Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
I feel attacked
Wait, are we not allowed to do that?
I'm being serious here because this argument seems pretty disingenuous.
Easy games are easy. Maybe not to everyone, but you CAN measure this, right? Do we have to dismiss all of this in favor of subjectivity? If 80% of MMORPGs do offer meaningful PvE challenge and 20% offer much less challenge, even if we don't disqualify those 20% as 'not MMORPGs', can't we at least say 'these games don't have 'real' PvE'?
I will try and stay composed without laughing but it better not be "avoid the colored donuts" that ff14 provides.
What @NiKr failed to mention though, was in L2 you wanted to form a party that was grinding/doing bosses optimally, so it's not like it's that easy (especially when you organize a party to pull multiple rooms etc), you needed everyone to work properly otherwise you would feel demoralised and there was plenty of that going on.
Well I can give you a thing I consider to be a definition.
Meaningful difficult PvE subjects the player to decision-making relative to the actions taken by the enemy. And I don't mean 'uhh... should I dodge this attack or stand here and take damage for not much benefit?'
If you could write a script/macro to do it and the script did NOT need to explicitly check the status of the enemy, then it would not count as meaningful PvE to me. And that's not even just because I think it would be easy. If a game has scriptable PvE in this era, someone will script it, and then it won't matter because a large amount of the 'players' on the game will be bots anyway.
But I can tell you as a person who can write such scripts (for simpler games, I don't do MMO ones), one does that when the game is busywork. When you do not NEED to make decisions, so you don't feel like you're really playing. Then you can at least 'challenge yourself' by writing up a small AI to do the fighting for you while you look for some other challenge.
This is HARDER when grouping is required, but not so much so that one wouldn't just write X number of scripts for 'weak PvE games'.
BDO for example has weak PvE on most mobs. One CAN write a script for it if you have the underlying skills of how to control the camera and character correctly. Not everywhere, though. There are about... 3 mid level zones where your script would at least get thrown off and start to fail. I personally, as a Monocle Wearing member of the Harder PvE Plz Club, avoid all other zones.
So in other words - L2 is easy
I have a preference for a handful of "Elite mobs" vs packs and packs of cannon fodder ones, although where to draw the line on, in an open world experience:
- Casuals/Average players enjoying their "PvE Might" experience.
IE "I'm slaying! I'm slaying them all, I'm saving the town!" as apposed to "crap, everywhere is rock hard and I am nothing without allies! Am I even an upcoming hero?".
- Hard PvE around every corner alongside "player/guild disputes"/PvP.
Experienced and dedicated players will enjoy such high octane or escape-ful action but it's certainly not relaxing and how will this fair with the casual/average audience.
Obviously there's no issue with deeper cave/dungeons whatever being rock hard, I mean if you got there you've likely dealt with all riff raff/player attackers/guilds most likely but what kind of balance makes for a great OW PvE experience is what I question.
But ultimately I hope players are happy relying on each other and there's enough polished slice of life/economy activities that are addictive, even to a less dedicated audience
Ok. Well I gave you my lower limit, and while an owPvP game definitely helps, and Intrepid's approach to botting will definitely help on top of that, the point was clear enough I hope.
Frankly I cannot AFFORD to care what some players find too difficult. If they are less EFFECTIVE than Bots, then the game will be normally be a botfest. That means that in my mind, the lower threshold of reasonable difficulty for an MMO is 'the point at which a player who doesn't understand scripting can just download a bot, move to a position, and run it sometimes and expect to be fine'.
I personally don't play Power Fantasy games, so I wouldn't really understand. If Ashes turns out to be one, then I won't play. And to expand on that, since it might help you understand what 'RP' means too...
If a group of players has to adapt, together, to an encounter, they experience 'role playing' subconsciously even if they don't talk about it, because the human brain must simulate what the other party members are going to do, in order to be successful. If they simulate incorrectly, usually one of two things happens.
A. They argue about it and the group breaks up.
B. They discuss it (roleplaying, whether in character or not) and update their subconscious understanding of each other.
This is why you'll never find ME on the side of things like 'MOBAs are not MMOs'. I personally consider MOBAs to be PvP RPGs. The lack of persistence is what separates them from what Ashes is, not the Roleplaying part.
So yeah, for future reference, if I talk about 'speed of a game' vs 'RP' it's 'the ability to simulate the actions of others and the time to discuss it if your simulations are wrong'. Some people don't 'RP' by that definition even in MOBAs and that's fine. I just don't see the point of making a game for them.
Everything you've described in your posts indicates that Lineage is in fact HEAVILY RP oriented, which gives me even more hope for Throne and Liberty and Ashes since they both are inspired by it.
Some people are interested in, and good at, doing all of that while staying in character (relative to a character they created with a specific perception of the in-universe interpretations of things). Others are not. I get along with both sets of people.
In the case where someone goes 'Could you stop talking about the game mechanics? Even if you're trying to work it in, I prefer not to talk about them so directly' I apologize, politely excuse myself, and go do something else.
In the case where someone goes 'Why are you talking about game mechanics as if they're real stuff in the world, it's confusing/cringe' I normally tell that person to fuck off and go do something else (yes this is an entirely disproportionate response, fite me)
Everyone else, I'm good with.
Yes, Lineage II is an RPG.
Now when is Dygz going to lay the smackdown on a MOBA having nothing to do with RP, well, probably shouldn't poke at people who are obsessed with persitent gear to the high heavens
Dygz can be considered right in a certain way (for a person who is essentially a pacifist with no competitive instinct). In a MOBA, the character's flow is usually already decided for you and your physical ability and choices is what matters for victory most of the time unless you are going against the 'standard' pretty far, or playing with a team that requires special methods.
I don't know how much Dygz understands about the complexities of MOBAs in terms of 'build adaptation during the match' or 'how one understands a teammate's role and likely direction', but it is definitely true that the 'story being told' within a Predecessor match is based on physical interactions and team play most of the time, and 'Team Play' alone does not constitute "RolePlaying".
It is much easier to avoid group RolePlaying in MOBAs. It's bad for your winrate until you're REALLY GOOD, but it's not hard to avoid it.
Any MMORPG where you can avoid group RolePlaying of the type I've mentioned and it NOT be bad for your WinRate is only an RPG to those people who do character based Roleplaying SEPARATELY. So I'm the 'weird one'. I disqualify some MMORPGs because they absolutely force only character-based Roleplay and not Problem Resolution Roleplay (because it's too easy to resolve any problem), and I accept more games as MMORPGs because of how I perceive Tactical Group Roleplay.
I just realized while typing this that I have no idea if Dygz accepts things like Elite Dangerous as MMORPGs, but I can't think of any reason why not?
I said a MOBA is not an RPG. And we shouldn't use MOBA combat for MMORPGs.
But...I think that doesn't have much to do with what you've been discussing here.
You know someone can dislike something you like without it affecting you, right?
Well, I really don't know what the distinction is, in your mind, but here's my point if it might help with a specific thing.
Elite Dangerous is about flying a spaceship. Combat is about flying a spaceship to shoot another spaceship.
Because of everything else AROUND that, I consider it an MMORPG, as do apparently many other people.
I've been wondering for a while if when you say 'MMORPG' you only mean 'the one specific combat system that probably originated in Fantasy MMOs'.
I know you have a sorta definition where 'Character Build trumps player Twitch Skills', maybe? But this is true in many MOBAs. It's also true in Elite.
So sometimes when you say 'MOBA combat doesn't belong in MMORPGs', me, from the perspective of literally not consistently being able to tell the difference (let's compare L2 vs LoL for example) can't reach the point of understanding of your perception that I would need to have any productive conversations.
I don't need to try, if you dismiss this question then I'll just return to usual, but figured I'd give it another shot while the conversation was in this region.
To be fair, I feel like 'the Feedback and Discussion forum of a game in Active Development' is one of the places where this is SORT OF not true.
Because people who dislike something normally advocate against it. And then usually you must advocate FOR it in order to be considered or it may be overlooked. Sure you could just go 'well let's just all say one thing we like and let the devs figure it out', but idk... seems like a poor approach to me.
The lack of critical thinking and over-enjoying of the "standard practice" is an issue.
Some people have lived in the harsh and competitive ow systems of korean mmo's and then there are some who have had a lovely time Raiding and simply getting rewarded....or not rewarded and start again.
I'm not here to hold hands, dance around a campfire and post on Reddit about how much I enjoyed this Raid/cosmetic or how much deepz my big sword did like a boy, OW and competitive+economic systems done correctly make the players the main stage and that's the multiplayer dream of men.
Oh, I'm not saying don't advocate for what you like. You're well aware of what a PITA I can be when I want to make that point.
But there's a difference between disagreement of an argument and dislike of the arguer. The stronger we oppose the latter the healthier we (the big Ashes 'we') can make the former more robust.
PvE difficulty is about three things, base level difficulty, individual too end encounter difficulty, and over all content cycle difficulty.
In terms of L2, I hear a little it about the first of these, but very little about the other two.
I am unconcerned with base population difficulty.
In terms of encounter difficulty, I put this as being defined by 5% or less of players being able to kill an encounter - but only due to factors within the encounter (so, not due to respawn rate, PvP or such factors).
In terms of difficulty of a content cycle, if any guild finishes all content in less than 90% of the time for that cycle, the content was not hard enough.
These definitions are all very subjective, but difficulty is subjective.
These definitions also all depend on the ability of players,but difficulty is subjective based on the ability of players.
The thing with the above definition though, is that it kind of includes Azherae's definition by default. The only way to make content so difficult that such a small percentage of players are able to kill it is to make it so players need to make decisions on the fly - too many to be coordinated at a raid wide level.
Things like DPS or heal checks will always be overcome by players, usually fairly easily. Having a raid full of players that are able to understand an encounter, act as a part of a team, yet still be able to think individually to perform tasks that are for the benefit of the raid (often to the detriment of their own performance within that raid) is far less common.
If you are talking about strategies for pulling multiple mobs better or some such, you do not have hard PvE content, you have easy PvE content that you are trying to optimize.
L2 combat is as different from LoL combat as L is from R. Maybe some people can't tell the difference?
Yes. MMORPG combat needs to be slow enough that groups can discuss and synergize tactics. That could also be true of a MOBA. But, the tactics of a MOBA are like a cross between an RTS and the classes of an RPG.
Elite Dangerous seems closer to an MMOFPS than an MMORPG.
But, first and foremost, Elite Dangerous is a Space Simulator.
With this definition, isn't pretty much anything multiplayer an RPG? In CSGO people need to make calls about their movements and their enemies (and very commonly argue about it and break up.) Is CSGO an MMO RPG? Also your definition of role playing seems very subjective to you and I think 99% of the people who RP would disagree with the definition. I think what you're describing is cooperation.
In any case about the actual topic:
I don't see Ashes action combat making "top tier" pve much harder to develop compared to strictly tab targetting. The main differences are that without tab targetting you can expect less dps from the players and with player collision players can't stack up in tiny areas to avoid mechanics. Additionally, since Intrepid is planning on not allowing add-ons, the fights don't need overly complex dances while juggling multiple raid wiping mechanics to provide a challenge.
Here's a general recipe you can theorycraft with:
Take a medium difficulty WoW raid boss.
Lower the boss hp to compensate for less dps.
Decrease the aoe sizes slightly.
If some mechanic needs stacking, give players more space.
Nerf some of the mechanics that 100% require an add-on.
Boom you have an encounter that works with action combat. The difficulty comes from there being no add-on to give you exact information about everything constantly and having to coordinate group movement while considering collision.
Open world bosses should be much simpler due to most of the difficulty coming from PvP while also trying to not die to the boss. The alpha 1 ice dragon is a good example with the attacks being wide but relatively simple.
Anyway the territory is pretty uncharted with few good examples. One thing to study would be the 20 man raid in TERA, which is one option how Ashes action combat could look:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=r-sDcIQMFdI
Similar design could be easily scaled to 50+ players.
Ah, so it's the tactics of the combat you refer to normally in these situations when talking explicitly about 'types of Combat that do not belong in an MMO'?
I'd really like to understand it because I don't like when people just 'assume you're talking nonsense', it's quite rude of them (and me), when I'm sure you're at least sometimes trying your best to be clear.
So one more example if you're willing.
Let's assume that my main tactic in the equivalent of a Siege in Elite Dangerous is threefold:
1. Get the attention of the enemy with a close range shot from a weapon that disrupts their targeting, close enough that it could be the equivalent of melee, for example, they're too big to miss so I don't have to aim much.
2. Get them to target me so that I can use the superior mobility of my ship to take their attention off teammates.
3. Use a healing laser to replenish the shield health or Repair Limpets to repair the Hull Damage of those teammates while doing #2 and coordinating to protect allied NPCs while they defeat the enemy that I'm distracting.
Just ONE question. Is this CLOSER to MMOFPS Gameplay or MOBA gameplay, to you, tactically? I don't even need a comparison to MMORPG gameplay of any kind.
I'm not 'aiming', really, I'm playing a healing and evasion tanking role, with some disruption/'CC' on the Tanking side. This is a specific build I've made for this purpose and practice with. In my (abstractor) mind, I do not view this as different from other things I do in other games. So... question above. I will disengage and leave you be whether or not you even answer it, and I will not ask for any further clarification of your answer.
By proximity I mean that if i am standing right at a mob and hit him for 50 damage, i generate 50 hate, where as if I am standing right at max range and hit for 50, I still generate 50 hate.
Many games have systems where range applies a multiplier to hate. It may be as simple as 1.1 to damage that came from melee range and 0.9 from damage that came from max range, but even that is enough to be felt by players (and let's not even talk about mobs that use ranged hate separately for ranged abilities).
Orientation is similar, but with the distinction being if you are in front or behind the mob.
(and I have NO problem with RP btw, I play D&D in real life, it's great).
For Elite Dangerous that seems closer to an MMOFPS than a MOBA, I think.
I'm not going to say that it's impossible for you to think of it that way.
I agree with wanting raiding to be difficult, even though your idea of difficulty leans more towards completion rates rather than content or game systems. I'd still like to have an example of a raid in any MMO you consider to be "endgame" content, you clearly have a specific few in mind.