Open world raids

1356720

Comments

  • Abominatus wrote: »
    Bricktop wrote: »
    Abominatus wrote: »
    I think that if there is instancing, it cant have drops as good as open world.

    Why? Are you suggesting that it’s easier to kill bosses in an instance than in the open world? That’s usually not true, since open world bosses can be zerged and instance bosses cannot be. If you’re relying on the presence of pvp to make the open world bosses hard, then the problem is that the presence of pvp contestation is erratic and if the boss is tuned to be beatable while contested, it will be trivial when it isn’t.

    It takes the fun out of an open world game if you can safely get good gear in an instanced scripted event against AI. PvErs would never go out into the world and try and fight for resources for their guild, and if the drops weren't as good as open world drops they would sit on the forums and talk about how the unfair the game is to them. I hope it's so that If you want to PvE in ashes, you better be ready to PvP at any time. Minimal instancing or a system that allows guilds to control the entrance to the instance. PvPers are gonna have to PvE and craft to get the best gear in the game. It's an interconnected system.
    Nobody is suggesting that YOU have to
    go into instances to get good gear. Get your gear through pvp if that’s the progression you want. But basically you’re saying that other people aren’t entitled to have the content and challenge that they want because it’s not the way you want to play. That’s extraordinarily selfish.

    no, its the way the devs want you to play. They want conflict, and if instanced dungeons have the same gear, it wont be logical to go to open world dungeons
  • You think that people who do pve instances will spend all their time in game in the instance?

    I played mmos for years, and I can tell you that I spent only a fraction of my time in the instance raiding. The rest of the time I was out in the world farming or doing faction/daily quests, or even some *gasp* pvp.

    If they build the reward system properly, raid bosses won’t actually drop gear, they will drop materials needed to craft gear. Those mats can come from a variety of challenging sources of different types, not just raids, and it’s relatively easy to make it so that those materials must be augmented with open world materials to craft the gear you want using the services of master craftsmen. It is still completely interconnected the way you want it to be, it’s just that those who want their premium mats can get them from the progression path they enjoy and prefer.
  • The 2 major flaws of instanced content are no contest and inflation.

    1. Literally anyone can enter and exit it, and no matter how hard the content is, it will never be as hard as having to compete for it in an open world, to some it will take more time to kill it, to some less time, but eventually everyone who wants to kill it - will kill it, for free, with no outside interaction.
    2. Infaltion of loot - an instanced content produces loot per raid, an open world boss produces loot per kill. One allows monopoly, drama, constant interest and will to have that item. The other makes the item obsinely cheap to buy after a set amount of time since its just gonna overflow the market, dropping the value of the item and eventually not making anyone "uniquely" more powerful than others.

    There can be instanced content, it can be as hard as people want it to be, but it cannot drop best in slot gear in a game such as Ashes, it kills the whole concept of player-driven-conflict.
    There was a great suggestion to make an instanced version of the open world bosses with addition of extremely hard mechanics, and as a reward give unique titles, cosmetics, and other goodies that do not affect the character powerlevel but provide him with brag-rights and something unique that most of the people wont have. And even make those instances scheduled contests, with the "lowest time to kill" graph for example, that rewards the best raid.
    But the people that were loudly advocating for instanced pve didnt want that, they wanted the best loot specifically to be dropped out of instances.

    Also it is pretty fair to compair ashes to L2, or to Archeage, since those are the games that Steven took inspiration and foundation from, those were his "golden mmorpg times", thats what he loved and thats how he sees and wants to make Ashes.
  • Bricktop wrote: »
    Abominatus wrote: »
    Bricktop wrote: »
    Abominatus wrote: »
    I think that if there is instancing, it cant have drops as good as open world.

    Why? Are you suggesting that it’s easier to kill bosses in an instance than in the open world? That’s usually not true, since open world bosses can be zerged and instance bosses cannot be. If you’re relying on the presence of pvp to make the open world bosses hard, then the problem is that the presence of pvp contestation is erratic and if the boss is tuned to be beatable while contested, it will be trivial when it isn’t.

    It takes the fun out of an open world game if you can safely get good gear in an instanced scripted event against AI. PvErs would never go out into the world and try and fight for resources for their guild, and if the drops weren't as good as open world drops they would sit on the forums and talk about how the unfair the game is to them. I hope it's so that If you want to PvE in ashes, you better be ready to PvP at any time. Minimal instancing or a system that allows guilds to control the entrance to the instance. PvPers are gonna have to PvE and craft to get the best gear in the game. It's an interconnected system.
    Nobody is suggesting that YOU have to
    go into instances to get good gear. Get your gear through pvp if that’s the progression you want. But basically you’re saying that other people aren’t entitled to have the content and challenge that they want because it’s not the way you want to play. That’s extraordinarily selfish.

    I don't believe people should be able to skip out on the dangers of getting ganked and all the politics and player driven interactions in an open world game that comes with fighting over limited resources like raid bosses. I think it's selfish of them to want to do that while all the big boy groups are slugging it out in open world.

    Ah, now we actually get to it. Your underlying assumption here is that PvE content is less challenging than PvP content and therefore those do do it are less deserving of progression. Aside from being arrogant and condescending, statistics of equivalent accomplishments from games that support both kinds of play show that assertion to be untrue.
  • Abominatus wrote: »
    Bricktop wrote: »
    Abominatus wrote: »
    Bricktop wrote: »
    Abominatus wrote: »
    I think that if there is instancing, it cant have drops as good as open world.

    Why? Are you suggesting that it’s easier to kill bosses in an instance than in the open world? That’s usually not true, since open world bosses can be zerged and instance bosses cannot be. If you’re relying on the presence of pvp to make the open world bosses hard, then the problem is that the presence of pvp contestation is erratic and if the boss is tuned to be beatable while contested, it will be trivial when it isn’t.

    It takes the fun out of an open world game if you can safely get good gear in an instanced scripted event against AI. PvErs would never go out into the world and try and fight for resources for their guild, and if the drops weren't as good as open world drops they would sit on the forums and talk about how the unfair the game is to them. I hope it's so that If you want to PvE in ashes, you better be ready to PvP at any time. Minimal instancing or a system that allows guilds to control the entrance to the instance. PvPers are gonna have to PvE and craft to get the best gear in the game. It's an interconnected system.
    Nobody is suggesting that YOU have to
    go into instances to get good gear. Get your gear through pvp if that’s the progression you want. But basically you’re saying that other people aren’t entitled to have the content and challenge that they want because it’s not the way you want to play. That’s extraordinarily selfish.

    I don't believe people should be able to skip out on the dangers of getting ganked and all the politics and player driven interactions in an open world game that comes with fighting over limited resources like raid bosses. I think it's selfish of them to want to do that while all the big boy groups are slugging it out in open world.

    Ah, now we actually get to it. Your underlying assumption here is that PvE content is less challenging than PvP content and therefore those do do it are less deserving of progression. Aside from being arrogant and condescending, statistics of equivalent accomplishments from games that support both kinds of play show that assertion to be untrue.

    that is partially because in PVP you might lose stuff while PVE monsters arent going to loot you
  • wArchAngel wrote: »
    The 2 major flaws of instanced content are no contest and inflation.

    1. Literally anyone can enter and exit it, and no matter how hard the content is, it will never be as hard as having to compete for it in an open world, to some it will take more time to kill it, to some less time, but eventually everyone who wants to kill it - will kill it, for free, with no outside interaction.
    2. Infaltion of loot - an instanced content produces loot per raid, an open world boss produces loot per kill. One allows monopoly, drama, constant interest and will to have that item. The other makes the item obsinely cheap to buy after a set amount of time since its just gonna overflow the market, dropping the value of the item and eventually not making anyone "uniquely" more powerful than others.

    There can be instanced content, it can be as hard as people want it to be, but it cannot drop best in slot gear in a game such as Ashes, it kills the whole concept of player-driven-conflict.
    There was a great suggestion to make an instanced version of the open world bosses with addition of extremely hard mechanics, and as a reward give unique titles, cosmetics, and other goodies that do not affect the character powerlevel but provide him with brag-rights and something unique that most of the people wont have. And even make those instances scheduled contests, with the "lowest time to kill" graph for example, that rewards the best raid.
    But the people that were loudly advocating for instanced pve didnt want that, they wanted the best loot specifically to be dropped out of instances.

    Also it is pretty fair to compair ashes to L2, or to Archeage, since those are the games that Steven took inspiration and foundation from, those were his "golden mmorpg times", thats what he loved and thats how he sees and wants to make Ashes.

    I would strongly challenge the assertion that “anyone who wants to kill it will kill it”. Taking WoW as an example of instanced content, only a small fraction of guilds killed the Lich King during WotLK despite it being “uncontested”. An almost vanishingly small percentage of players managed to kill yoga Saron with 0 keepers up.

    Likewise, in the same game, the number of people who achieved 2500 ranking in arena was only a tiny fraction of the player base.

    Unfortunately this is exactly the kind of pvp/pve arrogance that I see all over the place. People who play one way and assume that people who play the other way are somehow inferior or playing easy-mode or whatever.

    As to Steven’s intent, I think his overriding intent is to create a game that will be enjoyed by as many people as possible for as long as possible.

  • no, as open world inspires PVP more often, it will require higher skills and more contest than instancing. The game revolves on the open world, so instancing shouldn't give drops that are as good as open world

    It requires more PvP than instanced content yea, but that's not exactly compareable.
    PvP definitely adds another dimension to world bosses but that does not make them nesseccarily harder.

    That's just a guess but I also don't really know if every world boss will be even seriously contestet to begin with.
    As far as I am aware they want distance to matter so chances are guilds will stick to certain areas.
    Making it more likely that there is one big guild around which will just kill the world bosses without too much other people barging in.
    I mean there is no real reason to join a small guild which may be able to contest bosses at some point if there is another guild that already can.
  • Abominatus wrote: »
    wArchAngel wrote: »
    The 2 major flaws of instanced content are no contest and inflation.

    1. Literally anyone can enter and exit it, and no matter how hard the content is, it will never be as hard as having to compete for it in an open world, to some it will take more time to kill it, to some less time, but eventually everyone who wants to kill it - will kill it, for free, with no outside interaction.
    2. Infaltion of loot - an instanced content produces loot per raid, an open world boss produces loot per kill. One allows monopoly, drama, constant interest and will to have that item. The other makes the item obsinely cheap to buy after a set amount of time since its just gonna overflow the market, dropping the value of the item and eventually not making anyone "uniquely" more powerful than others.

    There can be instanced content, it can be as hard as people want it to be, but it cannot drop best in slot gear in a game such as Ashes, it kills the whole concept of player-driven-conflict.
    There was a great suggestion to make an instanced version of the open world bosses with addition of extremely hard mechanics, and as a reward give unique titles, cosmetics, and other goodies that do not affect the character powerlevel but provide him with brag-rights and something unique that most of the people wont have. And even make those instances scheduled contests, with the "lowest time to kill" graph for example, that rewards the best raid.
    But the people that were loudly advocating for instanced pve didnt want that, they wanted the best loot specifically to be dropped out of instances.

    Also it is pretty fair to compair ashes to L2, or to Archeage, since those are the games that Steven took inspiration and foundation from, those were his "golden mmorpg times", thats what he loved and thats how he sees and wants to make Ashes.

    I would strongly challenge the assertion that “anyone who wants to kill it will kill it”. Taking WoW as an example of instanced content, only a small fraction of guilds killed the Lich King during WotLK despite it being “uncontested”. An almost vanishingly small percentage of players managed to kill yoga Saron with 0 keepers up.

    Likewise, in the same game, the number of people who achieved 2500 ranking in arena was only a tiny fraction of the player base.

    Unfortunately this is exactly the kind of pvp/pve arrogance that I see all over the place. People who play one way and assume that people who play the other way are somehow inferior or playing easy-mode or whatever.

    As to Steven’s intent, I think his overriding intent is to create a game that will be enjoyed by as many people as possible for as long as possible.

    I didnt say it "cant be hard", i said that the content will be harder in a contest situation no matter what, if everyone can enter and challenge a boss, that already in it self equalizes players when it shouldnt, not in what Ashes is trying to be. I am carebearing my self for the past few years, so i was on both ends of the spectrum, but the only reason i was carebearing for that given time is because no game was actually offering me what i was looking for. Right now that game is Ashes, it takes everything i loved back in the days in MMO's and tries to make it right.
  • I'm not gonna argue with people who are here just to argue. Player driven content is what will make the game exciting and create a "Shifting of the sands" effect that MMOs like Eve and L2 have/had. There are tons of MMOs for people to play that offer instanced PvE content. Games like EVE and Lineage 2 create stories where it offers players resources to fight over and a reason to fight for them. I didn't play much EVE but I heard plenty of stories over the years of massive alliances rising and falling, backstabs and betrayals, corps getting scammed and falling apart, a spy misdirecting an enemy fleet to get a hundred ships killed. All of this is possible because that game offers players a way to drive content and a story and gives them a reason to do it.

    In my Lineage 2 server in the very early days a massive alliance took control of the entrance to the dungeon that had a world boss at the end and just a generally important area and sat outside for weeks day and night charging people money to go inside. Eventually the server got sick of it and alliances were formed and war declarations were sent. Guilds fell apart and new ones rose from the dust.

    If you start putting things behind instances this takes away from what the game has to offer. The vision of the devs (To my understanding) is an Open world player driven game. Putting gear behind instances takes away from that, it takes away from 2 guilds who have never seen each other before coming to an area to try and kill a boss, seeing each other, and saying "Oh wow what do we do here". Do you PM the leader and try and cut a deal to split the loot? Do you flag up first and start killing people to try and get a big chunk of them dead before they can react quick enough?

    I don't believe it's wise to start taking ways for these interactions to happen out of the game.

  • no, as open world inspires PVP more often, it will require higher skills and more contest than instancing. The game revolves on the open world, so instancing shouldn't give drops that are as good as open world

    It requires more PvP than instanced content yea, but that's not exactly compareable.
    PvP definitely adds another dimension to world bosses but that does not make them nesseccarily harder.

    That's just a guess but I also don't really know if every world boss will be even seriously contestet to begin with.
    As far as I am aware they want distance to matter so chances are guilds will stick to certain areas.
    Making it more likely that there is one big guild around which will just kill the world bosses without too much other people barging in.
    I mean there is no real reason to join a small guild which may be able to contest bosses at some point if there is another guild that already can.

    This is another problem I’m concerned with at the moment. At the moment, I see an enormous amount of pressure on guilds to be as large as possible. What good is a guild with 50 people in it when the guild that does the most damage to a world boss gets the loot and there are other guilds with 400 people in them? There are similar pressures being exerted through the mechanisms I’ve seen in pvp content.

    I have nothing against huge guilds. But often you can have a better experience of community in a smaller guild where you know the other members better. I wouldn’t want it to be impractical for smaller guilds to flourish in the game.
  • Abominatus wrote: »

    no, as open world inspires PVP more often, it will require higher skills and more contest than instancing. The game revolves on the open world, so instancing shouldn't give drops that are as good as open world

    It requires more PvP than instanced content yea, but that's not exactly compareable.
    PvP definitely adds another dimension to world bosses but that does not make them nesseccarily harder.

    That's just a guess but I also don't really know if every world boss will be even seriously contestet to begin with.
    As far as I am aware they want distance to matter so chances are guilds will stick to certain areas.
    Making it more likely that there is one big guild around which will just kill the world bosses without too much other people barging in.
    I mean there is no real reason to join a small guild which may be able to contest bosses at some point if there is another guild that already can.

    This is another problem I’m concerned with at the moment. At the moment, I see an enormous amount of pressure on guilds to be as large as possible. What good is a guild with 50 people in it when the guild that does the most damage to a world boss gets the loot and there are other guilds with 400 people in them? There are similar pressures being exerted through the mechanisms I’ve seen in pvp content.

    I have nothing against huge guilds. But often you can have a better experience of community in a smaller guild where you know the other members better. I wouldn’t want it to be impractical for smaller guilds to flourish in the game.

    The loot is not divided by "guilds dps", its divided by "raid dps", which consists out of 5 groups of 8 people each, if the huge guild brings 400 people, but your squad simply does more damage than any of their separate squads, you will loot it. Thats where the 400 come in handy, as they will most likely simply will wipe the 40 to prevent that contest.
    "Small guilds" have the rights to live, but those "small guilds" shouldnt have the rights to contest the highest level of open world content... I am not talking about 40 man guilds, as those are somewhat fine, i am talking about 10-20 man guilds trend that rose in the past years to an absurd amount.
    Also one more thing that came to mind that you can add to the "Inflation" part of the instanced content, that every group that can clear that content will create as many alts as possible to re-clear it as many times as possible, multiplying the loot and inflating the economy even more.
  • Abominatus wrote: »

    no, as open world inspires PVP more often, it will require higher skills and more contest than instancing. The game revolves on the open world, so instancing shouldn't give drops that are as good as open world

    It requires more PvP than instanced content yea, but that's not exactly compareable.
    PvP definitely adds another dimension to world bosses but that does not make them nesseccarily harder.

    That's just a guess but I also don't really know if every world boss will be even seriously contestet to begin with.
    As far as I am aware they want distance to matter so chances are guilds will stick to certain areas.
    Making it more likely that there is one big guild around which will just kill the world bosses without too much other people barging in.
    I mean there is no real reason to join a small guild which may be able to contest bosses at some point if there is another guild that already can.

    This is another problem I’m concerned with at the moment. At the moment, I see an enormous amount of pressure on guilds to be as large as possible. What good is a guild with 50 people in it when the guild that does the most damage to a world boss gets the loot and there are other guilds with 400 people in them? There are similar pressures being exerted through the mechanisms I’ve seen in pvp content.

    I have nothing against huge guilds. But often you can have a better experience of community in a smaller guild where you know the other members better. I wouldn’t want it to be impractical for smaller guilds to flourish in the game.

    There is the guild buff system in place right now to help smaller guilds. Large guilds will have to spend their guild upgrade points on bigger rosters while small guilds can spend them on buffs and such.

    Additionally, it's looking very promising that a smaller group who runs very synergized builds will be able to AoE/CC down large less organized groups.
  • Bricktop wrote: »
    I don't believe people should be able to skip out on the dangers of getting ganked and all the politics and player driven interactions in an open world game that comes with fighting over limited resources like raid bosses.

    How are you skipping them out?
    If you get ganked on the way home from the raid you can still loose items.
    Why would people not camp at the entrance of the instance if they want to grief someone?
    Happens in WoW all the time as well and you cannot even loot hunting certificates from players there.
    Bricktop wrote: »
    I think it's selfish of them to want to do that while all the big boy groups are slugging it out in open world.

    Everyone would have the option to do it so it cannot be one sided or "selfish" by default.
    At least if it is not so hard that "PvP-guys" aren't able to do it.
    But if that is the case we already would have a justification why there should be good loot since it has a skill requirement.

    I think it is kind of disingenuous to advocate that everything should be a PvP thing and they should also get the best loot in the game for free, how is that not purely selfish?

    Also if you get the best loot in the game from world bosses without the guarantee that it is contested 24/7 how can you ensure that nobody just farms it while most people don't play?
    How is that a good system to begin with?
    Put some mounts or other stuff into the lootpool but a worldboss dropping good items is always a joke.
  • I think I’ve also said what I have to say, and I doubt I’m going to convince the group advocating against instances, they are simply too convinced that the moment you add instances everyone will run into them and stay there to the exclusion of participating in the rest of the game. As to the concept that instances flood the market with gear, this is actually the opposite of the truth. Instances regulate how often the bosses can be killed by a group. In most cases, once per week. To make a world boss accessible you have to keep respawning it all the time otherwise it just gets zerged when the servers come up from maintenance and anyone who couldn’t be there at that time is just out of luck.

    I would urge anyone who is considering this issue to take a look at the excellent video Lazy Peon made about New World and pay attention to what he has to say about endgame progression in that uninstanced environment and how damaging it is to the motivation players have to be involved long-term in that world.

    Nobody wants to turn this into WoW, nobody wants to make the open world less compelling. Having instanced raid content in addition to some world bosses won’t do that, no matter what the doomsayers suggest in their drive to force everyone to play exactly the way they do.
  • You COULD have a situation where guilds farmed world bosses and nobody can contest them until people start making alliances, and that's the cool thing about a player driven game. However, something simple such as a timer after a boss dies, and once that time is up the boss can RANDOMLY spawn anytime in the next 3 days or something could easily help prevent that from being so farmable.

    My understanding is that the only thing you will drop in PvP unless you are corrupt is gathering materials. I don't think world boss materials would count as "Gathering Materials" since I envision wood and herbs and things like that, but I suppose they could. Everything is a PvP thing because it's a PvP-centric player-driven game that requires guilds to fight over things like this. Adding instanced raids kills the premise of the game. Everything isn't easy mode for PvP players. PvPers will need to be able to kill bosses and PvE in order to get good gear so they can PvP better. PvErs will need to be able to PvP in order to get good gear so they can PvE better. I'm failing to see the problem.

  • Abominatus wrote: »
    I think I’ve also said what I have to say, and I doubt I’m going to convince the group advocating against instances, they are simply too convinced that the moment you add instances everyone will run into them and stay there to the exclusion of participating in the rest of the game. As to the concept that instances flood the market with gear, this is actually the opposite of the truth. Instances regulate how often the bosses can be killed by a group. In most cases, once per week. To make a world boss accessible you have to keep respawning it all the time otherwise it just gets zerged when the servers come up from maintenance and anyone who couldn’t be there at that time is just out of luck.

    I would urge anyone who is considering this issue to take a look at the excellent video Lazy Peon made about New World and pay attention to what he has to say about endgame progression in that uninstanced environment and how damaging it is to the motivation players have to be involved long-term in that world.

    Nobody wants to turn this into WoW, nobody wants to make the open world less compelling. Having instanced raid content in addition to some world bosses won’t do that, no matter what the doomsayers suggest in their drive to force everyone to play exactly the way they do.

    What on earth were you playing where maintenances would skew the respawn timers of bosses? Also having instanced content does not regulate the market in any way, since its accessible as many times as it is possible to clear it in a set amount of times, while a world boss is accessible once during his life time until next respawn.
    If i can clear an instance with the best loot, i will just make more characters with the same prof, pass my gear from character A to B and clear that instance 8 times in a week instead of 1 possible for a world boss, and that will multiply per group. Tell me again how that will not inflate exactly?
    The whole story of "200 hours to lvl up to max" is barelly applied after the first character has been leveled, geared and established, and more in-game experience was made by the player, the next character leveling can take as much as a quarter of the initial time, i will have my alts ready in less than 2 weeks while clearing more and more with every alt that is ready.
  • BricktopBricktop Member
    edited September 4
    Abominatus wrote: »

    I would urge anyone who is considering this issue to take a look at the excellent video Lazy Peon made about New World and pay attention to what he has to say about endgame progression in that uninstanced environment and how damaging it is to the motivation players have to be involved long-term in that world.

    It's funny you bring New World up. I'm not 100% sure how the story goes but to my understanding that game started as an open world survivalish PvP game that focused on constant sieges and towns trading hands, and full loot PvP. PvErs complained after the first test and they changed the creative director, completely butchered the mechanics of the game and you have the steamer you saw in Beta of where there's now NOTHING to do. Nothing open world nor instanced. I REALLY hope AoC does not take that same route.
  • Bricktop wrote: »
    You COULD have a situation where guilds farmed world bosses and nobody can contest them until people start making alliances, and that's the cool thing about a player driven game. However, something simple such as a timer after a boss dies, and once that time is up the boss can RANDOMLY spawn anytime in the next 3 days or something could easily help prevent that from being so farmable.
    This is what EQ2 did.

    It doesn't change things.

    At times I was running the guild that was always missing out on these kills, and at times I was running the guild that was always getting them.

    All this kind of spawner does is see guilds set up call lists and spotters, so that when the mob spawned, the guild was called up and those able to make it would log in and take it out. THen they changed it so the encounters only spawned in the "prime time" window for each server, which meant we weren't being called up at 3am on a tuesday to kill an encounter - but still left the kills in the hands of the same guilds.

    Again, this is a great way to have some raid content - early morning calls and all. It is not a great way to have all raid content.

    Fortunately, EQ2 also had regular instanced raid content so that the guild was able to still remain together during the times we weren't getting the kills.
  • Noaani wrote: »
    Snip

    That's the nature of an open world game, sometimes a better guild can get it. Needing scouts to scout for bosses that are up sounds like an interesting aspect to me. Fortunately, AoC is planned to have 20% instanced content that you can do if you aren't killing open world bosses.
  • There is going to be a lot of PvE content for all portions of the playerbase...
    source: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Ashes_of_Creation#PvE

    The premise that some instanced content takes away from the open world is just absurd.
    What's next?
    Shouldn't we be able to craft items in cities because I cannot get ganked doing it there?
    An obligatory duel with your workbench before you can use it, to make crafting qualify as PvP content?

    I don't see why there is a need to degrade the meaning and value of any challenging PvE content down to the level of a gimmick just because it is instanced.
    I literally cannot imagine how that would work.
    Even Archeage had them, they weren't good but it didn't felt like it impacted world pvp or world bosses in any negative way.
    How exactly should instanced raiding break the game?????
  • XylsXyls Member
    The PvE purists in this thread are either ignorant or purposely ignoring a major part of content in AoC... and that is working with other guilds to complete the content. If your PvE guild wants go against a world boss with no interruptions from other players, then you are going to have to hire some PvP guilds to protect you while you are making your attempts. It won't be like instanced raids, you won't have the easy mode prep time you do in instanced content, you will have to adapt and overcome those challenges to be successful.

    They have said 20% of content will be instanced... I'm sure that includes at least one raid. That is completely fair for an open world based game. We don't know yet what the mechanics for world bosses will be. They could be completely different from anything you have ever seen when it comes to open world bosses. Give it time.

    The inspiration for AoC is Archeage and L2, not WoW... not other PvE focused games. You all have plenty of games focused on that aspect of the game. Let's see where the Devs vision for AoC takes the game before you all start whining about there not being enough content for how you want to play MMOs.
    SIG.png
    We are recruiting PvPers!
  • I don't like open world dungeons at all.

    All dungeons instanced, thats what I want.
  • XylsXyls Member
    Marcet wrote: »
    I don't like open world dungeons at all.

    All dungeons instanced, thats what I want.

    You probably won't like this game. Already confirmed 80% of content is open world because this is an open world game.
    SIG.png
    We are recruiting PvPers!
  • Xyls wrote: »
    Marcet wrote: »
    I don't like open world dungeons at all.

    All dungeons instanced, thats what I want.

    You probably won't like this game. Already confirmed 80% of content is open world because this is an open world game.

    Adding to what you said:

    a large part of the instanced 20% will be story type content. (Which could be Group/Raid Sized Content for all we know).
  • Xyls wrote: »
    Marcet wrote: »
    I don't like open world dungeons at all.

    All dungeons instanced, thats what I want.

    You probably won't like this game. Already confirmed 80% of content is open world because this is an open world game.

    The good news for him is that there are plenty of mmorpgs that already exist that have exactly what he wants.
  • neuroguyneuroguy Member
    edited September 5
    I don't know, maybe I am wrong but in every mmo I played so far world bosses felt like big trash mobs that took long to kill.
    From my experience having a challenging boss is mutually exclusive with it being in the open world.

    Yeah I really worry about this. I personally love instanced raids with complicated bosses and cool mechanics (I haven't really seen such things exist in open world yet). Unfortunately, at this point I'm gonna play AoC regardless of the state of the PvE content, how creative it is/isn't etc because I have just not been excited about another MMO for many years now.

    Challenging and somewhat predictable PvE (in terms of scheduling and availability) feels like a fundamentally important part of an MMO. Especially with such long cool downs on node/castle sieges, the big PvP events are transient although I'm sure grand large world bosses may also be transient but then you need some stable and smaller PvE content just like the stable and smaller PvP content. If the stable PvE content is too easy/trivial or too deeply mired in PvP I worry about retention.

    But I mean ultimately this is why we have alphas and betas so hopefully they strike gold and figure it out. Personally, I think instanced boss rooms (even with only 1 instance running at a time) feels like a good way to do it with depleting/decaying loot tables. So getting to the boss room will be fraught with open world PvP because the loot table will have limited number of drops of certain items/mats or decaying drop probabilities that resets on some schedule but the actual boss encounter can be more controlled and therefore more creative/complex. Of course you'd need some way to require the entry into the instance to be full group (you shouldn't allow raids to slowly trickle into the instanced boss room. I don't know, just spitballing here haha.

    Edit: I don't think all dungeons/raids should operate this way though, this was more of a suggestion so that if during alphas/betas the majority of the feedback is the bosses are too easy/not creative/not complex, we can still have risk-reward and PvP conflict surrounding PvE content.
  • An open world dungeon will have content balanced around eight player groups that consist of one of each primary archetype.

    There is the possibility of 40 man bosses in these very same dungeons. Assuming nobody forms a raid to kill the dragon, and nobody engages in PVP, the loot will be distributed to the group who dose the highest dps to the boss. Loot will have a finite numerical quantity. So it may behoove 40 players of independent parties to work together instead of pvping over the boss anything past that amount well, there's PVP and/or DPS race tactics.
  • neuroguy wrote: »

    Yeah I really worry about this. I personally love instanced raids with complicated bosses and cool mechanics (I haven't really seen such things exist in open world yet).
    I've seen it, but only in one game - EQ2.

    The hardest encounter for about half of the content cycles in that game was an open world encounter. The way it worked in that game though, was as soon as a raid tagged the encounter, the encounter was locked to that raid. This meant that others weren't able to interfere, and also that only one raid could attack the encounter.

    Because these encounters were hard, guilds usually took a few pills to kill them, even if they have done the encounter a half dozen times. This means that if your guild does wipe while fighting the encounter, another guild may pull it. You are then essentially left hoping that they wipe so you can have another shot.

    Also, since these encounters are only available once per 7 - 10 days for the whole server (as opposed to once per guild that opens up an instance), the rewards from these encounters is even better than the difficulty would suggest.

    In EQ2, almost every item dropped from these encounters was the best of its type in the game - and due to their rarity even players in guilds with a monopoly on them couldn't guarantee the items they want will actually drop (which went some way to that game never having a single best build meta).

    It is an enjoyable content type, but the developers need to have the balls to tell their players to accept that sometime they won't get to kill the hardest encounter in the game.

    To me, this is fine as one type of raid content, but simply not acceptable as the only type.
  • Cross post from another post, as it is relevant here.

    The Raid Tier Bosses should:
    be just as hard as you'd expect an instanced Mythic WoW/ Savage FFXIV Raid Boss to be. A Level of difficulty where you need a dedicated group of PvErs to kill it.

    should have clear and very effective "Fuck you Zergs" mechanics, that inhibit all ways of zerging him down.

    have a long run up/narrow passage leading up to the boss, that allow the "support aka PVP Raid" to defend the boss attempt of your PVE Raid from other factions trying to interfere.

    This
    • provides challenging PvE Content for the PvE Crowd
    • requires a need for both PvE and PvP Focused players to work together
    • avoids zerging
    • avoids the ability of people to interfere in the boss attempt through utilizing the Anti-Zerg-Mechanics.

    Which seems to be exactly what they are going for judging from the dungeon design they have shown with the dragon dungeon. There is a portal you have to take to get to the final boss room, which essentially makes the kill attempt "defend-able".
  • yunyunbotyunyunbot Member
    edited September 5
    I'm definitely not an expert in MMO's or video games, im more of a casual gamer but I'm really looking forward to this game mainly because of the PvE side of it but I'm honestly a bit afraid from what I have read about other games having open-world dungeons that are basically taken over by powerful guilds and basically you have to join them or no dungeon for you. That does not sound fun at all, and well people argue that other guilds can rise up and take it from them but I mean come on, if a guild hoards a dungeon and only lets their own people use it, doesn't that mean that most of their members have really good gear from being the only ones able to access this dungeon while the other players do not have good gear from not being able to access this dungeon? I was about to buy Voyager Pre-Order Package but honestly I'm gonna probably hold my money until Beta 1 or 2 and see how these issues are solved.

    Definitely looking forward to how the devs will address this rising concern in the community.
Sign In or Register to comment.