What is your MMO PvE experience like?

From another topic, I found myself wondering something.

I don't play a lot of MMOs, I have some I love, and others I swiftly ignore. But I keep coming across people for whom PvE seems to mean a relatively scripted encounter where you ONLY have to respond in unison at the right timing and maybe handle adds.

So I'm collecting data again. I may ask a lot of clarifying questions, so please bear with me, even if I come off as diminishing your experience, I only 'mean to' in the sense that I need a scale to work with.

I thought about it and realized that there's no good reason I'm aware of for an owPvP game to make scripted enemies. It doesn't teach you anything about the PvP aspect of the game, it doesn't carry over well to different groups, and it doesn't make the PvE itself more interesting (imo).

I therefore simply didn't expect to see that in Ashes at all (and so far from experiences with bosses in Ashes, I have not seen it, it works more like the games I am used to). I've never had any reason to expect this. If you do, what game caused it? Were most of the elite/top tier encounters like that? Is there anything about it that you explicitly like?

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Ludullu

The only reason I'm fine with a more scripted pve, in the context of an owpvp game, is that I just want a backdrop to the pvp I'm waiting for while farming. If pve required constant highest concentration, any pvp attacker would just destroy me because even if I did notice him before time, the mob would keep hitting me while I'd try to pvp. L2's mobs hit you too, obviously, but their hits wouldn't just destroy you if you shifted your attention onto another player to pvp him for a few secs.

I'm very curious who top lvl ow pve will look like in Ashes, considering they gotta account for potential pvp around said pve. Designing top lvl pve for all the pve lovers, while also managing to not overtune it, in such a way that any pvp involvement immediately kills the pvers (or potentially making the attacker Red), will probably be very difficult to do.

ashesplayer123

Azherae wrote: »

From another topic, I found myself wondering something.

I don't play a lot of MMOs, I have some I love, and others I swiftly ignore. But I keep coming across people for whom PvE seems to mean a relatively scripted encounter where you ONLY have to respond in unison at the right timing and maybe handle adds.

So I'm collecting data again. I may ask a lot of clarifying questions, so please bear with me, even if I come off as diminishing your experience, I only 'mean to' in the sense that I need a scale to work with.

I thought about it and realized that there's no good reason I'm aware of for an owPvP game to make scripted enemies. It doesn't teach you anything about the PvP aspect of the game, it doesn't carry over well to different groups, and it doesn't make the PvE itself more interesting (imo).

I therefore simply didn't expect to see that in Ashes at all (and so far from experiences with bosses in Ashes, I have not seen it, it works more like the games I am used to). I've never had any reason to expect this. If you do, what game caused it? Were most of the elite/top tier encounters like that? Is there anything about it that you explicitly like?

I'm super bored of instanced content: my main issue with it is that it separates PvE and PvP to the point where it feels like completely different games, within a game. This game is PvX, so we will see a lot of open world content and conflict (if you join a guild that wants to participate in such activities that is).
These people you meet (who think all PvE should be instanced) are used to the themepark MMO style, and they think those rules apply to this game, however this game is going to be a lot different.

To answer your question: as far as I know most of these encounters are not instanced. The only reason I could see them adding instanced encounters is when a raid boss is very carefully constructed, and they imagine the boss in a way where they don't want additional risk from an outside source or something. Or another occasion could be story quests. When it comes to PvE (such as dungeons and raids), instanced content is going against their overall philosophy (and the game's PvX nature as a whole), which I will copy below (quotes are from the Ashes of creation Wiki):

Q: How challenging will raid boss mechanics be given the given that players may need to simultaneously fight other players while also fighting the boss?

A: It depends. The great thing about our encounter system is that it has a wide scalability from encounters that some might consider easy given their composition to encounters that some might consider impossible until they get their gear level to a certain stage. The level of interaction with other players is really predicated on the encounter itself. We may have some encounters that are in instances although the predominant portion of those will be in the open world, in which case they do have the potential being contested; and these encounters, especially the big ones that might land in contention, are giving some of the best-in-slot gear you can get in the game. So it's important that they are contested because it is a significant victory point; and one of our core pillars is risk versus reward: and the higher that risk the higher that reward should be. So those two things seem fitting and then in addition we do have the concept of winners and losers. Not everybody in Ashes of Creation is going to be a winner; and that sucks if you're not I guess, but there is opportunity for you to continue to excel and become one. But it gives much more meaning to an achievement when not everybody gets the achievement. That's our philosophy. – Steven Sharif

Also I'd like to copy another quote from Steven regarding PvX:

We're very clear with our objective and philosophy on the game and we understand that they may not appeal to everybody. But you know it is an important reciprocal relationship between the content that's related to PvE and the content that's related to PvP and they feed off of each other. They're catalysts for change: Their progression, their development. It's things that people can value when they see something earned and they see something lost. That elicits an emotional response from the player: That they've invested time in to either succeed or fail; and PvP allows for that element to be introduced into gameplay. And we're very clear that is our objective: That risk versus reward relationship, that achievement-based mentality. Not everybody's going to be a winner and that's okay. – Steven Sharif

"We're very clear with our objective and philosophy on the game and we understand that they may not appeal to everybody." and "Not everybody's going to be a winner and that's okay." These are the key sentences.
I very much like and prefer Steven's stance on PvE (and PvP, and PvX overall) over what I previously experienced in most MMOs.

Azherae

NiKr wrote: »

The only reason I'm fine with a more scripted pve, in the context of an owpvp game, is that I just want a backdrop to the pvp I'm waiting for while farming. If pve required constant highest concentration, any pvp attacker would just destroy me because even if I did notice him before time, the mob would keep hitting me while I'd try to pvp. L2's mobs hit you too, obviously, but their hits wouldn't just destroy you if you shifted your attention onto another player to pvp him for a few secs.

I'm very curious who top lvl ow pve will look like in Ashes, considering they gotta account for potential pvp around said pve. Designing top lvl pve for all the pve lovers, while also managing to not overtune it, in such a way that any pvp involvement immediately kills the pvers (or potentially making the attacker Red), will probably be very difficult to do.

This is not difficult.

Intrepid already does it this way for larger bosses. If they implement something that I have already seen hints they originally intended, it becomes easier.

So I'll posit a scenario to you.

You and your group are fighting an ice dragon, it sends out waves of frost with its wings that hit and debuff everyone who is in the line, including anyone attempting to PvP you.

Its other more powerful attacks are triggered only by a gauge that builds up when your group damages it, so if you switch to PvP, the boss' dangerous attacks slow down massively and your Tank just has to worry about the basics (being chomped at, being clawed).

Would this be sufficient for you to generally assume that you would be able to enjoy the scenario, and if not, in which direction do you doubt their design (and my added implication)?

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

Would this be sufficient for you to generally assume that you would be able to enjoy the scenario, and if not, in which direction do you doubt their design (and my added implication)?

Would definitely be fine for me, but I'd like Noaani's input on this kind of design cause I feel like he's the biggest top lvl pve nerd around these parts. Cause to me that kind of mechanics feels a bit exploitable. What if your group sees that they might wipe in a few more boss hits, so they decide to stop attacking the boss and just take a few steps back. Now the healer only worries about the tank or maybe doesn't worry at all cause the tank saved up some "ultimate defense"-type skill that allows him to hold the boss for additional 20-30 secs while the group heals and buffs up. To me this feels like it'd make pve content waaay easier.

Yes, I'd love this kind of design because it allows me to play the game just as I like to play it, and seemingly how Intrepid promises it will be played, but I'm not sure how many people would appreciate it as much as I do. And judging by how rare my likes are appreciated or supported (design-wise), I'd assume, not that many people would want to have this kind of exploitable design.

Azherae

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Would this be sufficient for you to generally assume that you would be able to enjoy the scenario, and if not, in which direction do you doubt their design (and my added implication)?

Would definitely be fine for me, but I'd like Noaani's input on this kind of design cause I feel like he's the biggest top lvl pve nerd around these parts. Cause to me that kind of mechanics feels a bit exploitable. What if your group sees that they might wipe in a few more boss hits, so they decide to stop attacking the boss and just take a few steps back. Now the healer only worries about the tank or maybe doesn't worry at all cause the tank saved up some "ultimate defense"-type skill that allows him to hold the boss for additional 20-30 secs while the group heals and buffs up. To me this feels like it'd make pve content waaay easier.

Yes, I'd love this kind of design because it allows me to play the game just as I like to play it, and seemingly how Intrepid promises it will be played, but I'm not sure how many people would appreciate it as much as I do. And judging by how rare my likes are appreciated or supported (design-wise), I'd assume, not that many people would want to have this kind of exploitable design.

Ah yes, that's my error. As noted, I am REALLY too used to this system, so I leave out parts.

The Gauge also rises when the boss hits anyone else (usually the Tank, of course).

Magic usage is not affected by this.

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

The Gauge also rises when the boss hits anyone else (usually the Tank, of course).

Magic usage is not affected by this.

Depending on how difficult the dodge mechanics are for most bosses/mobs, this could still be an exploitable problem of "take a break and heal up, while running around a bit instead of hitting the mob". Though I'm sure all of that can be figured out in testing.

This kind of mechanic does bring more fun into the pvp part of the pvx equation, where proper awareness and movement could allow the OG farmers to use the boss' attack against the newcomers. Would definitely love this if it's gonna be the case in Ashes.

Mag7spy

Adding weird mechanics that can nerf the boss in any form do to pvp is not good design people will just exploit it. They key point imo will be how long does the encounter to take finish, how long until it respawns, how long does it take to get back to the boss based on the res point.

1. Those three points are important as it gives people options make a deal with other guilds for them to run it after.
2. Wipe the guild trying to gank you, their respawn point should be a decent distance away. allowing you to dps the boss.

CROW3

How are you bounding this thread? Are you asking about PvE experience, or PvE raid/group mechanics?

There’s a LOT more to pve than scripted raids, so just want to understand before I lay out anything that’s well beyond the scope of what you’re looking for.

George_Black

PvE experience:
Challenge
Fear of death
Fear of item loss (both whole items and other stuff)
Grind to simulate training and dedication.
Large map without mounts to simulate exploration.
Open world raids, a difficult goal to achieve in every area.
Chance to befriend other people, or rival them.
Relaxing time and bonding with guild members.

What it should not be?

DPS races
Repetitive, sterilized, instanced content without ANY stakes besides rng disappointment.
Meta.
Toxicity.

Azherae

CROW3 wrote: »

How are you bounding this thread? Are you asking about PvE experience, or PvE raid/group mechanics?

There’s a LOT more to pve than scripted raids, so just want to understand before I lay out anything that’s well beyond the scope of what you’re looking for.

Nah, rock out.

It's precisely because I end up feeling like certain discussions use some PvE assumptions that I would have thought were literally doomed to fail, so I want all the data. Break it up into multiple posts if you think it's too much.

As an example, WoW PvE has always struck me as being almost entirely challenge-less if the enemy isn't some elite or raid boss. Tera PvE, I remember having to at least care, I had to move, I had to think, even if the regular mobs didn't really have abilities or much dynamic aspects. I stopped playing Tera only because the dynamism level wasn't my preference.

So yeah if anything let's limit it to definitely 'Enemy'. If environment factors in so MUCH (not to the status of the enemy but to the point where the environment is the threat and the enemy would not be a threat without the environment space) then probably not as interested but data is data.

Dygz

Just limiting to combat...
Probably what I like best about PvE is that if I want to avoid combat, mobs typcally have a tether I can outrun.
Players are more relentless than mobs.
Also, if I die while running from a mob, the tether means I probably won't be corpse camped by the mob.
Basically, I have better control over a mob than I do over a player. Especially with reagrds to avoiding combat.

Typically, mobs are scripted enough that it's fairly easy to devise tactics and strategies to win - eventually.
Some of that is determining strengths/weaknesses rather than mob tactics.
I tend to use pulling tactics so we combat in a location that will avoid adds.
Also, easier to control that with mobs than it is with players.

George Black mentions fear...
If I'm playing an alt that is doing the carebear, no kills/no deaths challenge - I'm going always going to run from mobs to avoid death, but I don't quite experience that as fear.
I typically experience fear when I'm surprised/shocked during combat - like the first time I was Blinded and my screen wwent black.
Maybe some very mild fear if I'm hit with Fear and I try to avoid running into adds or over a cliff.
With players, I don't experience fear - just annoyance... especially if I'm forced into combat when I'm not in the mood for combat.
In my preferred form of PvP combat - objective-based combat, like capture the flag - my deaths are irrelevant. I'm focused on the winning the objectives. In NWO PvP, I would just let people kill me while I race to the next capture point. Capture points are worth more than deaths.

In RPGs, there's other stuff I'd rather be doing besides combat.
Other than, storyline quests typically involve combat. And PvE combat is typically the quickest way to level.
And to get perks, like flying, in WoW.
Typically, class milestones will involve some combat.
But, I would prefer to Diplomacy my way past combat. And that is also typically easier to do with mobs than with players.

Azherae

Dygz wrote: »

Just limiting to combat...
Probably what I like best about PvE is that if I want to avoid combat, mobs typcally have a tether I can outrun.
Players are more relentless than mobs.
Also, if I die while running from a mob, the tether means I probably won't be corpse camped by the mob.
Basically, I have better control over a mob than I do over a player. Especially with reagrds to avoiding combat.

Typically, mobs are scripted enough that it's fairly easy to devise tactics and strategies to win - eventually.
Some of that is determining strengths/weaknesses rather than mob tactics.
I tend to use pulling tactics so we combat in a location that will avoid adds.
Also, easier to control that with mobs than it is with players.

George Black mentions fear...
If I'm playing an alt that is doing the carebear, no kills/no deaths challenge - I'm going always going to run from mobs to avoid death, but I don't quite experience that as fear.
I typically experience fear when I'm surprised/shocked during combat - like the first time I was Blinded and my screen wwent black.
Maybe some very mild fear if I'm hit with Fear and I try to avoid running into adds or over a cliff.
With players, I don't experience fear - just annoyance... especially if I'm forced into combat when I'm not in the mood for combat.
In my preferred form of PvP combat - objective-based combat, like capture the flag - my deaths are irrelevant. I'm focused on the winning the objectives. In NWO PvP, I would just let people kill me while I race to the next capture point. Capture points are worth more than deaths.

In RPGs, there's other stuff I'd rather be doing besides combat.
Other than, storyline quests typically involve combat. And PvE combat is typically the quickest way to level.
And to get perks, like flying, in WoW.
Typically, class milestones will involve some combat.
But, I would prefer to Diplomacy my way past combat. And that is also typically easier to do with mobs than with players.

Aside from required combat scenarios such as class unlocks/similar, is there any type of direct combat in groups or with mobs where you are inspired or interested in the combat aspect itself?

Not necessarily referring to striking the enemy in any way. Many Clerics and Bards, support characters in general, there are games in which these players could play the entire game and encounter PvE challenges without ever drawing their weapon or even targeting an enemy.

If you participate in this form of group Combat, is it enjoyable, and if you have done so, do you remember anything specific about how the game system handled the combat, or just your part thereof?

Azherae

George_Black wrote: »

PvE experience:
Challenge
Fear of death
Fear of item loss (both whole items and other stuff)
Grind to simulate training and dedication.
Large map without mounts to simulate exploration.
Open world raids, a difficult goal to achieve in every area.
Chance to befriend other people, or rival them.
Relaxing time and bonding with guild members.

What it should not be?

DPS races
Repetitive, sterilized, instanced content without ANY stakes besides rng disappointment.
Meta.
Toxicity.

Do you prefer the 'challenge' and 'fear of death' aspects to be present in at-level (or at-group-level) combat most of the time? Have you generally found that the games you play actually provided this challenge from just the PvE alone (open world non-Raid enemies in particular)?

And secondly, if so, do you also prefer that there be a significant fear of death even during an Exp grind?

Dygz

Azherae wrote: »

Aside from required combat scenarios such as class unlocks/similar, is there any type of direct combat in groups or with mobs where you are inspired or interested in the combat aspect itself?

Not necessarily referring to striking the enemy in any way. Many Clerics and Bards, support characters in general, there are games in which these players could play the entire game and encounter PvE challenges without ever drawing their weapon or even targeting an enemy.

If you participate in this form of group Combat, is it enjoyable, and if you have done so, do you remember anything specific about how the game system handled the combat, or just your part thereof?

Yeah, I mean...
And this I think is typically only for PvE...
Once I've committed to combat, I'm actively assessing mob strengths/weaknesses, tactics and strategies.
Best when I'm able to synergize with the abilities/skills and tactics of other players I'm fighting alongside - if I am fighting alongside other players.
I'm typically trying to devise a strategy using the abilities/skills each person in the group has chosen, rather than dictating what abilities/skills are META. And, since I'm a hardcore time player, I'm fine with wiping a bunch of times to figure out a way to win with people playing the build they've created rather than with a cookie-cutter, fotm build.
Although, retreat, reasses and return at a later date also makes for a great story.

As an RPG player, I'm thinking more about the character perspectives than I am about system mechanics.
I'm attempting to live in a world, rather than play a game.
But, again, I recognize that there are some mechanics we can take advantage of, like tethering. But, I'm kind of more focused on our performance (character acting/rp and combat) than the mob.
The stories I tell would be more about how we defeated the challenge rather than on the mechanics of the mob.
Especially since I'm unlikely to repeat that fight very often. Once I'm done with that story, I'm ready for a new chapter, rather than repeating an already completed chapter.

In PvP, I'm mostly focused on defending objectives or sneaking in to pilfer/capture or sabotage an objective.
I barely think about the combat at all.

JamesSunderland

I dislike scripted enemies and find them meaningless, they are simple boring, repetitive, predictable and almost never a true challenge unless overstat-ed in my mind, so i'm way more fond of RNG enemies, even if RNG monsters can feel more like players that can also be quite unpredictable and interesting, they don't teach anything about pvp aspect unless you literally make copypaste monsters of players classes with some different playstyles.

Q: If you do, what game caused it?

A: I kinda do expect atleast some non-scripted RNG Monsters/Elites/Raid Bosses in Ashes, because Lineage 2 had some non-scripted RNG Monsters/Elites/World Bosses.

Q: Were most of the elite/top tier encounters like that?

A: Not most, just some, mainly some Elites and World bosses but also very few monsters, even tho they had some scripted patterns they had unpreditable AI's with things like, Random target acquisition ignoring threat points(this would also make them attack random people that didn't even attacked them but were near enough even your enemies in pvp), They would do random sequences of skills, and also random repetitions of a single skill, they would do some weird random movimentation and change of place some times and random spawn of minions some times.

There was a group of 8 monsters in Hellbound' that kinda simulated a party vs party pvp encounter in terms of their skillset and their tank healer bard dps composition, their AI was pure RNG.

Q: Is there anything about it that you explicitly like?

A: As you may already expect, the RNG keeping you on your toes due to the challenge of the unpredictability.

Noaani

JamesSunderland wrote: »

I dislike scripted enemies and find them meaningless, they are simple boring, repetitive, predictable and almost never a true challenge unless overstat-ed in my mind, so i'm way more fond of RNG enemies, even if RNG monsters can feel more like players that can also be quite unpredictable and interesting, they don't teach anything about pvp aspect unless you literally make copypaste monsters of players classes with some different playstyles.

I actually agree with you.

Perhaps the biggest difference between EQ/EQ2 raids and WoW raids is that WoW raids are HEAVILY scripted, while EQ2 (specifically) offer a lot more RNG. This does mean that for some pulls, an encounter is literally impossible - but thems the breaks.

That isn't to say that there weren't heavily scripted encounters in EQ2 as well, as there absolutely were - they were just rare, and were never really the top end encounters. This is a good thing though, as variety is key.

In terms of randomization within an encounter, one of the easiest things EQ2 did was setting the start point of a mobs abilities to be a random time after the mob is engaged. This would do things like put a short range stun, a memory switch or temporary memory wipe, a massive single target attack, and spawning a group of adds that all can only target healers (and can only be damaged by healers) all within 3 seconds, and be followed up a maybe six seconds later with a very long range physical damage AoE with a fear component, and an ailment that can only be cleansed by those healers that are busy with those adds that only they can kill, all while your tank is still stunned.

Encounters like this were often just a pure scramble. It wouldn't be uncommon to be in a situation where half the raid is dead, but the encounter is at or below 50%, and is currently stable (with nothing big expected soon), and so it is still worth getting everyone rezz'd and attempting to save the pull. Whereas in WoW, quite often if two or three players die (or even one player in some situations), the raid will just call a wipe and do it again - because they knew things would be exactly the same the next time.

It also wasn't uncommon to have things like a mark on a player that causes 6 players within 10 meters of them to die instantly (easy, whoever gets the mark runs away from everyone else until it's gone), but just as the mark is about to go off, have a raid wide lasso pulling everyone in to the exact same spot - literally killing a quarter of the raid in an instant.

EQ2 raiding wasn't about scripts, repetition or that kind of thing (generally - though there was some of that) - the kind of thing most people seem to associate with top end PvE content. It was about assessing what you have in front of you, and making it work. It was about adaptation, improvisation, changing the plan on the fly.

Azherae

JamesSunderland wrote: »

I dislike scripted enemies and find them meaningless, they are simple boring, repetitive, predictable and almost never a true challenge unless overstat-ed in my mind, so i'm way more fond of RNG enemies, even if RNG monsters can feel more like players that can also be quite unpredictable and interesting, they don't teach anything about pvp aspect unless you literally make copypaste monsters of players classes with some different playstyles.

Would that 'copypaste monsters of player classes' aspect be a negative to you? For example, if it was used at all times, would it, in turn, be a problem?

For clarity on why I ask, this is the design type I'm most familiar with. Every NPC enemy in Elite uses one of the same ships that players use, just with a different semirandom build (usually more specialized to make them more challenging).

A relatively large subset of enemies in Neverwinter Online function in a way similar to this, and you can see it in their movement. Others are started from the base of it and modified, but you can still notice.

Every Mob in FFXI, but particularly the stronger ones (in terms of how obvious it is), also has the same 'Jobs' and usually the associated Traits, as players. I have played games that don't use this approach, but in general those games have had less of a focus on their PvE, so it's a matter of 'they don't stand out relative to when this method is used'.

JamesSunderland wrote: »

There was a group of 8 monsters in Hellbound' that kinda simulated a party vs party pvp encounter in terms of their skillset and their tank healer bard dps composition, their AI was pure RNG.

Would this be as interesting if the AI was not pure RNG in this case, just reactive or dynamic?

JamesSunderland

Azherae wrote: »

Would that 'copypaste monsters of player classes' aspect be a negative to you?

Not at all.

Azherae wrote: »

For example, if it was used at all times, would it, in turn, be a problem?

It being used all times would become boring and repetitive quite quickly.

Azherae wrote: »

Would this be as interesting if the AI was not pure RNG in this case, just reactive or dynamic?

What exactly do you mean by reactive and dynamic?
I will assume you mean the ai reacting to the players actions, "if player do X the Monster will do Y".
For me that is still a script than can be learned by the player.
Is it a Better script than a straight up static one? Yes, it is more complex.
Does it substitue RNG? No, Not at all.

JamesSunderland

Noaani wrote: »

Perhaps the biggest difference between EQ/EQ2 raids and WoW raids is that WoW raids are HEAVILY scripted, while EQ2 (specifically) offer a lot more RNG. This does mean that for some pulls, an encounter is literally impossible - but thems the breaks.

That isn't to say that there weren't heavily scripted encounters in EQ2 as well, as there absolutely were - they were just rare, and were never really the top end encounters. This is a good thing though, as variety is key.

In terms of randomization within an encounter, one of the easiest things EQ2 did was setting the start point of a mobs abilities to be a random time after the mob is engaged. This would do things like put a short range stun, a memory switch or temporary memory wipe, a massive single target attack, and spawning a group of adds that all can only target healers (and can only be damaged by healers) all within 3 seconds, and be followed up a maybe six seconds later with a very long range physical damage AoE with a fear component, and an ailment that can only be cleansed by those healers that are busy with those adds that only they can kill, all while your tank is still stunned.

Encounters like this were often just a pure scramble. It wouldn't be uncommon to be in a situation where half the raid is dead, but the encounter is at or below 50%, and is currently stable (with nothing big expected soon), and so it is still worth getting everyone rezz'd and attempting to save the pull. Whereas in WoW, quite often if two or three players die (or even one player in some situations), the raid will just call a wipe and do it again - because they knew things would be exactly the same the next time.

It also wasn't uncommon to have things like a mark on a player that causes 6 players within 10 meters of them to die instantly (easy, whoever gets the mark runs away from everyone else until it's gone), but just as the mark is about to go off, have a raid wide lasso pulling everyone in to the exact same spot - literally killing a quarter of the raid in an instant.

EQ2 raiding wasn't about scripts, repetition or that kind of thing (generally - though there was some of that) - the kind of thing most people seem to associate with top end PvE content. It was about assessing what you have in front of you, and making it work. It was about adaptation, improvisation, changing the plan on the fly.

Very interesting break down of an EQ2 RNG PvE encounter, while reading it kinda reminded me of some Lineage 2 World bosses encounters just a bit more scripted, the Top End World Bosses were extremely chaotic because of their insane RNG and vast arsenal of Huge AoE CCs and One Shoting skils.

In a previous thread i saw you talking about how easy Red Dragon in Archeage was to kill without pvp even with very few people and very fast, Archeage's Red Dragon is basically Lineage 2's Valakas atleast only in terms of appearence. xD

Because in terms of difficulty and complexity they are worlds apart, having played both games and having fought both of them i can easily say Valakas far outclasses Red Dragon in every single way as atop end PvE encounter and comparing them is probably the best way i can explain a L2 World boss to you.

Comparatively Valakas Damage was WAY higher than Red Dragon's Damage considering people in top gear could tank red dragon with ease but even tanks in top gear could still get one shot by Valakas, Valakas was way tankier than Red Dragon considering people with top tier weapons(valakas usually needed atleast 90-180 well geared, organized and skilled people to kill it, Valakas AoEs were WAY bigger than red dragon's AoEs, his arena caused a terrible burn from time to time, as previously stated Valakas had a huge arsenal of massive CC AoEs, Valakas Minions were hella strong and would aoe blast people from very far(valakas fear would send you in their way if you didn't postition properl), Valakas Regeneration was crazy (constantly had to be damaged at all times and required the maintainance of debuffs to keep it in check), Valakas would constantly ignore Tankers provokes and was extremely hard to predict his chaotic RNG actions.
Valakas fight complexity goes even further than that, but it would require lineage 2 knowledge of certain in-game system to properly explain it and make this comment way too long.

Noaani

JamesSunderland wrote: »

valakas usually needed atleast 90-180 well geared, organized and skilled people to kill it

This is still my biggest issue with all open world games to date.

Imagine Valaka, exactly as it is, with the same stats, and with players having the same combat system to work with - but no PvP potential at all.

Now imagine that they are limited to 40 players.

All of a sudden, everyone has to literally be at the absolute peak. You can't just throw more people at the problem to solve it (your range literally doubled the number of people present).

I mean, the encounter may well have been enjoyable, and may be a good encounter. The problem *I* have with it is in that just adding more people is a viable way to solve the encounter.

Child Item