Ever-changing, although catchy, doesn't inform us at which pace these changes will present themselves. Some servers could see long plateaus with not much noticeable change, then something happens and everything is shuffled on the deck. Others could see gradual changes, predictable changes. Others could be chaos logged-in, all day, every days
So, if things have plateaued or are evolving slowly, a player-made endgame of a sort will establish itself. And there can be a form of routine in ever-changing events, especially if they are easy to predict.
Don't assume too much about how "ever-changing" things will really be.
Dont know maybe every week. And boss reward only once a week. So each week the run is New.
Maybe not a week but maybe on items reset or daily reset even
I'd like some instanced dungeons with an extremely hard boss made for a single party. Just a few of them. That could pass as an end game. It's like combining a dungeon and a raid but for a single party.
It would give you something to try when you waiting for raids or pvp situations that won't result in an overwhelming loss.
Would you be willing to compromise with the PvX guys on making sure that these dungeons didn't have any character-power rewards?
My issue with this us that it cuts off future hard content.
The idea of getting a reward for an piece of hard content is not just as a reward for completing that content. Rather, that quality of content acts as a kind of key to the next lot of harder content.
If the content developers are doing their job, the harder content shouldnt really be possible without some of the gear from that previous hard content.
Adding in hard content that has no reward other than cosmetics is basically like saying there wont be more hard content to follow on from it, as any hard content they may add after that can still be completed without even looking at that hard content that only has cosmetic rewards.
Further to that, the point of Ashes is that rewards are generated in PvE, and subject to redistribution via PvP. Adding in PvE content that has no actual reward that is subject to redistribution via PvP (crafting materials, etc) is defeating the purpose of PvE, and robbing PvP players of loot to redistribute amongst themselves.
PvP gets dull until you come across someone as good or better than you. Then it is interesting while you are in that match - then it is dull again. The better you are, the more dull it is.
I disagree with this. There's a huge psychological difference between beating a human player and a scripted AI. If you know that there's someone on the other side actually experiencing emotions of defeat or victory, then it makes the experience less dull. Players that win the most generally have the most fun. Every win is like a validation of their skills relative to others.
Also, if anyone ever gets bored of winning in Ashes, then they could simply run around solo in the open world and pick fights against groups to even the odds. There will be any shortage of PvP skill needed in Ashes. In fact, some situations in open world PvP or PvX will be have an infinite skill cap, because some situations in the open world will be literally impossible to win. A simple example is Steven finding himself alone in the middle of 50 hostile players in one of the livestreams. There's no amount of skill that can overcome that.
My cage example did leave you with one misconception that I didn't make clear in my first post on it, and also forgot to clear up in my reply. If you are fighting in that cage, others can see you just fine - they can see what you are doing, how well you are doing, and when you start dying. They may be distracted due to PvP while trying to watch, but they can see inside that cage just fine.
As your idea of parallel corridors is fleshed out more, it becomes more and more apparent to me that it is a great idea for specific content (as in, I'd actually like to see it in a game), but not for general dungeon content.
Also, an open dungeon should have other actual objectives - quest updates, specific harvests in various locations, rare but very useful drops from other mobs in the dungeon, etc. So even if the dungeon does have a single hardest boss, not everyone in the dungeon is after it.
Okay, I thought the cage was just a metaphor for a type of instance. If it's just one continuous battle, then yeah, it can't fit into the parallelized dungeon system. If there are stages, then you could just have rooms for each stage in a parallelized system.
I'm not sure what other dungeon content you are envisioning, but I can't think of much that couldn't fit inside a parallelized dungeon. Anything can be put inside each section, so as long as the content can be separated into sections, then it should be able to fit inside of that concept. Maybe I'm not understanding what other kinds of dungeons are possible, but maybe Intrepid will come up with something better.
Any mandatory dungeon items could be put in the intermediary sections between the parallelized sections. As for specific mobs and harvest locations, I would prefer keeping those in parallel sections because it gives more replayability and makes decisions more meaningful on which section you choose to enter. Also, you could do multiple sections in the same run, even all the sections if you want to. Just don't enter the next parallelized section which resets the previous section, go back to the previous intermediary section and instead of choosing the entrance of the parallel section you just cleared, choose any of the other sections instead. This can be repeated for all the remaining sections. Maybe there could be some additional reward for groups that can actually pull this off even despite the threat of PvP or PvX.
Lastly, I think the design is still an "open dungeon", because the dungeon can be entered by anyone at anytime in the open world. Maybe this is just a semantics issue though.
This is because one of the things with an open dungeon is that there doesn't really need to be one boss that is hardest, as open dungeons do not have a singular focus on that boss in the way an instanced dungeon does.
All of these things can't really happen if every time the hardest boss in the dungeon is killed, the place resets. That kind of thing only really works if everyone in the dungeon was going after that one hardest boss.
It's much less difficult for your group to get to a sub boss because there are multiple paths, and less intermediary sections to get to that section. The most difficult boss to get to is the final boss, because there are no alternative paths once you get to the final section and has the most preceding parallelized sections to get through. For that reason, it takes the longest to get to the final boss than a sub boss. So if you are just farming a dungeon for a sub boss, then it shouldn't be easy to finish the sub boss before another group finishes the final boss. And if another group is somehow able to do that, then the problem lies with your group. Either be faster at progressing through the PvE, or find a way to disrupt the other group's progress through forcing PvP.
There's a huge psychological difference between beating a human player and a scripted AI.
There is.
Winning a PvP encounter is like winning a game of chess, or a game of pool, or a game of darts, or a game of...
Beating a good (note the use of the word good there) PvE encounter is more like beating a puzzle that was hand crafted for you by an enigmatologist.
If you look at scripted encounters as being AI, or some computer generated thing, or even something made without love and dedication from the developers, then sure, I can see why you would think they are boring. If that is your take on them, then there really is no point in even discussing raid content with you (no offense).
If you look at them as if they are puzzles made for you by other actual people, people that are trying to make assumptions as to how you will solve that puzzle, and place "traps" along the way for you to find, puzzles that take weeks of problem solving to work out, then you gain a much more solid appreciation for what raid encounters are.
When you look at raids this way, defeating a raid is still defeating another human, but this human is actually a team of professionals that spent months trying to craft a thing for you to beat.
Perhaps another way to put it, while PvP is player vs player, PvE at the top end is player vs developer.
Beating a developer that spent months on the thing you just beat is a much greater sense of accomplishment than beating another player that probably pulled their spec from a forum post, imo.
Then again, my perspective on raiding and raid content is basically specific to EQ2, as I have not seen another game that puts nearly that much care and attention in to the mechanics of top end PvE content.
Your point about people getting board then running around picking fights with larger groups also applies to raid content. It is always interesting to see how few people you need to beat content that your guild is no longer interested in - the exact same process as what you are saying PvP players can to to keep PvP interesting. I mean, I agree it is a thing they can do, it just isn't a thing that is exclusive to PvP.
Killing low end raid content that is designed for 24 people of you level, but only using 4 is a hell of a lot of fun.
Maybe I'm not understanding what other kinds of dungeons are possible, but maybe Intrepid will come up with something better.
The best open dungeon is literally just that, a giant area of passageways, pathways and rooms (specifically not linear), where multiple groups are participating in content simultaneously. The idea is you want groups to run in to each other unexpectedly, as that creates conflict. Even in a non-PvP game like EQ2, running in to a group in an open dungeon would create open conflict (knowing how to train mobs on to other players was a useful skill in that game).
Take that concept and apply it to a PvP game (Ashes is a PvP game, despite what Dygz may say), and open dungeons are where the bulk of unplanned group vs group PvP should happen. There should be situations where you run around a corner and are faced with a group right in front of you that you didn't know where there at all, and they had no idea you were there either. There should ideally also be the risk of a third (and fourth) group showing up at any time - open dungeons really should be completely unpredictable like that.
So if you are just farming a dungeon for a sub boss, then it shouldn't be easy to finish the sub boss before another group finishes the final boss.
Open dungeons should be farmable in the same way some open world areas of the game are farmable.
A group should be able to find a spot, and just sit there farming that spot, if that is what they want to do.
Open world dungeons should act no different from the rest of the open world, other than the fact that the spaces should be tighter (to facilitate surprise), and the content should be for groups.
As I said though, I really like your idea, and I want to see it. It sounds fun, it sounds interesting.
The thing is, it is such a specific mechanic that any dungeon using it will feel like it is the same as any other dungeon using it. This is fine if it is used in some dungeons, but if it is used on all dungeons, then all dungeons will feel the same, and that was what we were trying to prevent, iirc.
Makes sense. The original reason of why I came up with that dungeon design is because people were concerned about it being impossible for mob design to be very difficult while fighting other groups in PvX. This is just a solution without completely closing off the entire dungeon to other groups like I've seen in some of the other designs.
Ideally, mobs can be very challenging while still having completely open dungeon design. We'll see what kind of innovations Intrepid can come up with to make this possible, but I wouldn't mind seeing the design I proposed as well. It's true that not all dungeons need to follow the same template, and they can implement multiple types. As long as each is tested in a PvX environment and found to be fun and rewarding for players.
Makes sense. The original reason of why I came up with that dungeon design is because people were concerned about it being impossible for mob design to be very difficult while fighting other groups in PvX. This is just a solution without completely closing off the entire dungeon to other groups like I've seen in some of the other designs.
Ideally, mobs can be very challenging while still having completely open dungeon design. We'll see what kind of innovations Intrepid can come up with to make this possible, but I wouldn't mind seeing the design I proposed as well. It's true that not all dungeons need to follow the same template, and they can implement multiple types. As long as each is tested in a PvX environment and found to be fun and rewarding for players.
To me, the best way to "deal" with the situation that open world mobs are not going to be as inherently challenging is to simply accept this fact from a design perspective, design these mobs as PvP flash points, and then design other mobs (in cages and instances, as well as other mechanics) as the encounters that are difficult.
While others may disagree with me, the design intent of Ashes is that all rewards are subject to redistribution via PvP. As far as I am concerned, as long as this notion is kept in tact, it doesn't matter if that PvP subjugation happens while the encounter is being taken on, before it is being taken on (my cage idea), or after it is being taken on (instanced content with a need to return an item to a metropolis as per my first post). All these of these are a means of subjecting the rewards of the encounter to redistribution via PvP.
What your suggestion does is keep the PvP subjugation as a possibility during the actual fight with the encounter, it just lowers the chances of it happening and places some additional decision in the hands of the people running the content - which again, sounds like really interesting content.
Or they could just do it like the devs have said they're going to do it, vast majority being open world encounters, full stop. The encounters can still be designed however hard they want them. The metrics of what makes a good raiding group a good raiding group in Ashes will just be different than instanced raiding games.
How good is that group at diplomacy and spying? How good are they at the pve encounter, but also how good are they at pvp if it comes? How good is their raid leader? Is the ceiling of his ability to lead a raid group nothing more than instanced, scripted 40 man raids? Or is he better than just that.
Is he good at putting scouts in the right places to get advance warning of when the main raid group might get hit with pvp? Did he think to have a separate stalling/blocking force in place? Does he have contingency plans to split off more members from the main group mid encounter if needed? All the different potential variables are a breath of fresh air compared to instanced mmos.
It's not perfect, nothing is, there's pros and cons to any system. But man does it sound exciting and create the potential for so much more dynamic gameplay than instancing things.
Or they could just do it like the devs have said they're going to do it, vast majority being open world encounters, full stop. The encounters can still be designed however hard they want them. The metrics of what makes a good raiding group a good raiding group in Ashes will just be different than instanced raiding games.
How good is that group at diplomacy and spying? How good are they at the pve encounter, but also how good are they at pvp if it comes? How good is their raid leader? Is the ceiling of his ability to lead a raid group nothing more than instanced, scripted 40 man raids? Or is he better than just that.
Is he good at putting scouts in the right places to get advance warning of when the main raid group might get hit with pvp? Did he think to have a separate stalling/blocking force in place? Does he have contingency plans to split off more members from the main group mid encounter if needed? All the different potential variables are a breath of fresh air compared to instanced mmos.
It's not perfect, nothing is, there's pros and cons to any system. But man does it sound exciting and create the potential for so much more dynamic gameplay than instancing things.
This post is entirely missing the point.
Open world encounters can either be too hard to be able to kill if you have a single player opposing you - yet offer a good challenge if you do not, or they can be a good challenge if you have players opposing you - but dead easy if you do not.
This is just a fact. There is no way to design around this.
Now, Ashes could well just go with that as being their top end content and be done with it. Sure. This is basically what you are saying (even if you mistakenly think you are saying more than this).
The thing is, if this is where they leave their PvE content, then they have no PvE content. Encounters in the open world that have rewards that players want are PvP content, not PvE.
The issue with this is what while you think it is "exciting" and such, it really isn't. Having played games with this exact content (most notably Archeage), this gets stale really quickly. If you think instancing is stale, you honestly ain't seen nothin' until you've seen this content type that you are espousing here.
My suggestion is to have both. More content types inherently mean content doesn't get stale as quickly.
I just left my house for a few hours right after I posted that. So on my phone not typing all that out but when I get home I will completely destroy your idea. I promise.
This was sitting in my draft box for awhile. I was going to make my own dev directed thread for it but since Noaani posted their wall of text dream I figured why the hell not.
Whenever raids and dungeons come up in this forum I see two things. 1. A worry of Zerging and general 'fairness' related to escaping the conquered dungeon 2. For some a worry and others an observation that you will probably have to pvp to complete a dungeon due to it not being instanced. These two things generally lead to some really weird assumptions and conclusions, but that's not the point of this post.
Consider the following scenario:
A small 16 person guild had gotten their hands on an exclusive rare item, the Soul lantern, from defeating a notorious monster out in the node. They managed to light the lantern by doing a previous dungeon and were now looking to use that lantern. The door to the dungeon has been sealed for 8 in game days since the last attempt was made. No one appears to be around. So all 16 go in once the door opens. The door remains open.
The Soulfire Labyrinth has a few forks and misdirection. The mobs inside tend to be a decent challenge. Many of the Soul Wraiths and Soul Eaters respawn behind the party a little bit after defeating them. Turning straight around would be costly.
The party finds themselves getting squeezed into single file lines at times due to the narrow hallways and player collision. The party manages to find and avoid some traps and disable a few others thanks to their party rogues. They make their way through a few miniboss monsters and get some decent loot and a sense that they are getting closer to the boss room.
Finally they arrive at the boss chamber. Turns out they still need the lit lantern to open it's door. Once they do the light goes out of the lantern, the soulfire lighting up the ruins on the large stone door granting the party access. Thirty seconds after the party enters, the door closes and the node receives a message 'you think you hear the sound of a weeping ghost.' Now anyone in the node knows what's going down.
However the dungeon itself changes a bit. There were three possible routes to the dungeon boss. The shortest one is now closed off and a new one opens. The mini bosses of the dungeon now emit soulflame and a lantern bearer who manages to last hit the miniboss can light an unlit lantern. Additionally there are slightly more soul wraiths in the corridors, and a few more miniboss 'minion' soul eaters and planar beasts to make the fight slightly harder without just flatly padding the minibosses health and attack.
One of the big guilds in the area was paid a tribute before this to not go Zerg the dungeon. But the other somewhat smaller big guild in the area was not. They therefore start gathering anyone they can to rush the dungeon. Being a larger guild they have someone who has an unlit lantern. But they have not yet lit it for various reasons.
So now you have 40-50 people making their way through the longer paths in the dungeon. It's new enough content so no one has made a stage 2 map and is therefore not that straightforward to navigate. However one of the guild members has managed to do the dungeon before 'the hard way' and so they take the longer path.
The toughest part for the 40ish person rush is the various narrow path ways and the miniboss that are now about twice as strong, empowered by the soulfire and they are emitting a burning aura that causes a burn status on physical attackers, so it's a bit trickier to manage the last hit requirement. Because the item is exclusive they weren't able to just 'give it to the highest level tank'. But since they have a small numbers advantage they manage the fight.
Meanwhile the fight for the 16 man guild is going well. The boss has gotten down to 1/3 and the fight is intensifying.
The 40ish person rush is getting closer now, needing to get the lantern last hit slowed down the progress. However the group is making fairly good progress. Going through the longer path much faster than the smaller group.
Meanwhile back at the node, the remaining guild members of the 2nd largest guild in the node start scouting out the different exit points. It's not an exact science since they don't really open until the boss is defeated.
The 2nd largest guild finally arrives to the boss door. They are now met with the complicated question, 'Is the boss dead yet?' No message shows up to inform them. They have to choose to burn the pop item to rush the group after all their hard work only to find an empty room and try to rush the group at the exits, or try to make their way back out (a somewhat easier task now that there aren't minibosses in the way.)
One of the guild mates confirms that they think they see one of the exits opened. The raid leader tells their guild mate with the pop item to open the door. As the door opens the node receives the message 'you only hear echoes of howling in the distances'. The front door closes. There is now only two ways out for opportunists who were making their own way through the dungeon. Death, or quickly getting to the boss chamber before it too closes.
The rival raid group enters to find the corpse of a dead boss. The experienced guild mate tells the group to go to the center of the corpse and that they will need to prepare for some fall damage. It's not a small hole but the underground escape tunnels number about 8. There is about 5-7 guild members on the other side of each hole so the raid boss tells them to split up into groups of five as best they can. The hallways begin to narrow the groups to a single file once again. Some don't have a tank meaning the fighter or bard tend to be in front.
Our 16 Man group knew that they would probably have some competition at the exit due to the boss door message and are grateful they didn't decide to split the party. As they exit they are bum rushed by 2 fighters a cleric and a ranger. However the fight is 3-1 so they manage to take on the slightly better geared party without too much issue, taking some heavy hits to their mp and hp. This bought the pincer group enough time to find the party just before their weapons were sheathed and they could escape on mount. Luckily for them this was one of the groups with yet another fighter in front. Had it been otherwise they would probably have gotten away. They manage to down a couple of the 16 man groups members, but the rest get away safely.
The main consolation prize for the counter raiding guild was that they had managed to get another unlit lantern off of one of the fallen 16 man group members. A heavy loss for the smaller group. But not a huge consolation prize for the larger guild either.
Open world encounters can either be too hard to be able to kill if you have a single player opposing you - yet offer a good challenge if you do not, or they can be a good challenge if you have players opposing you - but dead easy if you do not.
This is just a fact. There is no way to design around this.
Now, Ashes could well just go with that as being their top end content and be done with it. Sure. This is basically what you are saying (even if you mistakenly think you are saying more than this).
The thing is, if this is where they leave their PvE content, then they have no PvE content. Encounters in the open world that have rewards that players want are PvP content, not PvE.
The issue with this is what while you think it is "exciting" and such, it really isn't. Having played games with this exact content (most notably Archeage), this gets stale really quickly. If you think instancing is stale, you honestly ain't seen nothin' until you've seen this content type that you are espousing here.
My suggestion is to have both. More content types inherently mean content doesn't get stale as quickly.
Make an argument against that point, I dare you.
The pvx encounter is still challenging either way. Intrepid can make the pve part of an encounter as challenging as they want. They can make it so challenging that a single player opposing you would make the encounter too hard to kill. So now the raid has to account for that. It can be dealt with diplomatically beforehand. Or it can be dealt with by pvp, forcefully securing the area and killing anyone who tries to interfere before they can interfere.
I don't know how you're saying the game would have no pve content. On top of all the other types of pve content in the game, that encounter were talking about is also pve content. It could be pure pve content if the raid group is not interfered with during the encounter at all. But even if pvp happens during it, it's still pve content. Maybe "pvx" in a technical sense, but the pve is still in the content, it doesn't just disappear.
It is exciting to me, maybe not to you. I've played Archeage and several other pvp/pvx type games. I find them a lot more exciting than heavily instanced games. This is just a difference of opinion.
More content types does mean content doesn't get stale as quickly. That means add as many good types of content as possible for the game, not ones like instancing that are bad for the game. That's not just my opinion. These devs are pretty anti instancing and pro open world. It'd be like if I went to WoW and was like so guys, I've been thinking, lets turn a bunch of these raids into open world pvp zones.
Edit: I had more to say, just too tired right now, argue with you tomorrow maybe lol
The pvx encounter is still challenging either way. Intrepid can make the pve part of an encounter as challenging as they want. They can make it so challenging that a single player opposing you would make the encounter too hard to kill. So now the raid has to account for that. It can be dealt with diplomatically beforehand. Or it can be dealt with by pvp, forcefully securing the area and killing anyone who tries to interfere before they can interfere.
Diplomacy only really works in relation to guild vs guild things. When you are talking about a single player, diplomacy isn't a thing.
I mean, if your guild is trying to kill a mob and I want to stop it and have the means to do so, if you think you can talk me out of doing that, I'm not sure what to tell you.
I'm not saying the game won't have any PvE content, I am saying the game won't have any top end PvE content. To prove this point, do you consider the flag in a traditional capture the flag match to be PvE?
It is the object of PvP, not a PvE element.
The same is true for encounters that are in the open world in a PvP setting. The only difference is that these encounters have HP.
The reason these encounters are not exciting is because there is always (as in, without fail) a monopoly on which guild kills it. It is stale content because if you do not happen to be in that guild, there is more productive things you can do with your time - and so your options are to show up and slow down the guild that will eventually get the kill, or go and do something else to better your guilds players.
After nearly 20 years of playing games with open world raid encounters, I can say with confidence that these are the two options that anyone not in that one guild will have on any given spawn of these encounters. Assuming anything else is simply wishful thinking, with no factual basis to support it.
However, as I am likely to be in that guild, I am still all for that content. However, as I have said many times, I am all for that content as one type of top end content. This means that your guild has options when that open world raid encounter spawns - you can attempt to slow me and my guild down, or you can do something else productive.
My argument here is for there to be that option - productive options - for you. Your argument is to remove those options - and that is an argument I have still not heard you attempt to actually make.
Now that you have made your general opinion fairly clear, I want you to actually read what it is you are arguing against - as it is very clear you have not done that. While it is a bit of a read, it is the first post on the second page of this thread - that is what you are arguing against here, with me, in this thread.
Again, good luck with that.
2
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
My question on the ever-changing world is will they have any kind of world events that will force change if there's ever a gridlock or something...
If a certain guild controls a metropolis and castle for X long really keeping that area kind of stagnant.
The area won't be stagnant because what happens in any City or Metro creates changes in other other cities and Metros. Same for Castles.
And there will also be world events...
According to the game design.
Ahh god it was a trap to make me read that long post. Ok I read it. Your ideas have definitely progressed from "give me instanced raiding because I like instanced raiding and every mmo should have it." You are at least now trying to make it more palatable and tying in core philosophies of Ashes.
Like I told the OP, I like his ideas and they should be considered if Ashes decides to pull a 180 and go heavy instancing. The ideas are better than just straight braindead lobby game instancing. I like some of your ideas too. They could potentially work great being implemented into the ~20% quote we already have on instancing, same with the OP's.
And that's about the most you'll get from me. You can come up with a million ideas about instancing and they can all be better than what current instanced games do. But on the flipside are the people who think the idea of a mostly or near completely open world is the better idea. To me and others, that idea is not only just as good, but better, acknowledging of course that there are pros and cons that come with both ideas.
Not every mmo has to check off all the same boxes, its ok to have some variety in the genre among the AAA games. Ashes could be the premiere open world pvx mmorpg. And some other game could be the premiere heavily or moderately instanced pve/pvp mmorpg.
Right now, with Ashes, we have a pristine open world specimen in development. Maybe you don't realize it, but many people do realize that that concept can work. If it's a AAA effort, fully funded, no p2w, feature complete, well coded, not full loot drop, has the right systems in place, then it already surpasses what most other open world mmos attempt.
Instancing is not some magic elixir or holy grail. Many mmos that have instancing have failed or not done very well for various reasons. Same as the fact that an mmo being open world is not a death sentence in itself. The death sentence usually comes from p2w, low funding, harsh full loot drop, no systems in place to moderate and control the pvp, just straight ffa gank fest. And somehow even games as bad as those still have a market share.
Ashes is looking to do it right though. I have some of the same concerns as you, mega guilds/alliances dominating and whatnot. But I'm not as doom and gloom as you, I know it can work.
Now that you have made your general opinion fairly clear, I want you to actually read what it is you are arguing against - as it is very clear you have not done that. While it is a bit of a read, it is the first post on the second page of this thread - that is what you are arguing against here, with me, in this thread.
Again, good luck with that.
Yes I'm still arguing against that. Not wholesale, I think some of the ideas are good and could be implemented into the limited instancing Ashes will have, as we know it now.
But I'm definitely arguing against any more instancing than what we already know to be in the design.
Diplomacy only really works in relation to guild vs guild things. When you are talking about a single player, diplomacy isn't a thing.
I mean, if your guild is trying to kill a mob and I want to stop it and have the means to do so, if you think you can talk me out of doing that, I'm not sure what to tell you.
If you're the raid leader of this magnificent 40 man raid ready to slay the scariest AI monster in the land and you can't deal with 1 fuckface player, what are you even doing in Ashes? Kill the guy, fucking annihilate him. Warn him, don't let him anywhere near the heart of your operation and if he disobeys absolutely obliterate him in .5 seconds. He has to flag up to attack you, instantly obliterate him when he does.
Diplomacy - make an agreement with another guild who has criminal players to assist in clearing the area of problem players. Make an agreement with another guild to show up with such overwhelming force that a single problem player is not going to matter in the the first place. Hire mercs.
Ashes is going to have high end raid content. It might not be YOUR definition of what makes "top end raid content." But it's going to have pve raid content. To deny that is just denying reality.
The rest of your post is just doom and gloom "pvpers will pick on me while I'm trying to pve." Man up, form alliances to deal with whatever alliances are obstructing you. Win some, lose some. That's the game as it stands now.
My question on the ever-changing world is will they have any kind of world events that will force change if there's ever a gridlock or something...
If a certain guild controls a metropolis and castle for X long really keeping that area kind of stagnant.
The area won't be stagnant because what happens in any City or Metro creates changes in other other cities and Metros. Same for Castles.
And there will also be world events...
According to the game design.
You are really talented and not understanding what I mean
Your ideas have definitely progressed from "give me instanced raiding because I like instanced raiding and every mmo should have it."
That has never been my opinion.
My opinion has always been "Ashes should have top end raiding because Steven has said the game should have top end raiding". What he doesnt know (due to him never having experienced top end raiding) is that raid content is like a pyramid, with each layer down from the top doubling in the number of players that are able to complete it.
As such, if you want your top end content to be able to be killed by 8% of your playerbase (single digit percent is what has been stated), then the second layer down needs to be able to be killed by 16%, the next by 32%, then 64%, and the bottom layer by 100% of the playerbase.
You cant have a game with content that is open to everyone, and the next tier is only able to be killed by that less than 10%.
Not only does that content need to be able to be killed by that level of the playerbase, but it needs to actually be killed by that level of the player base in practice.
If that content is open world, there is a hard limit on how many people can kill it.
My suggestions for raid content in Ashes has ALWAYS been about making this clash of facts work.
Having exclusively instanced raiding in Ashes simply wont work - it doesnt fit the game. Having exclusively open world, contested content also wont work, as it doesnt allow for satisfaction of the less than 10% able to kill the top end content concept (note, the comment was single digit able to kill it, not single digit actually killing it - these are different statements).
So, while Ashes absolutely shouldnt rely on instanced raiding (this doesnt mean it cant have some), it also cant rely exclusively on open world, contested raid content if we are to assume Intrepid wish to stick to the comments they have made in regards to raiding.
As such, literally everything I have ever said on raiding in Ashes has been to arrive at that end. I have never and will never said Ashes should have instanced raiding because I like it, I have always said it should have limited instanced raiding as a component of a larger raiding content collection.
The fact that you were unaware that this is literally what I have been saying for several years here makes me think you entered the discussion without having actually looked at what anyone's actual points were,as you very clearly had no idea what mine had been for literal years.
Diplomacy only really works in relation to guild vs guild things. When you are talking about a single player, diplomacy isn't a thing.
I mean, if your guild is trying to kill a mob and I want to stop it and have the means to do so, if you think you can talk me out of doing that, I'm not sure what to tell you.
If you're the raid leader of this magnificent 40 man raid ready to slay the scariest AI monster in the land and you can't deal with 1 fuckface player, what are you even doing in Ashes? Kill the guy, fucking annihilate him. Warn him, don't let him anywhere near the heart of your operation and if he disobeys absolutely obliterate him in .5 seconds. He has to flag up to attack you, instantly obliterate him when he does.
If that encounter is tuned to be truly difficult, the raid shifting focus from the mob to that player would reduce DPS enough to make killing the mob impossible. Top end raiding is that tightly curated.
This is kind of what I am saying, making these things possible means lowering the possible difficulty of the content.
Now that you have made your general opinion fairly clear, I want you to actually read what it is you are arguing against - as it is very clear you have not done that. While it is a bit of a read, it is the first post on the second page of this thread - that is what you are arguing against here, with me, in this thread.
Again, good luck with that.
Yes I'm still arguing against that. Not wholesale, I think some of the ideas are good and could be implemented into the limited instancing Ashes will have, as we know it now.
But I'm definitely arguing against any more instancing than what we already know to be in the design.
If you look over what I have said I'd like to see, there is actually a lower percent of instanced content than the 20% Intrepid have said, despite the fact they have said they will add more if they think it is warranted.
So go for it. Continue to argue against it. Or should I say, start to argue against it - as you haven't yet formed a coherent actual stance against it.
Ashes is going to have high end raid content. It might not be YOUR definition of what makes "top end raid content." But it's going to have pve raid content.
Ashes is going to have PvE raid content, I have never said otherwise.
What I have been arguing for is high end PvE raids.
As I said earlier, in order to have high end raid content, you need to have a pyramid type content structure - a fact your arguments are totally devoid of.
You cant just have content for everyone, and then a few harder encounters and call them top end. You need to build up to the top end encounters - and that is something Steven has also said he wants to do.
I literally had a multi thread, multi page, days if not weeks long argument with you about instancing some months back. You had none of these elaborate instancing ideas at the time. I can't remember every thing you said but the impression I got was you just wanted more instancing and that was that. It didn't matter that the game has already billed and literally sold itself to many people as a vast, vast majority open world game. It didn't matter that the devs have said instancing will be very limited. It didn't matter that umpteen billion other mmos, coop games, and single player games have all the instanced pve a heart could desire. Nooani wanted more instancing in Ashes of Creation.
If I mischaracterized what you said in my post, I wrote it off the cuff, I apologize. But that was my general impression, you just want more instancing.
The game will have high end raiding based on it's current design. Just a different twist on it. A pvx twist. And based on some dev quotes there may be a small amount of it instanced that better suits your definition of what high end raiding is. But it will have high end raiding either way.
The whole raid doesn't have to shift focus. People should be delegated to deal with potential problem players. They can still make the pve content as hard as they desire. If players interfere with your raid attempt and you defeat them, but in the process because of how hard and tight the pve encounter is, you end up failing it, welcome to Ashes. Do better next time. Have a better plan. Execute it faster and more efficiently. Everyone else is dealing with the same shit.
So go for it. Continue to argue against it. Or should I say, start to argue against it - as you haven't yet formed a coherent actual stance against it.
Oh I haven't made an actual coherent argument against more instancing? I can go through my post history and find dozens of examples of me doing exactly that. Literally in arguments with YOU. In this thread alone before you even posted in it I was making coherent arguments against MORE instancing.
Your definitions of what makes high end raiding are just that, your definitions. There is no gospel in these numbers and percentages you come up with and the mandates that must be followed to conform to your ideas. It's all just you and in your head brother.
The games going to have high end raiding, it's version of it, not WoW's or EQ's version of it.
So go for it. Continue to argue against it. Or should I say, start to argue against it - as you haven't yet formed a coherent actual stance against it.
Oh I haven't made an actual coherent argument against more instancing?
I'm not concerned I'd you have made an argument against more instancing, I am asking you to make an argument against the outline I gave above.
That is how I would like to see PvE content in Ashes, so if you want to disagree with me, that is what you are disagreeing with, and that is what you need to argue against.
Since that outline has less than Intrepids stated 20% instanced content, you disagreeing with me and then arguing against more instanced content just doesn't make any sense.
Perhaps that is why you were so off-base last time we had this discussion - you cant get past your preconceived notion.
The last discussion I was a part of in regards to instanced content, I said many, many times that there is no need for more than 20% of encounters to be instanced. That discussion was in relation to how that 20% could be developed.
Perhaps you mistook the fact that we were only talking about instanced content as a sign that we only wanted instanced content, despite saying many times that isn't what was being discussed (your preconceived notions coming in to play there).
Then again, maybe it was something else. I cant read your mind. All I know is that I have always been fine with Intrepids 20% instanced content, if - and only if - they make good use of that 20%.
The games going to have high end raiding, it's version of it, not WoW's or EQ's version of it.
Again, not something I am asking for here. Where did I say that is what I wanted? Or is that just another of your preconceived notions that you have?
Ashes will have top end raiding. However, in order to have top end raiding, it needs to also have mid-tier and low end raiding. You cant have a top end without these (is this a statement you disagree with?).
My comments here and in the past have mostly been about how that content should be, keeping in mind that low tier raid content should be accessible to all players that wish to take part, and should be content that trains players in raid systems and mechanics, and provides then with basic gear for mid tier raid content. That mid tier raid content should weed out the less effective players and leaders, and leave only the best players to move on to the top end content.
Again, is there any of that you disagree with?
In order for the above to work, there needs to be access to that low tier content. Since it needs to be available for any who want it, there needs to essentially be infinite amounts of it. Low end content can't fulfil it's function if the appropriate people can't actually participate in it - and if low end content isn't fulfilling it's job, you can't build mid or high end content on top of that (building on an unsound foundation and all that).
That doesn't mean it needs to be the same as WoW, or either EQ, and indeed it shouldn't be as the content from any of those games would be out of place in Ashes (something I have always agreed with).
However, there still needs to be that low and mid tier content. Not having things the same as WoW and EQ does not mean basic facts don't still hold true, it means you take a different approach to meeting the needs of those facts.
Just to be clear, I'd prefer no instancing at all. I'm against anything that pulls players out of the open world into an instanced mini-game. My ideas are mainly presented as an alternative to instancing or other dungeon designs that completely lock others out of a dungeon. I actually don't care too much about which dungeon designs they implement as long as the latter is kept to the absolute bare minimum.
Just to be clear, I'd prefer no instancing at all. I'm against anything that pulls players out of the open world into an instanced mini-game. My ideas are mainly presented as an alternative to instancing or other dungeon designs that completely lock others out of a dungeon. I actually don't care too much about which dungeon designs they implement as long as the latter is kept to the absolute bare minimum.
I'm completely against the idea of instanced dungeons in Ashes as well.
However, an open dungeon where a small number of bosses have their room instanced off (so it is an instanced room, not an instanced dungeon) is fine with me, and I think it still fits in with Ashes primary game goals. Players are not able to isolate themselves in this content, as by it's very design you need others there with you - it's just that they are there in a purely co-operative sense. In the same way that some content eliminates co-operation and leaves only competition, instancing eliminates competition and leaves only co-operation. However, as you know, I am of the opinion that in both cases, rather than eliminating co-operation or competition, I believe that it should just be moved to either before the content in question, or after the content in question, as well as leaving some content where both competition and co-operation are in tact both before and after, as well as during the content in question.
I am against it on solo content though, as that is by definition locking yourself away - there is no co-operation and no competition. Go play Skyrim if this is what you want to do, imo.
I know that you know all of this, this post is more for those that don't.
My question on the ever-changing world is will they have any kind of world events that will force change if there's ever a gridlock or something...
If a certain guild controls a metropolis and castle for X long really keeping that area kind of stagnant.
The area won't be stagnant because what happens in any City or Metro creates changes in other other cities and Metros. Same for Castles.
And there will also be world events...
According to the game design.
There is no statement that what happens in one metropolis will impact on content that is under the ZoI of a different metropolis.
I'm not concerned I'd you have made an argument against more instancing, I am asking you to make an argument against the outline I gave above.
That is how I would like to see PvE content in Ashes, so if you want to disagree with me, that is what you are disagreeing with, and that is what you need to argue against.
Since that outline has less than Intrepids stated 20% instanced content, you disagreeing with me and then arguing against more instanced content just doesn't make any sense.
I'm not arguing against the ideas that I like from you or the OP. I am arguing against more instancing, which I see in your outline. And I'm arguing against many of the other stuff you put in your posts in general. Things like the "well if 1 guy interferes and the blah blah blah and its not real top raid content and etc, and much more than that lol. Because I think a lot of the very pve raider centric stuff you say is either not accurate or doesn't matter in the context of Ashes. It's just differences of opinion.
I said earlier in the thread I liked the OP's ideas and I told you I like some of your ideas. The ones that I do like from the OP and you are what I guess I'd call enhanced instancing. Ideas that keep the instance tied more to the open world in some kind of way. For however much Ashes ends up being instanced, ideas like that are better than basic instancing. But even those ideas should be used as little as possible because the less instancing the better in an open world game, in my opinion. We have the ballpark figure of 20% for the purpose of greater narrative appeal, according to the devs. I'd definitely like to see ideas like those implemented into that where possible.
If you want me critique your outline so bad fine lol.
Content type 1 - Kinda what we already know, instancing for scripted, narrative focused encounters. We don't really have enough information yet, but I think your numbers are off. Going with the higher number of 4 boss encounter instances per dungeon, that would require dungeons to have 20 boss encounters to stay at 20% of boss encounters being instanced. 3 instances would require 15 boss encounters per dungeon.
Neither one sounds likely to me, maybe I'm mistaken, but seems pretty high. How many dungeons are going to be open on the map at any given time once the server has developed some? We don't know. 5? 10? 20? So based on those numbers we could be talking 20-80 boss encounter instances that everyone has access to. (4 instanced bosses multipled by 5, 10, 20 dungeons.) Sure seems like a lot for an open world game. Lockout timers play a role in this of course, we don't know what those would be. The amount of overland world boss encounters play into this too, because of the 80/20 split between open world and instanced encounters. We don't know that information either. We don't know a lot, which makes all of this hard to fully analyze.
But there's potentially a lot of instances here. Too many I'd say, depends on factors we don't know yet. The critical thing is how much progression do players get from these instances? In an open world game, progression gained from instances should be a drop in the bucket of what's needed to progress in any kind of timely fashion. Some kind of gain should be made from instances otherwise they're pointless, but the vast majority of progression in an open world game, xp wise, wealth wise, gear wise, should come from open world, 100% fully contested and interruptible content.
Content type 2 - This is the same idea that Paradox Gaming Network had in tandem with his idea of changing instancing from an 80/20 open/instanced split to a 20/80 open/instanced split. It nullifies the corruption system for this encounter type, so no one can steal a portion of anyone's loot. It's basically a last guild/alliance standing gank box until everyone else is dead and the last guild standing can finish off the boss. I mean it sounds fun, but goes against some design principles. It'd probably be argued that it's unfair somehow for pvers. I'm kinda just neutral on it.
Content type 3 - Enhanced instancing. Better than basic instancing if it has to be instanced for narrative appeal. But if not, the same idea can just be done in the open world in a better and more exciting way. The guild that subdues the opposition wins the chance to take on the boss either way. I do like the idea though as enhanced instancing, it's solid. Just saying, it's essentially what happens in the open world too.
Content type 4 - Essentially the same as content type 3. Can be done in the open world. McGuffins are required to open the area, but other people with McGuffins keys can come in as well. Again, a solid idea that I'd rather see over basic instancing, but can be done better in the open world. Because everything's better in the open world in an open world game.
I'm not going to reply to much of the rest of your post, maybe tomorrow I'll look over it again. It's full of typical Noaani backhanded debate tactics like deflection, goalpost shifting and so on lol.
I'm not concerned I'd you have made an argument against more instancing, I am asking you to make an argument against the outline I gave above.
That is how I would like to see PvE content in Ashes, so if you want to disagree with me, that is what you are disagreeing with, and that is what you need to argue against.
Since that outline has less than Intrepids stated 20% instanced content, you disagreeing with me and then arguing against more instanced content just doesn't make any sense.
I'm not arguing against the ideas that I like from you or the OP. I am arguing against more instancing, which I see in your outline.
Intrepid have said they want to have about 20% of content instanced.
The dungeons that I have talked about have perhaps 5 or so main boss encounters, and another 30+ secondary bosses (I am used to dungeons with 50 or more bosses, so 35 is a fairly small number - and Intrepid have said they want their dungeons to be large). So, even if we just compare content within a given dungeon, we are still beating that 20% threshold - without even taking the overland content in to consideration.
I find it interesting you are against the second type of content I outlined, as that is the current de-facto content that the game will have. Intrepid have hinted that they will make the area around top end open world raids in to battlegrounds. Basically, the description I gave was raid content in Ashes as all current information defines it.
Effectively, this is the content you are arguing for - not arguing against. I get the feeling that may come as a surprise to you.
What I think you are missing in your analysis is the purpose behind each content type. While I didn't really go over it in that post, I did make the assumption that anyone wanting to get in to a debate in it would instantly recognize why each content type exists in the context of Ashes. Nothing in that post was just random, nor was it a collection of "things that I think would be cool". There were several content types that each perform a specific role, and removing any one of them means you need to create other content to perform that role that you just cut.
While it is obvious you do not yet realize the purpose behind each content type, I think you have it in you to work it out.
Sorry, home internet went out again for the 15th time this month, back on now.
First paragraph - all theory on your part, depends on Steven's definition of large which is unknown, depends on how many dungeons are on the map at any given time which is also unknown. You can't prove your numbers right now because it's not possible with the current information we have. Nothing wrong with talking about it, but it's all theory at this point.
Second paragraph - If I'm mistaken about something then fill me in with a link to a quote or wiki or something. I've been mistaken before, it happens. But my understanding is that that's not the de facto content the game will have. If two currently warring guilds or nodes clash over the same piece of content then yes that's what it is. Outside of that, it's subject to the corruption system and flagging rules. I said I was neutral on your second content type, not against it. I think I lean against it currently, but still neutral in that if Intrepid made a case as to why that should be a content type, I'd listen and could be swayed, in the same way I could be swayed that caravans should be a battleground (if they weren't) because it makes sense.
Other than the purposes of fun, making instances not as instancy...other basic purposes of anything in a video game, no I don't know what your purposes are for the content types. And I'm not going to try to figure it out, just tell me.
Sorry, home internet went out again for the 15th time this month, back on now.
First paragraph - all theory on your part, depends on Steven's definition of large which is unknown, depends on how many dungeons are on the map at any given time which is also unknown. You can't prove your numbers right now because it's not possible with the current information we have. Nothing wrong with talking about it, but it's all theory at this point.
Well, not really.
We are talking about what I want in this particular situation, and since what I am talking about is dungeons with 30+ regular bosses and 5+ more important bosses, then that is what the content we are talking about has.
The fact that Steven wants large dungeons just adds some support to the idea that the dungeons in Ashes will be large.
Second paragraph - If I'm mistaken about something then fill me in with a link to a quote or wiki or something. I've been mistaken before, it happens. But my understanding is that that's not the de facto content the game will have. If two currently warring guilds or nodes clash over the same piece of content then yes that's what it is. Outside of that, it's subject to the corruption system and flagging rules. I said I was neutral on your second content type, not against it. I think I lean against it currently, but still neutral in that if Intrepid made a case as to why that should be a content type, I'd listen and could be swayed, in the same way I could be swayed that caravans should be a battleground (if they weren't) because it makes sense.
I don't believe it will be in the wiki (and thus won't be a reference in the wiki). Many side comments Steven makes are not to be found anywhere there.
Even without a direct comment to that effect from Steven, I'm quite sure you can see reasoning behind them wanting to do this. All content and situations in which PvP is actually important - situations where the game asks players to fight over something (sieges, caravans, guild and node wars) are removed from the corruption system. Large scale open world raid encounters are another such case where the game is asking players to fight over something, and so it follows that Intrepid will likely make the area around them a battleground.
This is something that has been mentioned in the past (I want to say about two years ago now), but even without that, I am sure you can see the logic there.
Other than the purposes of fun, making instances not as instancy...other basic purposes of anything in a video game, no I don't know what your purposes are for the content types. And I'm not going to try to figure it out, just tell me.
Dungeons - basic content for most players to participate in. Makes use of the corruption system, and so is basically just "the game" as far as most players would be concerned.
Individual boss instances in dungeons - there to introduce players to scripted/curated PvE. A PvE training ground for raiders, and provides a base level of gear that would be needed for any other content. These are instanced because anyone that wants to see if they can raid should have some sort of opportunity to do so - and if entry level raid content is open world, these people that are considering getting in to it will not be able to find any content. Basically, give people a chance to get their foot in the door before swinging it shut on them.
The instanced boss that requires transportation back to a metropolis - this encounter should be a strong step up from the other four instanced bosses, but the item drops should be the same. The item that needs to be transported back to a metropolis (via caravan) exists is a reward specific to that encounter and should allow for the creation of an item that is better than the other drops. However, as it is transported via caravan, and as there is a world wide announcement when the encounter is killed, this also provides PvP - this means that the best rewards from all of that instanced PvE is subject to PvP, where the players that just earned that reward not only have a giant arrow pointing at them (figuratively), but are also at a distinct disadvantage due to needing to move at caravan speed. This is the one aspect of the whole thing that isn't necessary, strictly speaking. I put it in because I would rather see the top end rewards from this instanced content be subject to redistribution via PvP - as I am sure many others would as well.
McGuffin content - there to provide a mid tier of content that takes dedication to actually participate in, and just getting to the content requires competition and co-operation with other guilds. There needs to be a mid tier here in terms of both encounter design and player reward, in part because Steven said he wanted a tiered raid content system, but also in part because if there isn't a mid tier, there can't be a top tier.
This content is instanced in order to prevent it being dead easy for guilds killing the top end content completely blocking other guilds coming up through mid tier content. If mid tier encounters were open, then the first guild to get to the top tier content would simply just kill all mid tier content in order to stop other guilds from gearing up enough to take on the top end encounters. This system doesn't completely block off the ability for a guild to block the progress of a lower guild, it just makes it far, far harder - as should be the case. If you are going to block my guilds access to content, it should basically be all you are able to do. You should not be able to block my guilds access to content for a week with 10 minutes worth of fighting (as is the case with open world content).
The last two types of content exist as the top tier, the asperation. The open world encounters are there as the PvP enabled, outright mass slaughter that Ashes needs, and the caged encounters are there is the more finessed, skilled, curated encounters.
Now, there are people out there that say Intrepid can just make open world encounters that are scripted, and are every bit as well crafted as instanced encounters in other games.
To that, I say 'no they can't'.
There are companies with bigger budgets, more and better developers, and someone running the company that has actually released an MMO that have spent literal years trying to do that and have failed. There is no reason to assume Intrepid would then be able to do that. The argument can be made, but if it is made, it is made from a place that is devoid of logic and a view towards reality. It is basically wishful thinking, not constructive debate.
Some have also said that Intrepid could have enough encounters in the open world to not need to instance encounters. This is also fairly obviously logically impossible. If the game is going to have content for players to learn how to raid on (why would anyone suggest that it shouldn't?), then players wishing to learn need access to that content.
Since this is the internet, if others can block them from that content, they will. Since a small group of 4 well geared players in most games can kill the low tier raid content that is appropriate for their level, it would be foolish to think that a guild wanting to get a start in raiding would be able to ever find any content in the open world Arguing this is again devoid of a view towards reality, although in this case it is not devoid of logic, as the people that would b lock these entry level guilds would do so out of spit as much as anything else, and that is not logical.
So, that is the reason behind each content type.
If you remove the low level instances, you remove entry level content for new guilds to get in to raiding. You basically make it a club that the first two or three guilds to get in to can then close off to everyone else. Removing it would mean needing to replace it with other entry level raid content that others can not block new guilds from attempting.
If you remove the McGuffin system, you remove the mid-tier barrier that makes the top end content actually top end. Without a mid tier, top end content is not something to aspire to at all, it is just something that is there, and fairly easy to attain. if this content is open ,it creates a point similar to the above, where the first two guilds to get to top end content can simply block off this mid tier, essentially locking all future guilds out of the top end club.
Comments
Dont know maybe every week. And boss reward only once a week. So each week the run is New.
Maybe not a week but maybe on items reset or daily reset even
My issue with this us that it cuts off future hard content.
The idea of getting a reward for an piece of hard content is not just as a reward for completing that content. Rather, that quality of content acts as a kind of key to the next lot of harder content.
If the content developers are doing their job, the harder content shouldnt really be possible without some of the gear from that previous hard content.
Adding in hard content that has no reward other than cosmetics is basically like saying there wont be more hard content to follow on from it, as any hard content they may add after that can still be completed without even looking at that hard content that only has cosmetic rewards.
Further to that, the point of Ashes is that rewards are generated in PvE, and subject to redistribution via PvP. Adding in PvE content that has no actual reward that is subject to redistribution via PvP (crafting materials, etc) is defeating the purpose of PvE, and robbing PvP players of loot to redistribute amongst themselves.
I disagree with this. There's a huge psychological difference between beating a human player and a scripted AI. If you know that there's someone on the other side actually experiencing emotions of defeat or victory, then it makes the experience less dull. Players that win the most generally have the most fun. Every win is like a validation of their skills relative to others.
Also, if anyone ever gets bored of winning in Ashes, then they could simply run around solo in the open world and pick fights against groups to even the odds. There will be any shortage of PvP skill needed in Ashes. In fact, some situations in open world PvP or PvX will be have an infinite skill cap, because some situations in the open world will be literally impossible to win. A simple example is Steven finding himself alone in the middle of 50 hostile players in one of the livestreams. There's no amount of skill that can overcome that.
Okay, I thought the cage was just a metaphor for a type of instance. If it's just one continuous battle, then yeah, it can't fit into the parallelized dungeon system. If there are stages, then you could just have rooms for each stage in a parallelized system.
I'm not sure what other dungeon content you are envisioning, but I can't think of much that couldn't fit inside a parallelized dungeon. Anything can be put inside each section, so as long as the content can be separated into sections, then it should be able to fit inside of that concept. Maybe I'm not understanding what other kinds of dungeons are possible, but maybe Intrepid will come up with something better.
Any mandatory dungeon items could be put in the intermediary sections between the parallelized sections. As for specific mobs and harvest locations, I would prefer keeping those in parallel sections because it gives more replayability and makes decisions more meaningful on which section you choose to enter. Also, you could do multiple sections in the same run, even all the sections if you want to. Just don't enter the next parallelized section which resets the previous section, go back to the previous intermediary section and instead of choosing the entrance of the parallel section you just cleared, choose any of the other sections instead. This can be repeated for all the remaining sections. Maybe there could be some additional reward for groups that can actually pull this off even despite the threat of PvP or PvX.
Lastly, I think the design is still an "open dungeon", because the dungeon can be entered by anyone at anytime in the open world. Maybe this is just a semantics issue though.
It's much less difficult for your group to get to a sub boss because there are multiple paths, and less intermediary sections to get to that section. The most difficult boss to get to is the final boss, because there are no alternative paths once you get to the final section and has the most preceding parallelized sections to get through. For that reason, it takes the longest to get to the final boss than a sub boss. So if you are just farming a dungeon for a sub boss, then it shouldn't be easy to finish the sub boss before another group finishes the final boss. And if another group is somehow able to do that, then the problem lies with your group. Either be faster at progressing through the PvE, or find a way to disrupt the other group's progress through forcing PvP.
Winning a PvP encounter is like winning a game of chess, or a game of pool, or a game of darts, or a game of...
Beating a good (note the use of the word good there) PvE encounter is more like beating a puzzle that was hand crafted for you by an enigmatologist.
If you look at scripted encounters as being AI, or some computer generated thing, or even something made without love and dedication from the developers, then sure, I can see why you would think they are boring. If that is your take on them, then there really is no point in even discussing raid content with you (no offense).
If you look at them as if they are puzzles made for you by other actual people, people that are trying to make assumptions as to how you will solve that puzzle, and place "traps" along the way for you to find, puzzles that take weeks of problem solving to work out, then you gain a much more solid appreciation for what raid encounters are.
When you look at raids this way, defeating a raid is still defeating another human, but this human is actually a team of professionals that spent months trying to craft a thing for you to beat.
Perhaps another way to put it, while PvP is player vs player, PvE at the top end is player vs developer.
Beating a developer that spent months on the thing you just beat is a much greater sense of accomplishment than beating another player that probably pulled their spec from a forum post, imo.
Then again, my perspective on raiding and raid content is basically specific to EQ2, as I have not seen another game that puts nearly that much care and attention in to the mechanics of top end PvE content.
Your point about people getting board then running around picking fights with larger groups also applies to raid content. It is always interesting to see how few people you need to beat content that your guild is no longer interested in - the exact same process as what you are saying PvP players can to to keep PvP interesting. I mean, I agree it is a thing they can do, it just isn't a thing that is exclusive to PvP.
Killing low end raid content that is designed for 24 people of you level, but only using 4 is a hell of a lot of fun. The best open dungeon is literally just that, a giant area of passageways, pathways and rooms (specifically not linear), where multiple groups are participating in content simultaneously. The idea is you want groups to run in to each other unexpectedly, as that creates conflict. Even in a non-PvP game like EQ2, running in to a group in an open dungeon would create open conflict (knowing how to train mobs on to other players was a useful skill in that game).
Take that concept and apply it to a PvP game (Ashes is a PvP game, despite what Dygz may say), and open dungeons are where the bulk of unplanned group vs group PvP should happen. There should be situations where you run around a corner and are faced with a group right in front of you that you didn't know where there at all, and they had no idea you were there either. There should ideally also be the risk of a third (and fourth) group showing up at any time - open dungeons really should be completely unpredictable like that. Open dungeons should be farmable in the same way some open world areas of the game are farmable.
A group should be able to find a spot, and just sit there farming that spot, if that is what they want to do.
Open world dungeons should act no different from the rest of the open world, other than the fact that the spaces should be tighter (to facilitate surprise), and the content should be for groups.
As I said though, I really like your idea, and I want to see it. It sounds fun, it sounds interesting.
The thing is, it is such a specific mechanic that any dungeon using it will feel like it is the same as any other dungeon using it. This is fine if it is used in some dungeons, but if it is used on all dungeons, then all dungeons will feel the same, and that was what we were trying to prevent, iirc.
Ideally, mobs can be very challenging while still having completely open dungeon design. We'll see what kind of innovations Intrepid can come up with to make this possible, but I wouldn't mind seeing the design I proposed as well. It's true that not all dungeons need to follow the same template, and they can implement multiple types. As long as each is tested in a PvX environment and found to be fun and rewarding for players.
To me, the best way to "deal" with the situation that open world mobs are not going to be as inherently challenging is to simply accept this fact from a design perspective, design these mobs as PvP flash points, and then design other mobs (in cages and instances, as well as other mechanics) as the encounters that are difficult.
While others may disagree with me, the design intent of Ashes is that all rewards are subject to redistribution via PvP. As far as I am concerned, as long as this notion is kept in tact, it doesn't matter if that PvP subjugation happens while the encounter is being taken on, before it is being taken on (my cage idea), or after it is being taken on (instanced content with a need to return an item to a metropolis as per my first post). All these of these are a means of subjecting the rewards of the encounter to redistribution via PvP.
What your suggestion does is keep the PvP subjugation as a possibility during the actual fight with the encounter, it just lowers the chances of it happening and places some additional decision in the hands of the people running the content - which again, sounds like really interesting content.
How good is that group at diplomacy and spying? How good are they at the pve encounter, but also how good are they at pvp if it comes? How good is their raid leader? Is the ceiling of his ability to lead a raid group nothing more than instanced, scripted 40 man raids? Or is he better than just that.
Is he good at putting scouts in the right places to get advance warning of when the main raid group might get hit with pvp? Did he think to have a separate stalling/blocking force in place? Does he have contingency plans to split off more members from the main group mid encounter if needed? All the different potential variables are a breath of fresh air compared to instanced mmos.
It's not perfect, nothing is, there's pros and cons to any system. But man does it sound exciting and create the potential for so much more dynamic gameplay than instancing things.
This post is entirely missing the point.
Open world encounters can either be too hard to be able to kill if you have a single player opposing you - yet offer a good challenge if you do not, or they can be a good challenge if you have players opposing you - but dead easy if you do not.
This is just a fact. There is no way to design around this.
Now, Ashes could well just go with that as being their top end content and be done with it. Sure. This is basically what you are saying (even if you mistakenly think you are saying more than this).
The thing is, if this is where they leave their PvE content, then they have no PvE content. Encounters in the open world that have rewards that players want are PvP content, not PvE.
The issue with this is what while you think it is "exciting" and such, it really isn't. Having played games with this exact content (most notably Archeage), this gets stale really quickly. If you think instancing is stale, you honestly ain't seen nothin' until you've seen this content type that you are espousing here.
My suggestion is to have both. More content types inherently mean content doesn't get stale as quickly.
Make an argument against that point, I dare you.
Whenever raids and dungeons come up in this forum I see two things. 1. A worry of Zerging and general 'fairness' related to escaping the conquered dungeon 2. For some a worry and others an observation that you will probably have to pvp to complete a dungeon due to it not being instanced. These two things generally lead to some really weird assumptions and conclusions, but that's not the point of this post.
Consider the following scenario:
The Soulfire Labyrinth has a few forks and misdirection. The mobs inside tend to be a decent challenge. Many of the Soul Wraiths and Soul Eaters respawn behind the party a little bit after defeating them. Turning straight around would be costly.
The party finds themselves getting squeezed into single file lines at times due to the narrow hallways and player collision. The party manages to find and avoid some traps and disable a few others thanks to their party rogues. They make their way through a few miniboss monsters and get some decent loot and a sense that they are getting closer to the boss room.
Finally they arrive at the boss chamber. Turns out they still need the lit lantern to open it's door. Once they do the light goes out of the lantern, the soulfire lighting up the ruins on the large stone door granting the party access. Thirty seconds after the party enters, the door closes and the node receives a message 'you think you hear the sound of a weeping ghost.' Now anyone in the node knows what's going down.
However the dungeon itself changes a bit. There were three possible routes to the dungeon boss. The shortest one is now closed off and a new one opens. The mini bosses of the dungeon now emit soulflame and a lantern bearer who manages to last hit the miniboss can light an unlit lantern. Additionally there are slightly more soul wraiths in the corridors, and a few more miniboss 'minion' soul eaters and planar beasts to make the fight slightly harder without just flatly padding the minibosses health and attack.
One of the big guilds in the area was paid a tribute before this to not go Zerg the dungeon. But the other somewhat smaller big guild in the area was not. They therefore start gathering anyone they can to rush the dungeon. Being a larger guild they have someone who has an unlit lantern. But they have not yet lit it for various reasons.
So now you have 40-50 people making their way through the longer paths in the dungeon. It's new enough content so no one has made a stage 2 map and is therefore not that straightforward to navigate. However one of the guild members has managed to do the dungeon before 'the hard way' and so they take the longer path.
The toughest part for the 40ish person rush is the various narrow path ways and the miniboss that are now about twice as strong, empowered by the soulfire and they are emitting a burning aura that causes a burn status on physical attackers, so it's a bit trickier to manage the last hit requirement. Because the item is exclusive they weren't able to just 'give it to the highest level tank'. But since they have a small numbers advantage they manage the fight.
Meanwhile the fight for the 16 man guild is going well. The boss has gotten down to 1/3 and the fight is intensifying.
The 40ish person rush is getting closer now, needing to get the lantern last hit slowed down the progress. However the group is making fairly good progress. Going through the longer path much faster than the smaller group.
Meanwhile back at the node, the remaining guild members of the 2nd largest guild in the node start scouting out the different exit points. It's not an exact science since they don't really open until the boss is defeated.
The 2nd largest guild finally arrives to the boss door. They are now met with the complicated question, 'Is the boss dead yet?' No message shows up to inform them. They have to choose to burn the pop item to rush the group after all their hard work only to find an empty room and try to rush the group at the exits, or try to make their way back out (a somewhat easier task now that there aren't minibosses in the way.)
One of the guild mates confirms that they think they see one of the exits opened. The raid leader tells their guild mate with the pop item to open the door. As the door opens the node receives the message 'you only hear echoes of howling in the distances'. The front door closes. There is now only two ways out for opportunists who were making their own way through the dungeon. Death, or quickly getting to the boss chamber before it too closes.
The rival raid group enters to find the corpse of a dead boss. The experienced guild mate tells the group to go to the center of the corpse and that they will need to prepare for some fall damage. It's not a small hole but the underground escape tunnels number about 8. There is about 5-7 guild members on the other side of each hole so the raid boss tells them to split up into groups of five as best they can. The hallways begin to narrow the groups to a single file once again. Some don't have a tank meaning the fighter or bard tend to be in front.
Our 16 Man group knew that they would probably have some competition at the exit due to the boss door message and are grateful they didn't decide to split the party. As they exit they are bum rushed by 2 fighters a cleric and a ranger. However the fight is 3-1 so they manage to take on the slightly better geared party without too much issue, taking some heavy hits to their mp and hp. This bought the pincer group enough time to find the party just before their weapons were sheathed and they could escape on mount. Luckily for them this was one of the groups with yet another fighter in front. Had it been otherwise they would probably have gotten away. They manage to down a couple of the 16 man groups members, but the rest get away safely.
The main consolation prize for the counter raiding guild was that they had managed to get another unlit lantern off of one of the fallen 16 man group members. A heavy loss for the smaller group. But not a huge consolation prize for the larger guild either.
This to me is ideal AoC dungeon design.
The pvx encounter is still challenging either way. Intrepid can make the pve part of an encounter as challenging as they want. They can make it so challenging that a single player opposing you would make the encounter too hard to kill. So now the raid has to account for that. It can be dealt with diplomatically beforehand. Or it can be dealt with by pvp, forcefully securing the area and killing anyone who tries to interfere before they can interfere.
I don't know how you're saying the game would have no pve content. On top of all the other types of pve content in the game, that encounter were talking about is also pve content. It could be pure pve content if the raid group is not interfered with during the encounter at all. But even if pvp happens during it, it's still pve content. Maybe "pvx" in a technical sense, but the pve is still in the content, it doesn't just disappear.
It is exciting to me, maybe not to you. I've played Archeage and several other pvp/pvx type games. I find them a lot more exciting than heavily instanced games. This is just a difference of opinion.
More content types does mean content doesn't get stale as quickly. That means add as many good types of content as possible for the game, not ones like instancing that are bad for the game. That's not just my opinion. These devs are pretty anti instancing and pro open world. It'd be like if I went to WoW and was like so guys, I've been thinking, lets turn a bunch of these raids into open world pvp zones.
Edit: I had more to say, just too tired right now, argue with you tomorrow maybe lol
I mean, if your guild is trying to kill a mob and I want to stop it and have the means to do so, if you think you can talk me out of doing that, I'm not sure what to tell you.
I'm not saying the game won't have any PvE content, I am saying the game won't have any top end PvE content. To prove this point, do you consider the flag in a traditional capture the flag match to be PvE?
It is the object of PvP, not a PvE element.
The same is true for encounters that are in the open world in a PvP setting. The only difference is that these encounters have HP.
The reason these encounters are not exciting is because there is always (as in, without fail) a monopoly on which guild kills it. It is stale content because if you do not happen to be in that guild, there is more productive things you can do with your time - and so your options are to show up and slow down the guild that will eventually get the kill, or go and do something else to better your guilds players.
After nearly 20 years of playing games with open world raid encounters, I can say with confidence that these are the two options that anyone not in that one guild will have on any given spawn of these encounters. Assuming anything else is simply wishful thinking, with no factual basis to support it.
However, as I am likely to be in that guild, I am still all for that content. However, as I have said many times, I am all for that content as one type of top end content. This means that your guild has options when that open world raid encounter spawns - you can attempt to slow me and my guild down, or you can do something else productive.
My argument here is for there to be that option - productive options - for you. Your argument is to remove those options - and that is an argument I have still not heard you attempt to actually make.
Now that you have made your general opinion fairly clear, I want you to actually read what it is you are arguing against - as it is very clear you have not done that. While it is a bit of a read, it is the first post on the second page of this thread - that is what you are arguing against here, with me, in this thread.
Again, good luck with that.
And there will also be world events...
According to the game design.
Like I told the OP, I like his ideas and they should be considered if Ashes decides to pull a 180 and go heavy instancing. The ideas are better than just straight braindead lobby game instancing. I like some of your ideas too. They could potentially work great being implemented into the ~20% quote we already have on instancing, same with the OP's.
And that's about the most you'll get from me. You can come up with a million ideas about instancing and they can all be better than what current instanced games do. But on the flipside are the people who think the idea of a mostly or near completely open world is the better idea. To me and others, that idea is not only just as good, but better, acknowledging of course that there are pros and cons that come with both ideas.
Not every mmo has to check off all the same boxes, its ok to have some variety in the genre among the AAA games. Ashes could be the premiere open world pvx mmorpg. And some other game could be the premiere heavily or moderately instanced pve/pvp mmorpg.
Right now, with Ashes, we have a pristine open world specimen in development. Maybe you don't realize it, but many people do realize that that concept can work. If it's a AAA effort, fully funded, no p2w, feature complete, well coded, not full loot drop, has the right systems in place, then it already surpasses what most other open world mmos attempt.
Instancing is not some magic elixir or holy grail. Many mmos that have instancing have failed or not done very well for various reasons. Same as the fact that an mmo being open world is not a death sentence in itself. The death sentence usually comes from p2w, low funding, harsh full loot drop, no systems in place to moderate and control the pvp, just straight ffa gank fest. And somehow even games as bad as those still have a market share.
Ashes is looking to do it right though. I have some of the same concerns as you, mega guilds/alliances dominating and whatnot. But I'm not as doom and gloom as you, I know it can work.
Yes I'm still arguing against that. Not wholesale, I think some of the ideas are good and could be implemented into the limited instancing Ashes will have, as we know it now.
But I'm definitely arguing against any more instancing than what we already know to be in the design.
If you're the raid leader of this magnificent 40 man raid ready to slay the scariest AI monster in the land and you can't deal with 1 fuckface player, what are you even doing in Ashes? Kill the guy, fucking annihilate him. Warn him, don't let him anywhere near the heart of your operation and if he disobeys absolutely obliterate him in .5 seconds. He has to flag up to attack you, instantly obliterate him when he does.
Diplomacy - make an agreement with another guild who has criminal players to assist in clearing the area of problem players. Make an agreement with another guild to show up with such overwhelming force that a single problem player is not going to matter in the the first place. Hire mercs.
Ashes is going to have high end raid content. It might not be YOUR definition of what makes "top end raid content." But it's going to have pve raid content. To deny that is just denying reality.
The rest of your post is just doom and gloom "pvpers will pick on me while I'm trying to pve." Man up, form alliances to deal with whatever alliances are obstructing you. Win some, lose some. That's the game as it stands now.
You are really talented and not understanding what I mean
My opinion has always been "Ashes should have top end raiding because Steven has said the game should have top end raiding". What he doesnt know (due to him never having experienced top end raiding) is that raid content is like a pyramid, with each layer down from the top doubling in the number of players that are able to complete it.
As such, if you want your top end content to be able to be killed by 8% of your playerbase (single digit percent is what has been stated), then the second layer down needs to be able to be killed by 16%, the next by 32%, then 64%, and the bottom layer by 100% of the playerbase.
You cant have a game with content that is open to everyone, and the next tier is only able to be killed by that less than 10%.
Not only does that content need to be able to be killed by that level of the playerbase, but it needs to actually be killed by that level of the player base in practice.
If that content is open world, there is a hard limit on how many people can kill it.
My suggestions for raid content in Ashes has ALWAYS been about making this clash of facts work.
Having exclusively instanced raiding in Ashes simply wont work - it doesnt fit the game. Having exclusively open world, contested content also wont work, as it doesnt allow for satisfaction of the less than 10% able to kill the top end content concept (note, the comment was single digit able to kill it, not single digit actually killing it - these are different statements).
So, while Ashes absolutely shouldnt rely on instanced raiding (this doesnt mean it cant have some), it also cant rely exclusively on open world, contested raid content if we are to assume Intrepid wish to stick to the comments they have made in regards to raiding.
As such, literally everything I have ever said on raiding in Ashes has been to arrive at that end. I have never and will never said Ashes should have instanced raiding because I like it, I have always said it should have limited instanced raiding as a component of a larger raiding content collection.
The fact that you were unaware that this is literally what I have been saying for several years here makes me think you entered the discussion without having actually looked at what anyone's actual points were,as you very clearly had no idea what mine had been for literal years. If that encounter is tuned to be truly difficult, the raid shifting focus from the mob to that player would reduce DPS enough to make killing the mob impossible. Top end raiding is that tightly curated.
This is kind of what I am saying, making these things possible means lowering the possible difficulty of the content.
If you look over what I have said I'd like to see, there is actually a lower percent of instanced content than the 20% Intrepid have said, despite the fact they have said they will add more if they think it is warranted.
So go for it. Continue to argue against it. Or should I say, start to argue against it - as you haven't yet formed a coherent actual stance against it.
Ashes is going to have PvE raid content, I have never said otherwise.
What I have been arguing for is high end PvE raids.
As I said earlier, in order to have high end raid content, you need to have a pyramid type content structure - a fact your arguments are totally devoid of.
You cant just have content for everyone, and then a few harder encounters and call them top end. You need to build up to the top end encounters - and that is something Steven has also said he wants to do.
If I mischaracterized what you said in my post, I wrote it off the cuff, I apologize. But that was my general impression, you just want more instancing.
The game will have high end raiding based on it's current design. Just a different twist on it. A pvx twist. And based on some dev quotes there may be a small amount of it instanced that better suits your definition of what high end raiding is. But it will have high end raiding either way.
The whole raid doesn't have to shift focus. People should be delegated to deal with potential problem players. They can still make the pve content as hard as they desire. If players interfere with your raid attempt and you defeat them, but in the process because of how hard and tight the pve encounter is, you end up failing it, welcome to Ashes. Do better next time. Have a better plan. Execute it faster and more efficiently. Everyone else is dealing with the same shit.
Oh I haven't made an actual coherent argument against more instancing? I can go through my post history and find dozens of examples of me doing exactly that. Literally in arguments with YOU. In this thread alone before you even posted in it I was making coherent arguments against MORE instancing.
Your definitions of what makes high end raiding are just that, your definitions. There is no gospel in these numbers and percentages you come up with and the mandates that must be followed to conform to your ideas. It's all just you and in your head brother.
The games going to have high end raiding, it's version of it, not WoW's or EQ's version of it.
That is how I would like to see PvE content in Ashes, so if you want to disagree with me, that is what you are disagreeing with, and that is what you need to argue against.
Since that outline has less than Intrepids stated 20% instanced content, you disagreeing with me and then arguing against more instanced content just doesn't make any sense.
Perhaps that is why you were so off-base last time we had this discussion - you cant get past your preconceived notion.
The last discussion I was a part of in regards to instanced content, I said many, many times that there is no need for more than 20% of encounters to be instanced. That discussion was in relation to how that 20% could be developed.
Perhaps you mistook the fact that we were only talking about instanced content as a sign that we only wanted instanced content, despite saying many times that isn't what was being discussed (your preconceived notions coming in to play there).
Then again, maybe it was something else. I cant read your mind. All I know is that I have always been fine with Intrepids 20% instanced content, if - and only if - they make good use of that 20%.
Again, not something I am asking for here. Where did I say that is what I wanted? Or is that just another of your preconceived notions that you have?
Ashes will have top end raiding. However, in order to have top end raiding, it needs to also have mid-tier and low end raiding. You cant have a top end without these (is this a statement you disagree with?).
My comments here and in the past have mostly been about how that content should be, keeping in mind that low tier raid content should be accessible to all players that wish to take part, and should be content that trains players in raid systems and mechanics, and provides then with basic gear for mid tier raid content. That mid tier raid content should weed out the less effective players and leaders, and leave only the best players to move on to the top end content.
Again, is there any of that you disagree with?
In order for the above to work, there needs to be access to that low tier content. Since it needs to be available for any who want it, there needs to essentially be infinite amounts of it. Low end content can't fulfil it's function if the appropriate people can't actually participate in it - and if low end content isn't fulfilling it's job, you can't build mid or high end content on top of that (building on an unsound foundation and all that).
That doesn't mean it needs to be the same as WoW, or either EQ, and indeed it shouldn't be as the content from any of those games would be out of place in Ashes (something I have always agreed with).
However, there still needs to be that low and mid tier content. Not having things the same as WoW and EQ does not mean basic facts don't still hold true, it means you take a different approach to meeting the needs of those facts.
I'm completely against the idea of instanced dungeons in Ashes as well.
However, an open dungeon where a small number of bosses have their room instanced off (so it is an instanced room, not an instanced dungeon) is fine with me, and I think it still fits in with Ashes primary game goals. Players are not able to isolate themselves in this content, as by it's very design you need others there with you - it's just that they are there in a purely co-operative sense. In the same way that some content eliminates co-operation and leaves only competition, instancing eliminates competition and leaves only co-operation. However, as you know, I am of the opinion that in both cases, rather than eliminating co-operation or competition, I believe that it should just be moved to either before the content in question, or after the content in question, as well as leaving some content where both competition and co-operation are in tact both before and after, as well as during the content in question.
I am against it on solo content though, as that is by definition locking yourself away - there is no co-operation and no competition. Go play Skyrim if this is what you want to do, imo.
I know that you know all of this, this post is more for those that don't.
There is no statement that what happens in one metropolis will impact on content that is under the ZoI of a different metropolis.
I'm not arguing against the ideas that I like from you or the OP. I am arguing against more instancing, which I see in your outline. And I'm arguing against many of the other stuff you put in your posts in general. Things like the "well if 1 guy interferes and the blah blah blah and its not real top raid content and etc, and much more than that lol. Because I think a lot of the very pve raider centric stuff you say is either not accurate or doesn't matter in the context of Ashes. It's just differences of opinion.
I said earlier in the thread I liked the OP's ideas and I told you I like some of your ideas. The ones that I do like from the OP and you are what I guess I'd call enhanced instancing. Ideas that keep the instance tied more to the open world in some kind of way. For however much Ashes ends up being instanced, ideas like that are better than basic instancing. But even those ideas should be used as little as possible because the less instancing the better in an open world game, in my opinion. We have the ballpark figure of 20% for the purpose of greater narrative appeal, according to the devs. I'd definitely like to see ideas like those implemented into that where possible.
If you want me critique your outline so bad fine lol.
Content type 1 - Kinda what we already know, instancing for scripted, narrative focused encounters. We don't really have enough information yet, but I think your numbers are off. Going with the higher number of 4 boss encounter instances per dungeon, that would require dungeons to have 20 boss encounters to stay at 20% of boss encounters being instanced. 3 instances would require 15 boss encounters per dungeon.
Neither one sounds likely to me, maybe I'm mistaken, but seems pretty high. How many dungeons are going to be open on the map at any given time once the server has developed some? We don't know. 5? 10? 20? So based on those numbers we could be talking 20-80 boss encounter instances that everyone has access to. (4 instanced bosses multipled by 5, 10, 20 dungeons.) Sure seems like a lot for an open world game. Lockout timers play a role in this of course, we don't know what those would be. The amount of overland world boss encounters play into this too, because of the 80/20 split between open world and instanced encounters. We don't know that information either. We don't know a lot, which makes all of this hard to fully analyze.
But there's potentially a lot of instances here. Too many I'd say, depends on factors we don't know yet. The critical thing is how much progression do players get from these instances? In an open world game, progression gained from instances should be a drop in the bucket of what's needed to progress in any kind of timely fashion. Some kind of gain should be made from instances otherwise they're pointless, but the vast majority of progression in an open world game, xp wise, wealth wise, gear wise, should come from open world, 100% fully contested and interruptible content.
Content type 2 - This is the same idea that Paradox Gaming Network had in tandem with his idea of changing instancing from an 80/20 open/instanced split to a 20/80 open/instanced split. It nullifies the corruption system for this encounter type, so no one can steal a portion of anyone's loot. It's basically a last guild/alliance standing gank box until everyone else is dead and the last guild standing can finish off the boss. I mean it sounds fun, but goes against some design principles. It'd probably be argued that it's unfair somehow for pvers. I'm kinda just neutral on it.
Content type 3 - Enhanced instancing. Better than basic instancing if it has to be instanced for narrative appeal. But if not, the same idea can just be done in the open world in a better and more exciting way. The guild that subdues the opposition wins the chance to take on the boss either way. I do like the idea though as enhanced instancing, it's solid. Just saying, it's essentially what happens in the open world too.
Content type 4 - Essentially the same as content type 3. Can be done in the open world. McGuffins are required to open the area, but other people with McGuffins keys can come in as well. Again, a solid idea that I'd rather see over basic instancing, but can be done better in the open world. Because everything's better in the open world in an open world game.
I'm not going to reply to much of the rest of your post, maybe tomorrow I'll look over it again. It's full of typical Noaani backhanded debate tactics like deflection, goalpost shifting and so on lol.
Intrepid have said they want to have about 20% of content instanced.
The dungeons that I have talked about have perhaps 5 or so main boss encounters, and another 30+ secondary bosses (I am used to dungeons with 50 or more bosses, so 35 is a fairly small number - and Intrepid have said they want their dungeons to be large). So, even if we just compare content within a given dungeon, we are still beating that 20% threshold - without even taking the overland content in to consideration.
I find it interesting you are against the second type of content I outlined, as that is the current de-facto content that the game will have. Intrepid have hinted that they will make the area around top end open world raids in to battlegrounds. Basically, the description I gave was raid content in Ashes as all current information defines it.
Effectively, this is the content you are arguing for - not arguing against. I get the feeling that may come as a surprise to you.
What I think you are missing in your analysis is the purpose behind each content type. While I didn't really go over it in that post, I did make the assumption that anyone wanting to get in to a debate in it would instantly recognize why each content type exists in the context of Ashes. Nothing in that post was just random, nor was it a collection of "things that I think would be cool". There were several content types that each perform a specific role, and removing any one of them means you need to create other content to perform that role that you just cut.
While it is obvious you do not yet realize the purpose behind each content type, I think you have it in you to work it out.
Give it a go.
First paragraph - all theory on your part, depends on Steven's definition of large which is unknown, depends on how many dungeons are on the map at any given time which is also unknown. You can't prove your numbers right now because it's not possible with the current information we have. Nothing wrong with talking about it, but it's all theory at this point.
Second paragraph - If I'm mistaken about something then fill me in with a link to a quote or wiki or something. I've been mistaken before, it happens. But my understanding is that that's not the de facto content the game will have. If two currently warring guilds or nodes clash over the same piece of content then yes that's what it is. Outside of that, it's subject to the corruption system and flagging rules. I said I was neutral on your second content type, not against it. I think I lean against it currently, but still neutral in that if Intrepid made a case as to why that should be a content type, I'd listen and could be swayed, in the same way I could be swayed that caravans should be a battleground (if they weren't) because it makes sense.
Other than the purposes of fun, making instances not as instancy...other basic purposes of anything in a video game, no I don't know what your purposes are for the content types. And I'm not going to try to figure it out, just tell me.
We are talking about what I want in this particular situation, and since what I am talking about is dungeons with 30+ regular bosses and 5+ more important bosses, then that is what the content we are talking about has.
The fact that Steven wants large dungeons just adds some support to the idea that the dungeons in Ashes will be large. I don't believe it will be in the wiki (and thus won't be a reference in the wiki). Many side comments Steven makes are not to be found anywhere there.
Even without a direct comment to that effect from Steven, I'm quite sure you can see reasoning behind them wanting to do this. All content and situations in which PvP is actually important - situations where the game asks players to fight over something (sieges, caravans, guild and node wars) are removed from the corruption system. Large scale open world raid encounters are another such case where the game is asking players to fight over something, and so it follows that Intrepid will likely make the area around them a battleground.
This is something that has been mentioned in the past (I want to say about two years ago now), but even without that, I am sure you can see the logic there.
Dungeons - basic content for most players to participate in. Makes use of the corruption system, and so is basically just "the game" as far as most players would be concerned.
Individual boss instances in dungeons - there to introduce players to scripted/curated PvE. A PvE training ground for raiders, and provides a base level of gear that would be needed for any other content. These are instanced because anyone that wants to see if they can raid should have some sort of opportunity to do so - and if entry level raid content is open world, these people that are considering getting in to it will not be able to find any content. Basically, give people a chance to get their foot in the door before swinging it shut on them.
The instanced boss that requires transportation back to a metropolis - this encounter should be a strong step up from the other four instanced bosses, but the item drops should be the same. The item that needs to be transported back to a metropolis (via caravan) exists is a reward specific to that encounter and should allow for the creation of an item that is better than the other drops. However, as it is transported via caravan, and as there is a world wide announcement when the encounter is killed, this also provides PvP - this means that the best rewards from all of that instanced PvE is subject to PvP, where the players that just earned that reward not only have a giant arrow pointing at them (figuratively), but are also at a distinct disadvantage due to needing to move at caravan speed. This is the one aspect of the whole thing that isn't necessary, strictly speaking. I put it in because I would rather see the top end rewards from this instanced content be subject to redistribution via PvP - as I am sure many others would as well.
McGuffin content - there to provide a mid tier of content that takes dedication to actually participate in, and just getting to the content requires competition and co-operation with other guilds. There needs to be a mid tier here in terms of both encounter design and player reward, in part because Steven said he wanted a tiered raid content system, but also in part because if there isn't a mid tier, there can't be a top tier.
This content is instanced in order to prevent it being dead easy for guilds killing the top end content completely blocking other guilds coming up through mid tier content. If mid tier encounters were open, then the first guild to get to the top tier content would simply just kill all mid tier content in order to stop other guilds from gearing up enough to take on the top end encounters. This system doesn't completely block off the ability for a guild to block the progress of a lower guild, it just makes it far, far harder - as should be the case. If you are going to block my guilds access to content, it should basically be all you are able to do. You should not be able to block my guilds access to content for a week with 10 minutes worth of fighting (as is the case with open world content).
The last two types of content exist as the top tier, the asperation. The open world encounters are there as the PvP enabled, outright mass slaughter that Ashes needs, and the caged encounters are there is the more finessed, skilled, curated encounters.
Now, there are people out there that say Intrepid can just make open world encounters that are scripted, and are every bit as well crafted as instanced encounters in other games.
To that, I say 'no they can't'.
There are companies with bigger budgets, more and better developers, and someone running the company that has actually released an MMO that have spent literal years trying to do that and have failed. There is no reason to assume Intrepid would then be able to do that. The argument can be made, but if it is made, it is made from a place that is devoid of logic and a view towards reality. It is basically wishful thinking, not constructive debate.
Some have also said that Intrepid could have enough encounters in the open world to not need to instance encounters. This is also fairly obviously logically impossible. If the game is going to have content for players to learn how to raid on (why would anyone suggest that it shouldn't?), then players wishing to learn need access to that content.
Since this is the internet, if others can block them from that content, they will. Since a small group of 4 well geared players in most games can kill the low tier raid content that is appropriate for their level, it would be foolish to think that a guild wanting to get a start in raiding would be able to ever find any content in the open world Arguing this is again devoid of a view towards reality, although in this case it is not devoid of logic, as the people that would b lock these entry level guilds would do so out of spit as much as anything else, and that is not logical.
So, that is the reason behind each content type.
If you remove the low level instances, you remove entry level content for new guilds to get in to raiding. You basically make it a club that the first two or three guilds to get in to can then close off to everyone else. Removing it would mean needing to replace it with other entry level raid content that others can not block new guilds from attempting.
If you remove the McGuffin system, you remove the mid-tier barrier that makes the top end content actually top end. Without a mid tier, top end content is not something to aspire to at all, it is just something that is there, and fairly easy to attain. if this content is open ,it creates a point similar to the above, where the first two guilds to get to top end content can simply block off this mid tier, essentially locking all future guilds out of the top end club.