The fewer people you bring, the more profitable the encounter is.
This would only be true if we assume that it is a given that we will kill the encounter.
If content is actually hard, and takes many attempts to actually figure out and then kill, then this point isn't really relevant.
well one guy figures it out, posts on internet, then everyone knows and not much to figure out then. You just come prepared.
Difficulty from missing information is not the only difficulty in existence. Bosses can be hard even when you know everything about them and to your disappointment Steven agrees that missing information about a boss is not the driving difficulty for raids - otherwise he wouldn't say that raids are clearable only by fraction of the community
Well, when it comes to bosses, to beat a difficult boss, you need to know its mechanics, have appropriate number of players with all required classes and having those players required gear. I don't really know what else would boss difficult if you know and have everything you need.
The fewer people you bring, the more profitable the encounter is.
This would only be true if we assume that it is a given that we will kill the encounter.
If content is actually hard, and takes many attempts to actually figure out and then kill, then this point isn't really relevant.
well one guy figures it out, posts on internet, then everyone knows and not much to figure out then. You just come prepared.
Difficulty from missing information is not the only difficulty in existence. Bosses can be hard even when you know everything about them and to your disappointment Steven agrees that missing information about a boss is not the driving difficulty for raids - otherwise he wouldn't say that raids are clearable only by fraction of the community
Well, when it comes to bosses, to beat a difficult boss, you need to know its mechanics, have appropriate number of players with all required classes and having those players required gear. I don't really know what else would boss difficult if you know and have everything you need.
I kind of feel sorry for you if you are unable to understand the difference between knowing how to do something, and actually being able to do it.
There is more than just knowledge in almost any activity - and gaming is no exception.
If you can't look at your life and see activities that are difficult for reasons other than knowledge of said activity, then you really need to branch out more.
Based on your assumption that knowledge is all that is needed, I assume you can sink infinate freethrows? I mean, all you need to be able to do that is knowledge, right?
The thing there is, a raid encounter is more like trying to sink all of those freethrows while a scripted robot is attempting to block you.
The fewer people you bring, the more profitable the encounter is.
This would only be true if we assume that it is a given that we will kill the encounter.
If content is actually hard, and takes many attempts to actually figure out and then kill, then this point isn't really relevant.
well one guy figures it out, posts on internet, then everyone knows and not much to figure out then. You just come prepared.
Difficulty from missing information is not the only difficulty in existence. Bosses can be hard even when you know everything about them and to your disappointment Steven agrees that missing information about a boss is not the driving difficulty for raids - otherwise he wouldn't say that raids are clearable only by fraction of the community
Well, when it comes to bosses, to beat a difficult boss, you need to know its mechanics, have appropriate number of players with all required classes and having those players required gear. I don't really know what else would boss difficult if you know and have everything you need.
I kind of feel sorry for you if you are unable to understand the difference between knowing how to do something, and actually being able to do it.
There is more than just knowledge in almost any activity - and gaming is no exception.
If you can't look at your life and see activities that are difficult for reasons other than knowledge of said activity, then you really need to branch out more.
Based on your assumption that knowledge is all that is needed, I assume you can sink infinate freethrows? I mean, all you need to be able to do that is knowledge, right?
The thing there is, a raid encounter is more like trying to sink all of those freethrows while a scripted robot is attempting to block you.
thank you, i feel sorry for myself for wasting my time with answering you...
Don't compare computer game, with an actual sport, you're not actually comparing a competitive computer game... its an mmo for crist sake... any person who playes decently, can learn to outsmart npc quite easily, especially when they know how said npc works.
Presumption that at least 50% of players are able to perform non 1 button rotation correctly while paying attention to their position, reacting to random dangers and remembering when to switch targets is unrealistical.
Majority of MMO playerbase is unable to perform above actions without mistakes for a prolonged amount of time.
Presumption that at least 50% of players are able to perform non 1 button rotation correctly while paying attention to their position, reacting to random dangers and remembering when to switch targets is unrealistical.
Majority of MMO playerbase is unable to perform above actions without mistakes for a prolonged amount of time.
Well then, im ok for them not to kill the raid then
Me as well, I want the raids to be team cooperation where every member needs to manage controlling their character to perform their function and juggling other things at the same time where a few little mistakes just lead to chain reaction that wipes the raid. - A big mistake is just a wipe as well
The fewer people you bring, the more profitable the encounter is.
This would only be true if we assume that it is a given that we will kill the encounter.
If content is actually hard, and takes many attempts to actually figure out and then kill, then this point isn't really relevant.
well one guy figures it out, posts on internet, then everyone knows and not much to figure out then. You just come prepared.
Difficulty from missing information is not the only difficulty in existence. Bosses can be hard even when you know everything about them and to your disappointment Steven agrees that missing information about a boss is not the driving difficulty for raids - otherwise he wouldn't say that raids are clearable only by fraction of the community
Well, when it comes to bosses, to beat a difficult boss, you need to know its mechanics, have appropriate number of players with all required classes and having those players required gear. I don't really know what else would boss difficult if you know and have everything you need.
I kind of feel sorry for you if you are unable to understand the difference between knowing how to do something, and actually being able to do it.
There is more than just knowledge in almost any activity - and gaming is no exception.
If you can't look at your life and see activities that are difficult for reasons other than knowledge of said activity, then you really need to branch out more.
Based on your assumption that knowledge is all that is needed, I assume you can sink infinate freethrows? I mean, all you need to be able to do that is knowledge, right?
The thing there is, a raid encounter is more like trying to sink all of those freethrows while a scripted robot is attempting to block you.
thank you, i feel sorry for myself for wasting my time with answering you...
Don't compare computer game, with an actual sport, you're not actually comparing a competitive computer game... its an mmo for crist sake... any person who playes decently, can learn to outsmart npc quite easily, especially when they know how said npc works.
I'm npt talking about 10yo kids...
The thing is, with a free throw, you aren't competing against anyone. It is just you, a ball and a basket.
In theory, they are the easiest thing in the world, as there is literally no competition.
The problem is, the distance and angle that the basket are on actually add difficulty, even without adding competition. You could even make a free throw harder by standing even further back. Half court shots are much harder, as an example, even though the knowledge needed is exactly the same. When it comes to full court baskets,even though the knowledge needed is still exactly the same, the margin for error means that getting one is essentially pure luck.
Developers can put a target dummy in front of players and tell them to bit a DPS value that is so high, only a small percentage of players will be able to hit it. Even with standardized equipment, any remotely complex combat system will allow outstanding players to stand out, and so with such a test of players, you will be able to have many that fail, and only a few that succeed.
This is akin to the freethrow. There is nothing stopping you other than your own ability, and if things are too easy and too many people are passing, the developers can just pull the basket back a bit (increase the required DPS amount). Sure, people can practice and get better, both at the DPS thing and at the freethrow thing. The thing with that though, the freethrow line is fairly set in stone - the developers are always able to increase the required DPS so that only the top 10% are good enough though.
That is all without even having the encounter in front of you - it is just a pure DPS check and the developers are essentially able to pick what percentage of players they want. When you add in the encounter, it is like adding in that robot I talked about above. A simple encounter may just have a block that swings back and forward. Simple timing will see you still get most shots in. This seems to be what most people that haven't ever taken on top end PvE content think all PvE content is, and I pity these people.
A more complex encounter will have some serious randomization to it, and not be predictable. A proper hard encounter ter though, that will have sensors that are keeping an eye out for the ball, and actively attempting to block it when it sees it. It absolutely can be outsmarted, but doing so requires people working together - and this right here is the key to top end raiding.
Comparing raiding in an MMO to sport (casual sport, at least) is perfectly appropriate - especially team sports. Most top end raiders treat raiding in a similar way to how must causal sports players treat their sport. Raiders are usually just as serious about it, ensure they have the appropriate time slots put aside each week for it, practise in their own time, go out of their way to learn new tactics, and often enjoy a drink with their team after the event.
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The fewer people you bring, the more profitable the encounter is.
This would only be true if we assume that it is a given that we will kill the encounter.
If content is actually hard, and takes many attempts to actually figure out and then kill, then this point isn't really relevant.
False, it is also true when you are wiping on the encounter as it means fewer repair costs overall. It's also easier to learn the encounter with less people as there are fewer people who can screw up.
This is also another vacuum scenario. We have established there is a reason to optimize your dps as you can make content more profitable. When approaching a new encounter, players are not going to forget everything the learned about delivering optimal dps just because they are learning a new fight.
This said, I know I fed into it but I'm not sure if the cap needs to be so low that a group can easily hit it. I was thinking of it more like a wall/failsafe that a massive group can't pass instead of something to optimize your damage against.
The fewer people you bring, the more profitable the encounter is.
This would only be true if we assume that it is a given that we will kill the encounter.
If content is actually hard, and takes many attempts to actually figure out and then kill, then this point isn't really relevant.
False, it is also true when you are wiping on the encounter as it means fewer repair costs overall. It's also easier to learn the encounter with less people as there are fewer people who can screw up.
This is also another vacuum scenario. We have established there is a reason to optimize your dps as you can make content more profitable.
So, you think it would be a good idea for guild size to fluctuate based on content? With new content guilds should look to recruit entire other guilds as alliance partners to get the encounter, and then boot those guilds out of said alliances once the content is easier?
I personally think this is a really good way to ensure the short life of any PvE aspects of Ashes. Guilds need stability to stay together, and guilds that stay together keep MMO's live for decades.
The more I participate on these forums, the more I am convinced that people only expect this game to last 12 - 18 months.
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The fewer people you bring, the more profitable the encounter is.
This would only be true if we assume that it is a given that we will kill the encounter.
If content is actually hard, and takes many attempts to actually figure out and then kill, then this point isn't really relevant.
False, it is also true when you are wiping on the encounter as it means fewer repair costs overall. It's also easier to learn the encounter with less people as there are fewer people who can screw up.
This is also another vacuum scenario. We have established there is a reason to optimize your dps as you can make content more profitable.
So, you think it would be a good idea for guild size to fluctuate based on content? With new content guilds should look to recruit entire other guilds as alliance partners to get the encounter, and then boot those guilds out of said alliances once the content is easier?
I personally think this is a really good way to ensure the short life of any PvE aspects of Ashes. Guilds need stability to stay together, and guilds that stay together keep MMO's live for decades.
The more I participate on these forums, the more I am convinced that people only expect this game to last 12 - 18 months.
Guild size doesn't have to fluctuate.
The raid isn't the only activity for people to do. The thought is if you can do it with less players, your other members can do other activities to help them progress. As I said, more loot doesn't drop. You don't need to go with fewer players, it's just an option.
Even if you can do current content with fewer players, that doesn't mean you don't want to have other players ready and geared up for the next stage of content.
There are also reasons outside of pve to keep people around like pvp and crafting.
Oh, another, I don't think this game will appeal to my interests so it will fail argument. Cute.
The fewer people you bring, the more profitable the encounter is.
This would only be true if we assume that it is a given that we will kill the encounter.
If content is actually hard, and takes many attempts to actually figure out and then kill, then this point isn't really relevant.
False, it is also true when you are wiping on the encounter as it means fewer repair costs overall. It's also easier to learn the encounter with less people as there are fewer people who can screw up.
This is also another vacuum scenario. We have established there is a reason to optimize your dps as you can make content more profitable.
So, you think it would be a good idea for guild size to fluctuate based on content? With new content guilds should look to recruit entire other guilds as alliance partners to get the encounter, and then boot those guilds out of said alliances once the content is easier?
I personally think this is a really good way to ensure the short life of any PvE aspects of Ashes. Guilds need stability to stay together, and guilds that stay together keep MMO's live for decades.
The more I participate on these forums, the more I am convinced that people only expect this game to last 12 - 18 months.
Guild size doesn't have to fluctuate.
The raid isn't the only activity for people to do. The thought is if you can do it with less players, your other members can do other activities to help them progress. As I said, more loot doesn't drop. You don't need to go with fewer players, it's just an option.
Even if you can do current content with fewer players, that doesn't mean you don't want to have other players ready and geared up for the next stage of content.
There are also reasons outside of pve to keep people around like pvp and crafting.
Oh, another, I don't think this game will appeal to my interests so it will fail argument. Cute.
This would suggest that the game won't cater to actual raiding guilds.
If you join a raiding guild, and your guild is raiding, you should be raiding. That is why the guild exists, and why you are a member of it.
You can accept the occasional evening when there are more players online than there are raid spots, but no one player should have to deal with that any more than once a month.
Also, I am not saying this game doesn't appeal to me and so will fail. SWTOR never appealed to me, but I never once thought it would fail. I am also not saying that Ashes will fail, I am saying that Ashes would fail if some of the things people on these forums think will be true of Ashes actually ended out being true.
Also, I am not saying this game doesn't appeal to me and so will fail. SWTOR never appealed to me, but I never once thought it would fail. I am also not saying that Ashes will fail, I am saying that Ashes would fail if some of the things people on these forums think will be true of Ashes actually ended out being true.
Saying that what other people suggest would drive the game into the ground but not what you suggest is a bit narcissistic. Your view, my view and someone else view has the same weight in the eyes of the developers.. that's the whole point behind community feedback. Don't get me wrong, I agree that my point of view is more valuable than someone else just like you do with yours. I know what would make me play the game and what would make me happy while playing the game but the same works for "those people" that suggest stuff that will make Ashes fail. You shouldn't be calling out people for saying what they think will make a great game
narcissistic. Your view, my view and someone else view has the same weight in the eyes of the developers..
You're somewhat new here, so you likely are not aware of my general position in regards to developers listening to players.
I am of the general position that listening to us is something they should literally never do. They shouldn't listen to you, they shouldn't listen to me, they shouldn't listen to anyone.
Intrepid has hundreds of years of combined MMO development experience on staff, that is who Steven should be listening to.
If you want to think it is narcissistic that I think the developers shouldn't listen to any of us, that's cool.
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The fewer people you bring, the more profitable the encounter is.
This would only be true if we assume that it is a given that we will kill the encounter.
If content is actually hard, and takes many attempts to actually figure out and then kill, then this point isn't really relevant.
False, it is also true when you are wiping on the encounter as it means fewer repair costs overall. It's also easier to learn the encounter with less people as there are fewer people who can screw up.
This is also another vacuum scenario. We have established there is a reason to optimize your dps as you can make content more profitable.
So, you think it would be a good idea for guild size to fluctuate based on content? With new content guilds should look to recruit entire other guilds as alliance partners to get the encounter, and then boot those guilds out of said alliances once the content is easier?
I personally think this is a really good way to ensure the short life of any PvE aspects of Ashes. Guilds need stability to stay together, and guilds that stay together keep MMO's live for decades.
The more I participate on these forums, the more I am convinced that people only expect this game to last 12 - 18 months.
Guild size doesn't have to fluctuate.
The raid isn't the only activity for people to do. The thought is if you can do it with less players, your other members can do other activities to help them progress. As I said, more loot doesn't drop. You don't need to go with fewer players, it's just an option.
Even if you can do current content with fewer players, that doesn't mean you don't want to have other players ready and geared up for the next stage of content.
There are also reasons outside of pve to keep people around like pvp and crafting.
Oh, another, I don't think this game will appeal to my interests so it will fail argument. Cute.
This would suggest that the game won't cater to actual raiding guilds.
If you join a raiding guild, and your guild is raiding, you should be raiding. That is why the guild exists, and why you are a member of it.
You can accept the occasional evening when there are more players online than there are raid spots, but no one player should have to deal with that any more than once a month.
Also, I am not saying this game doesn't appeal to me and so will fail. SWTOR never appealed to me, but I never once thought it would fail. I am also not saying that Ashes will fail, I am saying that Ashes would fail if some of the things people on these forums think will be true of Ashes actually ended out being true.
If that's how you run your guilds then you can. I said it could be optimal, doesn't mean you have to play that way.
I also mentioned the cap doesn't have to be placed somewhere a normal raid could reach, it could be higher just so it prevents an excessive number of people from burning quickly.
I also mentioned the cap doesn't have to be placed somewhere a normal raid could reach, it could be higher just so it prevents an excessive number of people from burning quickly.
The issue here is that the cap still needs to be high enough for multiple full raids to be able to compete in regards to DPS for loot rights - unless there is a system in place where each raids DPS is calculated individually to determine loot rights, but the cap is still in place over all.
What we have now is an overly complex solution to a problem that we created ourselves and that doesn't even need to exist.
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I also mentioned the cap doesn't have to be placed somewhere a normal raid could reach, it could be higher just so it prevents an excessive number of people from burning quickly.
The issue here is that the cap still needs to be high enough for multiple full raids to be able to compete in regards to DPS for loot rights - unless there is a system in place where each raids DPS is calculated individually to determine loot rights, but the cap is still in place over all.
What we have now is an overly complex solution to a problem that we created ourselves and that doesn't even need to exist.
I'm thinking the cap could be different on each boss if necessary and don't know where it has to be placed. It's just an idea and there are several ways you could implement it depending on what you are trying to do. It's also not the only way to do things.
It's not really a problem, it's just something you don't like. I'm trying to recommend something that could help the devs to have what they want, open-world content, and what you want, content to not easily zerged down.
It's not really a problem, it's just something you don't like. I'm trying to recommend something that could help the devs to have what they want, open-world content, and what you want, content to not easily zerged down.
To be fair, the inability to zerg down content is only one of three things that instanced content has over open world - and I am not at all against there being encounters in the game that can be zerged down (zerg guilds need content too).
There just also needs to be content for actual raid guilds.
It is worth noting that Intrepid have indeed talked about what they want for instanced raiding in AoC, that they want to compete with WoW in that regard, and that they have a number of developers that have developed instanced raids before (most of them from EQ2 as far as I can tell).
Like, wanting some instanced raids in Ashes is not completely anethema to Intrepids plans for Ashes - the real questions should be in regards to what percentage of raids should be instanced.
@Noaani
Do you remember when and on what they talked about instanced raids? afaik they didnt tell us anything in that regard other than having instances for story content primarily
Do you remember when and on what they talked about instanced raids? afaik they didnt tell us anything in that regard other than having instances for story content primarily
It was in a 2018 live stream.
The question was in relation to how Intrepid wanted instanced raiding in Ashes to compare to WoW. The answer was literally that they plan on having instanced raids, they have staff on the team that have created raids similar to those found in WoW, and would love to compete with WoW in that regard. Then Steven went on to explain how the idea for raids in Ashes was to make them somewhat dynamic - which was the aspect of the answer most people have focused on, forgetting about the first part.
Thanks that's interesting - I doubt that I would find that on video and even then the internal view might have changed - so I really hope that we get some info on raids in any of the upcoming dev talks
- but I think they want to distance themselves from wow in any capacity, because of people that don't care what is actually good for the game and just repeat like robots "not another wowclone"
Thanks that's interesting - I doubt that I would find that on video and even then the internal view might have changed - so I really hope that we get some info on raids in any of the upcoming dev talks
- but I think they want to distance themselves from wow in any capacity, because of people that don't care what is actually good for the game and just repeat like robots "not another wowclone"
Their plan may well have changed, that is absolutely true.
I do hope not, as it is their comments on raiding (and the comment on not listening to players) that saw me back this game.
I do agree that they don't want to be seen as similar to WoW. They proudly display the games their staff have worked on in the past, yet you won't find anything at all about people that have worked on WoW (even though WoW has seen more game developers work on it than any other MMO).
That is why after Jeff talked about how they want a raiding scene that can compete with WoW, and how they have staff on hand that have developed instanced raids that are comparible to WoW's, Steven went straight in to talking about how they wanted instanced raid to be different to raid content in WoW, and what they were planning on doing to that end.
That was him distancing Ashes from WoW.
Anyways, here is the link. Make of it as you wish.
I see your confusion, again. One problem, I see, you are interpretating a coffee table discussion into actual game mechanics.
What they are discussing is; how nodes will effect bosses/ raid encounters (I believe I posted this earlier). This was not discovered, until recently, or at least understood.
As we now know, the surrounding nodes will affect boss abilities (stats, abilities, attacks, etc). That's what they are calling "dynamic".
Up to this date, raid encounters have all been scripted, in MMORPGs. Developers (Blizzard) have confessed; to making scripted bosses, because there is no AI available today make the act naturally. With Intrepids "node buff" system, theses raid encounters will be "more" dynamic, because there will not be two alike encounters, based on nodes. Heck bosses might change mid fight, due to a node changing, for all we know.
Intrepid also said, that treasure and secret passages will be dynamic. Meaning, they will "randomly" placed chests and encounters in dungeons.
This is all an attempt to create variety and stamp out stagnation from static raid encounters, which all games do (with a few exceptions). Also, so Guilds won't be able to "farm" encounters, because the "rotation" will be varied, due to the nodes, in theory.
@Kneczhevo The extent of these "random" elements is to be seen, because every game up to this point has achieved only pseudo random generation and even then the most difference we can see is mostly what dmg type the abilities do and what is the layout of the dungeon. For it to make totally different mechanical tactics is on another level.
If Intrepid was working with the latest neural networks to make tactics more varied then I would be more enthusiastic towards their "randomness" however I do really believe that all we will get is just a different "costume" and "feel" to the same predetermined strategies
@Tragnar again, we agree. Until mobs are able to react like a human, mobs will always be scripted.
At least, with AoC using nodes to influence mobs abilities, we have a new feature to influence how these mobs are encountered and react, delivering variety. Breaking the trend, how typical MMORPGs create raid encounters and bosses.
Personally, I don't know of any game, much less MMORPG, that offers this much variety, to raid bosses. Perhaps that's why people can't wrap their heads around; what Intrepid is doing. I get it, you haven't seen it in action, and no foundation to work off of. Then, my question is...
How would you build "dynamic" raid encounters, with our current technology. Heck, Westworld had problems with their mobs. 😁
Tbh I don't think that "dynamic" raid encounters is a goal worth pursuing. I very much prefer handcrafted experiences that are tuned to push players beyond their current boundaries
I see your confusion, again. One problem, I see, you are interpretating a coffee table discussion into actual game mechanics.
What they are discussing is; how nodes will effect bosses/ raid encounters (I believe I posted this earlier). This was not discovered, until recently, or at least understood.
You may not have discovered or understood that until recently, but a number of us were discussing and debating it way back on the old forums, over 2 years ago.
But as I said earlier in this thread, that isn't the part I am referring to here, it is what Jeff said before that.
Sure, it was more of a casual conversation, and it would be wrong to hold them to specific details from that, but it is perfectly appropriate to use conversations like this to gain insight in to the general plans they have for Ashes.
When asked about instanced raid content, even if in a causal setting, if they had no plans for it, that is what they would have said. If you ask Jeff or Steven about their plans for guns and cannons in Ashes - even in a casual setting - they will say they don't have plans for either, but then may go in to talking about their plans for ship to ship combat.
The key point there is - if they have no plans for a thing, they will outright say that.
The fact is, they were asked about instanced raiding and how they intend on competing with WoW. The answer was that they have plans for that type of content, would love to compete with WoW in this regard, and that they have people with the appropriate experience on their staff.
Now, as I said above, it would be wrong to hold them to the details. The fact that they have plans for instanced raiding absolutely is something that can be taken away from that discussion - as it isn't one of the details, it was the actual subject matter. It would, however, be wrong to hold then to any specifics as to what they plan on doing with raid content, including their notion of competing with WoW in this regard.
Again, that quote was not bought in to this conversation for any reason other than to point out that yes, Intrepid have indeed talking about their plans for instanced raid content in Ashes (even if only casually), and so people saying that Intrepid have no plans for instanced raid content in Ashes can cease that line of thinking.
Comments
Well, when it comes to bosses, to beat a difficult boss, you need to know its mechanics, have appropriate number of players with all required classes and having those players required gear. I don't really know what else would boss difficult if you know and have everything you need.
Without gameplay requirements you just have tank&spank boring bosses that literally the whole playerbase can kill
― Plato
I kind of feel sorry for you if you are unable to understand the difference between knowing how to do something, and actually being able to do it.
There is more than just knowledge in almost any activity - and gaming is no exception.
If you can't look at your life and see activities that are difficult for reasons other than knowledge of said activity, then you really need to branch out more.
Based on your assumption that knowledge is all that is needed, I assume you can sink infinate freethrows? I mean, all you need to be able to do that is knowledge, right?
The thing there is, a raid encounter is more like trying to sink all of those freethrows while a scripted robot is attempting to block you.
thank you, i feel sorry for myself for wasting my time with answering you...
Don't compare computer game, with an actual sport, you're not actually comparing a competitive computer game... its an mmo for crist sake... any person who playes decently, can learn to outsmart npc quite easily, especially when they know how said npc works.
I'm npt talking about 10yo kids...
Majority of MMO playerbase is unable to perform above actions without mistakes for a prolonged amount of time.
― Plato
Well then, im ok for them not to kill the raid then
― Plato
In theory, they are the easiest thing in the world, as there is literally no competition.
The problem is, the distance and angle that the basket are on actually add difficulty, even without adding competition. You could even make a free throw harder by standing even further back. Half court shots are much harder, as an example, even though the knowledge needed is exactly the same. When it comes to full court baskets,even though the knowledge needed is still exactly the same, the margin for error means that getting one is essentially pure luck.
Developers can put a target dummy in front of players and tell them to bit a DPS value that is so high, only a small percentage of players will be able to hit it. Even with standardized equipment, any remotely complex combat system will allow outstanding players to stand out, and so with such a test of players, you will be able to have many that fail, and only a few that succeed.
This is akin to the freethrow. There is nothing stopping you other than your own ability, and if things are too easy and too many people are passing, the developers can just pull the basket back a bit (increase the required DPS amount). Sure, people can practice and get better, both at the DPS thing and at the freethrow thing. The thing with that though, the freethrow line is fairly set in stone - the developers are always able to increase the required DPS so that only the top 10% are good enough though.
That is all without even having the encounter in front of you - it is just a pure DPS check and the developers are essentially able to pick what percentage of players they want. When you add in the encounter, it is like adding in that robot I talked about above. A simple encounter may just have a block that swings back and forward. Simple timing will see you still get most shots in. This seems to be what most people that haven't ever taken on top end PvE content think all PvE content is, and I pity these people.
A more complex encounter will have some serious randomization to it, and not be predictable. A proper hard encounter ter though, that will have sensors that are keeping an eye out for the ball, and actively attempting to block it when it sees it. It absolutely can be outsmarted, but doing so requires people working together - and this right here is the key to top end raiding.
Comparing raiding in an MMO to sport (casual sport, at least) is perfectly appropriate - especially team sports. Most top end raiders treat raiding in a similar way to how must causal sports players treat their sport. Raiders are usually just as serious about it, ensure they have the appropriate time slots put aside each week for it, practise in their own time, go out of their way to learn new tactics, and often enjoy a drink with their team after the event.
False, it is also true when you are wiping on the encounter as it means fewer repair costs overall. It's also easier to learn the encounter with less people as there are fewer people who can screw up.
This is also another vacuum scenario. We have established there is a reason to optimize your dps as you can make content more profitable. When approaching a new encounter, players are not going to forget everything the learned about delivering optimal dps just because they are learning a new fight.
This said, I know I fed into it but I'm not sure if the cap needs to be so low that a group can easily hit it. I was thinking of it more like a wall/failsafe that a massive group can't pass instead of something to optimize your damage against.
I personally think this is a really good way to ensure the short life of any PvE aspects of Ashes. Guilds need stability to stay together, and guilds that stay together keep MMO's live for decades.
The more I participate on these forums, the more I am convinced that people only expect this game to last 12 - 18 months.
Guild size doesn't have to fluctuate.
The raid isn't the only activity for people to do. The thought is if you can do it with less players, your other members can do other activities to help them progress. As I said, more loot doesn't drop. You don't need to go with fewer players, it's just an option.
Even if you can do current content with fewer players, that doesn't mean you don't want to have other players ready and geared up for the next stage of content.
There are also reasons outside of pve to keep people around like pvp and crafting.
Oh, another, I don't think this game will appeal to my interests so it will fail argument. Cute.
This would suggest that the game won't cater to actual raiding guilds.
If you join a raiding guild, and your guild is raiding, you should be raiding. That is why the guild exists, and why you are a member of it.
You can accept the occasional evening when there are more players online than there are raid spots, but no one player should have to deal with that any more than once a month.
Also, I am not saying this game doesn't appeal to me and so will fail. SWTOR never appealed to me, but I never once thought it would fail. I am also not saying that Ashes will fail, I am saying that Ashes would fail if some of the things people on these forums think will be true of Ashes actually ended out being true.
Saying that what other people suggest would drive the game into the ground but not what you suggest is a bit narcissistic. Your view, my view and someone else view has the same weight in the eyes of the developers.. that's the whole point behind community feedback. Don't get me wrong, I agree that my point of view is more valuable than someone else just like you do with yours. I know what would make me play the game and what would make me happy while playing the game but the same works for "those people" that suggest stuff that will make Ashes fail. You shouldn't be calling out people for saying what they think will make a great game
You're somewhat new here, so you likely are not aware of my general position in regards to developers listening to players.
I am of the general position that listening to us is something they should literally never do. They shouldn't listen to you, they shouldn't listen to me, they shouldn't listen to anyone.
Intrepid has hundreds of years of combined MMO development experience on staff, that is who Steven should be listening to.
If you want to think it is narcissistic that I think the developers shouldn't listen to any of us, that's cool.
If that's how you run your guilds then you can. I said it could be optimal, doesn't mean you have to play that way.
I also mentioned the cap doesn't have to be placed somewhere a normal raid could reach, it could be higher just so it prevents an excessive number of people from burning quickly.
What we have now is an overly complex solution to a problem that we created ourselves and that doesn't even need to exist.
I'm thinking the cap could be different on each boss if necessary and don't know where it has to be placed. It's just an idea and there are several ways you could implement it depending on what you are trying to do. It's also not the only way to do things.
It's not really a problem, it's just something you don't like. I'm trying to recommend something that could help the devs to have what they want, open-world content, and what you want, content to not easily zerged down.
There just also needs to be content for actual raid guilds.
It is worth noting that Intrepid have indeed talked about what they want for instanced raiding in AoC, that they want to compete with WoW in that regard, and that they have a number of developers that have developed instanced raids before (most of them from EQ2 as far as I can tell).
Like, wanting some instanced raids in Ashes is not completely anethema to Intrepids plans for Ashes - the real questions should be in regards to what percentage of raids should be instanced.
Do you remember when and on what they talked about instanced raids? afaik they didnt tell us anything in that regard other than having instances for story content primarily
― Plato
The question was in relation to how Intrepid wanted instanced raiding in Ashes to compare to WoW. The answer was literally that they plan on having instanced raids, they have staff on the team that have created raids similar to those found in WoW, and would love to compete with WoW in that regard. Then Steven went on to explain how the idea for raids in Ashes was to make them somewhat dynamic - which was the aspect of the answer most people have focused on, forgetting about the first part.
- but I think they want to distance themselves from wow in any capacity, because of people that don't care what is actually good for the game and just repeat like robots "not another wowclone"
― Plato
Their plan may well have changed, that is absolutely true.
I do hope not, as it is their comments on raiding (and the comment on not listening to players) that saw me back this game.
I do agree that they don't want to be seen as similar to WoW. They proudly display the games their staff have worked on in the past, yet you won't find anything at all about people that have worked on WoW (even though WoW has seen more game developers work on it than any other MMO).
That is why after Jeff talked about how they want a raiding scene that can compete with WoW, and how they have staff on hand that have developed instanced raids that are comparible to WoW's, Steven went straight in to talking about how they wanted instanced raid to be different to raid content in WoW, and what they were planning on doing to that end.
That was him distancing Ashes from WoW.
Anyways, here is the link. Make of it as you wish.
I see your confusion, again. One problem, I see, you are interpretating a coffee table discussion into actual game mechanics.
What they are discussing is; how nodes will effect bosses/ raid encounters (I believe I posted this earlier). This was not discovered, until recently, or at least understood.
As we now know, the surrounding nodes will affect boss abilities (stats, abilities, attacks, etc). That's what they are calling "dynamic".
Up to this date, raid encounters have all been scripted, in MMORPGs. Developers (Blizzard) have confessed; to making scripted bosses, because there is no AI available today make the act naturally. With Intrepids "node buff" system, theses raid encounters will be "more" dynamic, because there will not be two alike encounters, based on nodes. Heck bosses might change mid fight, due to a node changing, for all we know.
Intrepid also said, that treasure and secret passages will be dynamic. Meaning, they will "randomly" placed chests and encounters in dungeons.
This is all an attempt to create variety and stamp out stagnation from static raid encounters, which all games do (with a few exceptions). Also, so Guilds won't be able to "farm" encounters, because the "rotation" will be varied, due to the nodes, in theory.
If Intrepid was working with the latest neural networks to make tactics more varied then I would be more enthusiastic towards their "randomness" however I do really believe that all we will get is just a different "costume" and "feel" to the same predetermined strategies
― Plato
At least, with AoC using nodes to influence mobs abilities, we have a new feature to influence how these mobs are encountered and react, delivering variety. Breaking the trend, how typical MMORPGs create raid encounters and bosses.
Personally, I don't know of any game, much less MMORPG, that offers this much variety, to raid bosses. Perhaps that's why people can't wrap their heads around; what Intrepid is doing. I get it, you haven't seen it in action, and no foundation to work off of. Then, my question is...
How would you build "dynamic" raid encounters, with our current technology. Heck, Westworld had problems with their mobs. 😁
― Plato
But as I said earlier in this thread, that isn't the part I am referring to here, it is what Jeff said before that.
Sure, it was more of a casual conversation, and it would be wrong to hold them to specific details from that, but it is perfectly appropriate to use conversations like this to gain insight in to the general plans they have for Ashes.
When asked about instanced raid content, even if in a causal setting, if they had no plans for it, that is what they would have said. If you ask Jeff or Steven about their plans for guns and cannons in Ashes - even in a casual setting - they will say they don't have plans for either, but then may go in to talking about their plans for ship to ship combat.
The key point there is - if they have no plans for a thing, they will outright say that.
The fact is, they were asked about instanced raiding and how they intend on competing with WoW. The answer was that they have plans for that type of content, would love to compete with WoW in this regard, and that they have people with the appropriate experience on their staff.
Now, as I said above, it would be wrong to hold them to the details. The fact that they have plans for instanced raiding absolutely is something that can be taken away from that discussion - as it isn't one of the details, it was the actual subject matter. It would, however, be wrong to hold then to any specifics as to what they plan on doing with raid content, including their notion of competing with WoW in this regard.
Again, that quote was not bought in to this conversation for any reason other than to point out that yes, Intrepid have indeed talking about their plans for instanced raid content in Ashes (even if only casually), and so people saying that Intrepid have no plans for instanced raid content in Ashes can cease that line of thinking.