Yes everything is based off the complicated idea that IS can balance a raid to always have the expectation to be interrupted and continue while maintaining the coveted "top end PVE content" but until proven otherwise that assumption makes more sense than to assume the opposite.
I don't understand this last part.
Why does it make more sense to assume it makes more sense than the opposite? Am I misunderstanding this section?
What exactly does it make more sense to assume 'until proven otherwise'?
@Azherae the assumption is that AOC will succeed with their attempt to balance this content not fail. And success is indicated to be allowing this content to be open world content and remain considered "top tier content". The assumption that they will succeed is better assumed true because we wouldn't be here if we didn't believe IS could deliver on their promises therefore we are already assuming what they say to be true and shouldn't stop now.
@Azherae the assumption is that AOC will succeed with their attempt to balance this content not fail. And success is indicated to be allowing this content to be open world content and remain considered "top tier content". The assumption that they will succeed is better assumed true because we wouldn't be here if we didn't believe IS could deliver on their promises therefore we are already assuming what they say to be true and shouldn't stop now.
I don't personally believe that IS can deliver on every promise, and I believe part of the reason they take our feedback is related to that.
I also possibly incorrectly believe that the entire point of this thread was to at least discuss the concept with 'a person or people who don't assume that this particular promise can be done at the level implied due to game design limitations'.
I'm not participating in the conversation mostly because I expect that usually those who are on the 'other side' are making the assumption, but I wanted to verify that was in fact what you were doing too, so thanks for the clarification. Since I don't believe this specific promise outright, I can be considered to be 'not here' (relative to the thread and conversation).
1. Hey let me do this raid or I will siege the metro your a patron of.
2. Hey let me do this raid and I'll let your caravans run through my metro instead of continuing to gank them on sight for 1 month.
3. Hey your not part of a node? Funny I know your guild resides primarily in these 3 locations that are good for farming, I'll just declare war on your guild and set a kos directive for my alliance.
4. Your guild is stronger than my guild and won't let me take this boss? Guess I'll just run my squads around your groups until I've hit enough of your caravans that to transport them your using more man power value than resources transferred value.
5. You guild is stronger than mine and won't let us go for this boss? Luckily we are friends with multiple crafting guilds that supply most of the metros with mounts and top gear, how about we remove that supply?
I can't see how any guild would agree to any of these.
You are basically saying "if you make it easy for me to get significantly better gear in my guild, I'll be nice to you for a short while, until we are so much stronger than you that you have to do what ever we say".
Any guild that would agree to those terms was never going to be an issue. Any guild that would be an issue would never agree to those terms.
But this isnt just the case for the examplea you have given here - it is the case for any agreement.
No competitive guild would agree to anything that makes it easier for a rival to get stronger.
What you are doing is talking about a hypothetical that you say could happen on paper. Even if it could happen on paper, it simply will not happen in practice.
Both NiKr and I have given you actual real examples of this not happening for years on end, and the situational differences in Ashes from these examples is not large enough to warrant a change in player behavior.
In relation to your comments on Intrepid and balance - that isnt the point.
You want to say that you believe Intrepid could create encounters that are considered top end, but are lenient enough that a rival or two getting through and attacking the raid directly wont ruin things.
The problem with this is that we are not talking top end from an Ashes perspective, we are talking about it from an MMO perspective in general. If you can sustain an attack from something other than the encounter and it isnt a problem, the encounter is already not top end.
In Lineage 2 normal raid bosses could be interrupted by enemy guild during fight. It was possible to down them anyway and it added a little thrill because you knew other players could come or return after you killed them in pvp. It wasn't just about killing the raid but about logistics and time window before others knew you are there for the raid kill.
L2 had teleportation so regrouping was quite fast, AoC will not have fast travel except for scientific metropolis.
In my opinion it is not just about raid difficulty. Part of the difficulty of raid comes from the fact it is open world. Other players provide that difficulty.
But world bosses, if I remember correctly, were in an "instance" so to speak that was accessible by anyone (for free or via item from quest) and after the fight began the boss arena would be sealed and no one could enter during the fight.
Fighting for this bosses happened outside the arena and a little inside after fight begun with enemy players that managed to get through. Most fighting was outside during spawn window of the world boss.
I wouldn't be surprised if AoC had similar system.
0
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
In Lineage 2 normal raid bosses could be interrupted by enemy guild during fight. It was possible to down them anyway and it added a little thrill because you knew other players could come or return after you killed them in pvp. It wasn't just about killing the raid but about logistics and time window before others knew you are there for the raid kill.
L2 had teleportation so regrouping was quite fast, AoC will not have fast travel except for scientific metropolis.
In my opinion it is not just about raid difficulty. Part of the difficulty of raid comes from the fact it is open world. Other players provide that difficulty.
But world bosses, if I remember correctly, were in an "instance" so to speak that was accessible by anyone (for free or via item from quest) and after the fight began the boss arena would be sealed and no one could enter during the fight.
Fighting for this bosses happened outside the arena and a little inside after fight begun with enemy players that managed to get through. Most fighting was outside during spawn window of the world boss.
I wouldn't be surprised if AoC had similar system.
And, L2 also relied heavily on diplomacy between guilds enemy and ally alike. Some of the main raid bosses had key quests integral to individual player progression and without diplomacy, many of the smaller, less powerful guilds would never have had a chance for their players to fulfill those quests without good negotiation skills.
And, L2 also relied heavily on diplomacy between guilds enemy and ally alike. Some of the main raid bosses had key quests integral to individual player progression and without diplomacy, many of the smaller, less powerful guilds would never have had a chance for their players to fulfill those quests without good negotiation skills.
isn't that exactly what steven has been preaching for AoC since the dawn of the kickstarter?
isn't that exactly what steven has been preaching for AoC since the dawn of the kickstarter?
Indeed it is, which is why I'm here spending days discussing this game
But the farm itself was always contested by other big guilds or alliances of smaller ones, so you didn't have a moment of "everyone is together and happy and just farming it up". Those small guilds had to choose the "winner" before the boss farm would even begin, because if they didn't collab with the "right' side - they wouldn't get the chance to progress in their quests.
I wouldn't be surprised if AoC had similar system.
We all expect similar.
The problem is, L2 raids were not overly hard in and of themselves. The challenge involved was the PvP, not the PvE. This is fine and all, just not particularly great as the only top end encounters in a game that is not specifically billing itself as a PvP game.
Thus, the hope is (for me at least) to have these mobs just like in L2, but to then also have other mobs where the challenge can be applied via PvE - making the combined top end content PvX.
Comments
I don't understand this last part.
Why does it make more sense to assume it makes more sense than the opposite? Am I misunderstanding this section?
What exactly does it make more sense to assume 'until proven otherwise'?
I don't personally believe that IS can deliver on every promise, and I believe part of the reason they take our feedback is related to that.
I also possibly incorrectly believe that the entire point of this thread was to at least discuss the concept with 'a person or people who don't assume that this particular promise can be done at the level implied due to game design limitations'.
I'm not participating in the conversation mostly because I expect that usually those who are on the 'other side' are making the assumption, but I wanted to verify that was in fact what you were doing too, so thanks for the clarification. Since I don't believe this specific promise outright, I can be considered to be 'not here' (relative to the thread and conversation).
You are basically saying "if you make it easy for me to get significantly better gear in my guild, I'll be nice to you for a short while, until we are so much stronger than you that you have to do what ever we say".
Any guild that would agree to those terms was never going to be an issue. Any guild that would be an issue would never agree to those terms.
But this isnt just the case for the examplea you have given here - it is the case for any agreement.
No competitive guild would agree to anything that makes it easier for a rival to get stronger.
What you are doing is talking about a hypothetical that you say could happen on paper. Even if it could happen on paper, it simply will not happen in practice.
Both NiKr and I have given you actual real examples of this not happening for years on end, and the situational differences in Ashes from these examples is not large enough to warrant a change in player behavior.
In relation to your comments on Intrepid and balance - that isnt the point.
You want to say that you believe Intrepid could create encounters that are considered top end, but are lenient enough that a rival or two getting through and attacking the raid directly wont ruin things.
The problem with this is that we are not talking top end from an Ashes perspective, we are talking about it from an MMO perspective in general. If you can sustain an attack from something other than the encounter and it isnt a problem, the encounter is already not top end.
This isnt a matter of balance.
L2 had teleportation so regrouping was quite fast, AoC will not have fast travel except for scientific metropolis.
In my opinion it is not just about raid difficulty. Part of the difficulty of raid comes from the fact it is open world. Other players provide that difficulty.
But world bosses, if I remember correctly, were in an "instance" so to speak that was accessible by anyone (for free or via item from quest) and after the fight began the boss arena would be sealed and no one could enter during the fight.
Fighting for this bosses happened outside the arena and a little inside after fight begun with enemy players that managed to get through. Most fighting was outside during spawn window of the world boss.
I wouldn't be surprised if AoC had similar system.
And, L2 also relied heavily on diplomacy between guilds enemy and ally alike. Some of the main raid bosses had key quests integral to individual player progression and without diplomacy, many of the smaller, less powerful guilds would never have had a chance for their players to fulfill those quests without good negotiation skills.
isn't that exactly what steven has been preaching for AoC since the dawn of the kickstarter?
But the farm itself was always contested by other big guilds or alliances of smaller ones, so you didn't have a moment of "everyone is together and happy and just farming it up". Those small guilds had to choose the "winner" before the boss farm would even begin, because if they didn't collab with the "right' side - they wouldn't get the chance to progress in their quests.
The problem is, L2 raids were not overly hard in and of themselves. The challenge involved was the PvP, not the PvE. This is fine and all, just not particularly great as the only top end encounters in a game that is not specifically billing itself as a PvP game.
Thus, the hope is (for me at least) to have these mobs just like in L2, but to then also have other mobs where the challenge can be applied via PvE - making the combined top end content PvX.