy. If not, this can be a very long night".

That very well could happen, and that's what makes open world games fun.

Noaani

Bricktop wrote: »

The devs will end up spending the entire dev cycle keeping the players who log in only on tuesdays and thursdays happy instead of adding to the open world.

3 - 5 instanced encounters would only require one day a week, not two.

That small a number of encounters will not impact the stated vision of the game - this is even more true if the entrance to those instances is at the bottom of a raid dungeon that players will need to fight down to.

I would agree that it would be a bad idea if we were talking about instanced dungeons, but I am only talking about single encounters. However, it is also worth pointing out that this number fits in to the 20% instanced content that Intrepid are aiming for.

Also, instanced raid encounters take up less development resources than open world raid encounters. This is not a great argument.

Child Item