There are many assumptions in this response that don't apply. It would take long to detail them all and derail yet another thread into 'You haven't actually fought hard PvE yet'.
But I can tell you that FFXI has multiple bosses where 'Which party composition you need to take to it depends on the weather, time of day, and which day of the week it is in game'.
So that just balances out the pvp side of everchanging enemies.
But am I wrong in equating a mass of players with boss rng? Noaani said that he considers mass pvp being the high end pvp content in an mmo (and I agree). With mass pvp you gotta know how to control your enemies on a granular scale, because some parties might not react to your baiting or might overreact and your slight bait would lead to a few deaths on your side which makes you overextend to res them, and so on and so on.
Obviously you can agro the boss and/or its adds, but unless the boss has rng agro stages/abilities/triggers - you'd be able to fully control the boss, which would let you do other things to the boss like maybe triggering new mechanics or just better react to incoming ones.
And I know that you've said that people can be controlled too, but from my experience out of, say, 50 people at the front of a moving crowd of enemies maybe 10-20 might do the same thing, while the other 30 will react in different ways. And then their counterreactions to your reaction would also be different because some of them might not be as well-coordinated with their PL and GL, so their responses are staggered which leads to pickoffs which leads to overextensions.
The flow of the battle can become quite chaotic even when you're attempting to properly control it. To me that sounds like a high end pve encounter. Am I wrong in that assumption?
There are many assumptions in this response that don't apply. It would take long to detail them all and derail yet another thread into 'You haven't actually fought hard PvE yet'.
But I can tell you that FFXI has multiple bosses where 'Which party composition you need to take to it depends on the weather, time of day, and which day of the week it is in game'.
So that just balances out the pvp side of everchanging enemies.
But am I wrong in equating a mass of players with boss rng? Noaani said that he considers mass pvp being the high end pvp content in an mmo (and I agree). With mass pvp you gotta know how to control your enemies on a granular scale, because some parties might not react to your baiting or might overreact and your slight bait would lead to a few deaths on your side which makes you overextend to res them, and so on and so on.
Obviously you can agro the boss and/or its adds, but unless the boss has rng agro stages/abilities/triggers - you'd be able to fully control the boss, which would let you do other things to the boss like maybe triggering new mechanics or just better react to incoming ones.
And I know that you've said that people can be controlled too, but from my experience out of, say, 50 people at the front of a moving crowd of enemies maybe 10-20 might do the same thing, while the other 30 will react in different ways. And then their counterreactions to your reaction would also be different because some of them might not be as well-coordinated with their PL and GL, so their responses are staggered which leads to pickoffs which leads to overextensions.
The flow of the battle can become quite chaotic even when you're attempting to properly control it. To me that sounds like a high end pve encounter. Am I wrong in that assumption?
You are.
For a reason that most will consider insulting or arrogant.
What you've described only happens if your opponents suck.
High end PvP is very mechanical.
An opponent 'doing something poorly' or 'reacting strangely' is nearly NEVER a reason to change your strategy. That's why you get those 'unbeatable people' in some games. They have learned 'the strategy that basically does not lose', but they're not even THINKING about you when they execute it.
Some people can do this in 16v16 combat. Some can go higher than that.
You see chaos, I don't. I see 'headless chickens' and switch to 'rounding up the chickens' mode, which doesn't require as much thought either.
Once again, top end gamers are INSANE and they are generally NOT doing or even thinking in the way that most people believe they are. So, complex PvE is added to push them more. Top end League players for example think so differently that they can't always even remember/understand why certain things are possible in the lower tiers of play.
It is possible for a thing that seems like a useful tool for a very long time while in the mid-levels to be 100% always a bad idea against a skilled enough opponent who has frame-perfect timing. And games WITHOUT frame-perfect timings literally make it so that those people don't even have to stress while doing it.
An opponent 'doing something poorly' or 'reacting strangely' is nearly NEVER a reason to change your strategy. That's why you get those 'unbeatable people' in some games. They have learned 'the strategy that basically does not lose', but they're not even THINKING about you when they execute it.
Some people can do this in 16v16 combat. Some can go higher than that.
You see chaos, I don't. I see 'headless chickens' and switch to 'rounding up the chickens' mode, which doesn't require as much thought either.
Once again, top end gamers are INSANE and they are generally NOT doing or even thinking in the way that most people believe they are. So, complex PvE is added to push them more. Top end League players for example think so differently that they can't always even remember/understand why certain things are possible in the lower tiers of play.
So this is where we come back to Noaani's argument of "someone can always bring more people". How many "you"s are there in the mmo genre? And how many people can they realistically kill in 1v5-7 per each one of "you" fights.
I don't doubt that there're insanely skilled players out there and I'm sure they'd be able to beat a ton of people (like I said, I've seen that happen, though usually through overgearing on top of their skill, rather than pure skill). But what would be the limit?
PvE limits the amount of insane people you could bring to the encounter, while owpvp doesn't. And when we talk about subjective winning sides, the entirety of the zerg would've been attempting the hardest pvp content all up until they'd turn into a zerg big enough to overpower those "insane ones". At which point the insane ones would have to come up with ways to beat the zerg, which would now be a challenge to them and the difficulty of the challenge would depend on the quality and size of the zerg.
And another example I know from L2's history is of a highly skilled and geared party that broke off of the strongest guild on the official servers (pretty much pinnacle of L2's power scaling), made their own guild with a few other strong parties and started standing up to their original guild. And they were managing to win fights.
So again, even when you're at the top - someone will come for you in some shape or form. This is why I think that PvP can still be as difficult as PvE. It's just a different kind of difficult. Leading and tearing apart a zerg until they all die is somewhat different from trying to control a boss agro and managing his mechanics and abilities.
Though maybe I'm missing a yet another FF11 or EQ2 boss, where you had to pretty much fight a "zerg boss" with 40 mechanics and a 100 attacks of different kinds
An opponent 'doing something poorly' or 'reacting strangely' is nearly NEVER a reason to change your strategy. That's why you get those 'unbeatable people' in some games. They have learned 'the strategy that basically does not lose', but they're not even THINKING about you when they execute it.
Some people can do this in 16v16 combat. Some can go higher than that.
You see chaos, I don't. I see 'headless chickens' and switch to 'rounding up the chickens' mode, which doesn't require as much thought either.
Once again, top end gamers are INSANE and they are generally NOT doing or even thinking in the way that most people believe they are. So, complex PvE is added to push them more. Top end League players for example think so differently that they can't always even remember/understand why certain things are possible in the lower tiers of play.
So this is where we come back to Noaani's argument of "someone can always bring more people". How many "you"s are there in the mmo genre? And how many people can they realistically kill in 1v5-7 per each one of "you" fights.
I don't doubt that there're insanely skilled players out there and I'm sure they'd be able to beat a ton of people (like I said, I've seen that happen, though usually through overgearing on top of their skill, rather than pure skill). But what would be the limit?
PvE limits the amount of insane people you could bring to the encounter, while owpvp doesn't. And when we talk about subjective winning sides, the entirety of the zerg would've been attempting the hardest pvp content all up until they'd turn into a zerg big enough to overpower those "insane ones". At which point the insane ones would have to come up with ways to beat the zerg, which would now be a challenge to them and the difficulty of the challenge would depend on the quality and size of the zerg.
And another example I know from L2's history is of a highly skilled and geared party that broke off of the strongest guild on the official servers (pretty much pinnacle of L2's power scaling), made their own guild with a few other strong parties and started standing up to their original guild. And they were managing to win fights.
So again, even when you're at the top - someone will come for you in some shape or form. This is why I think that PvP can still be as difficult as PvE. It's just a different kind of difficult. Leading and tearing apart a zerg until they all die is somewhat different from trying to control a boss agro and managing his mechanics and abilities.
Though maybe I'm missing a yet another FF11 or EQ2 boss, where you had to pretty much fight a "zerg boss" with 40 mechanics and a 100 attacks of different kinds
I just don't agree that 'being outnumbered' is difficulty, because I'm a programmer.
I know there comes a point where you CANNOT do it. The code offers no way to do it.
I'm telling you that the top end gamers hit the 'code's limit' relatively easily. Zergs just bring that limit DOWN more in online games because latency is a thing.
The greatest enemy of a top Online fighting game/FPS player is the speed of light itself. Second is 'the amount of time their monitor takes to render the information received from VRAM'.
Anything less, they usually overcome about 3-6 months in. Some can do it in days. Xiaohai can do it in TWENTY MINUTES.
PvE can go beyond aspects of this because PvE only has the code limit on one side, and it's easier to get around it on that side (this is speaking from the Machine Code level of programming). Human input requires an input device.
If you want balance in PvP, you're not getting a higher challenge than PvE. If you don't mind throwing out balance entirely and allowing Kara cancels and Option Selects, you can get close, but then those would work in PvE too.
All PvE is dumbed down to be possible to non-superhumans. Adding more numbers to the PvP also dumbs it down unless you don't care about balance.
Actually I think I know how to explain this, it MIGHT be the answer to your confusion.
There are things in hard PvE that the average player, if not TOLD or SHOWN that it is done, will conclude that they are PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
You don't get a lot of success in gaming these days by making things that the majority of people conclude 'this is physically impossible to do'. You give them something, you make it weaker, you give them gear to help, you give them power to overcome it faster so that they can win by luck.
The level at which most players conclude 'this is impossible to do' is the level where I start to pay attention.
Two levels higher is where I start to have fun.
Four levels more is where I start to think 'this is physically impossible for me to do if I don't practice for four months'. Which is also the point where a friend of mine starts to have fun.
I'm not saying that PvP is not all the things you said. I'm saying that PvE often goes way beyond that, but how would one even convince the average person 'this is where I start to enjoy it' after they've concluded that there 'must be another way' because the game cannot possibly expect a human being to do it?
I can't be bothered to qote everything I read that I'd like to comment on since I'm on my phone but...
1) The guy who claimed PvE is more dynamic than PvP probably has never pvped more than getting ganked. I literally almost spit out my beer laughing. In my vast experience, Pvp is only somewhat static at higher levels of arena when people have full knowledge of their class and the meta. Using AA as an example, I'd win almost every single 1v1 I participated in, but owPvP whether solo or grouped, or fight at Kraken (can't remember what it was called) was always different because there were inherently more variables. The supercomputer analagy was accurate.
2) I don't understand why Dygz keeps posting. I understand he's "interested" in the development due to some personal relationships, but why keep posting? You can just lurk instead of posting your same old opinion with nothing new to contribute in any thread that mentions Pvp. Your obviously not going to play, so imo your borderline trolling at this point.
3) I understand why a lot of people don't understand this, but in most "top-end" Pvp guilds I've been in, roughly 80% of the people do all the content in the game including gathering/crafting. They just get the most enjoyment from Pvp. Myself included. If you think your just going to be a crafter and never Pvp, your not going to get the good stuff handed to you because there is going to be someone who likes to PvP who has just as high of a crafter level as you. No one is going to sell it to you until it's trivial for that guild.
4) To the dude who said he was a top end PvPer, then proceeded to list CS:Go and Lost Ark as his credentials. Lol ok. One isn't even an MMO, and Lost Ark is widely considered terrible PvP (the only positive PvP aspect it had was equalized arenas imo) . Having played LA for far longer than I should have, I can definitely attest to that statement. Calling LA a success is highly debatable as well considering the excessive bot problem inflating the numbers for the entire life time of when I played ( quit just before clown).
5) There was one more point, but I can't recall it at this point so I'll end with my 2 cp.
1) The guy who claimed PvE is more dynamic than PvP probably has never pvped more than getting ganked. I literally almost spit out my beer laughing. In my vast experience, Pvp is only somewhat static at higher levels of arena when people have full knowledge of their class and the meta. Using AA as an example, I'd win almost every single 1v1 I participated in, but owPvP whether solo or grouped, or fight at Kraken (can't remember what it was called) was always different because there were inherently more variables. The supercomputer analagy was accurate.
The Kraken from Archeage is an interesting encounter for you to pick here.
My guild killed it early in Archeage, and as soon as we saw how pathetic it was as an encounter, more than 90% of the guild just quit the game on the spot.
Even when there is multiple raids worth of PvP present, it is a joke, a waste of space.
It is absolutely not "more dynamic" than top end PvE in a good PvE MMO.
People that come along to contest the encounter really only have two or three options, and which option they pick is basically up to how you set yourself up. It is absolutely possible (easy, in fact) to basically guarantee what any potential opponent will do - all you need to do is work out what you want them to do, and then figure out what it is you and your raid need to do in order to get them to do that thing.
People are inherently predictable - and inherently susceptible. The more people involved in an action, the easier it is top predict what that action will be.
PvP is far more difficult than any PvE, End game PvP is far more difficult than any end game pve raid.
Statistically incorrect.
In end game PvP, the side with the most players is most likely to win.
As such, there is a greater than 50% chance that any one player in a top end PvP fight will be on the winning side.
In top end PvE, that number goes down to single digits, if you want to talk about individual pulls as the resolution we are discussing rather than a full night, the winning percent for players in top end raiding g drops below 1%. Guilds will often spend months on a top end encounter, pulling it dozens of times a night, losing every time.
Then, when they finally get a kill, it is still fairly normal for any subsequent kill attempts to take a dozen or more attempts. It is not unusual to walk away unsuccessfully from a night of attempting a top end encounter that you have already killed, and in good games, they only have a few months of one per week kills before it is no longer top end content.
This means you will spend often 60 or more nights, each night with 25 or more pulls, trying to work out how to kill an encounter that you will then only kill perhaps 10 - 12 times, and will still die to it 10 or more times on subsequent kills.
To say PvP is harder is to say you dont understand top PvE - let alone that you have never participated in it.
End game PvP in most MMOS is instanced based and therefore size of groups is normalized and equal. So this whole thing is wrong.
PvP is harder than PvE because of multiple reasons:
1. your enemy are not scripted;
2. The compositions which you fight against can vary a lot so every match need different tactic in order to win depending on your team strength and weakness and your opponent strength and weaknesses
3. Usually objective driven pvp modes have multiple different ways to win so you have different options while in pve there is 1 kill the boss, so you just need to have the right gear and perform the scripted mechanics.
But this is very generalized. for Example in Open world massive PvP, the individual skills does not matter that much so ofcourse there the army with the bigger size will most probably win, same can be said for open world bosses the guild with most players will kill the boss easier and faster. But if we look at instanced content where you have strict limitations and equalizations then PvP is much more unpredictable therefore harder than PvE, because of the reasons mentioned above.
To say PvP is harder is to say you dont understand top PvE - let alone that you have never participated in it.
I mean, to me that description sounds like my party trying to kill the enemy party that was holding a spot. The enemy was overgeared so we'd kill ourselves several times against them, but after trying different approaches we might be able to get a win, cause either rng was on our side or the enemy slipped up (which in pve's case would mainly just be ability/mechanic rng being more favorable towards players in a particular run).
I've had boss encounters that took over 1k attempts to kill the first time ( not many encounters fit this, but it is more than 1 encounter).
What's the most attempts at a single PvP situation you've had?
Then you have to consider that the harder it is for you, the easier it is for the other side. Top end PvP is thus - in aggregate - neutral in difficulty.
Figuring out a fight does not make it hard. Ofcourse it will take tame to figure out what exactly you need to do if you didnt watched any guides and etc so you will die a lot during that time. What defines is a encounter hard is how hard is to execute the mechanics of that encounter not how hard is to figure them out.
End game PvP in most MMOS is instanced based and therefore size of groups is normalized and equal. So this whole thing is wrong.
While I agree that this may be the case, in the same way I don't consider all MMO's with PvE to have top end PvE, I don't consider all games with PvP to have top end PvP.
WoW doesn't have top end PvP, as an example.
Archeage, on the other hand, does - and it isn't the arena.
The thing is, instanced PvP still doesn't have all that much variation - because players are far more easily manipulated than scripts are. When you are talking about large scale PvP, if you know who is in charge, you probably know what they are going to do. More to the point, you can perform a few minor maneuvers to encourage them in to the thing you think they are going to do.
Archeages Mistmerrow was a great example of this. If I was running my faction for this, the first thing I would want to know is who was in charge of the main raid from the other faction. From there, I knew what the opposition were going to do down to either two or three options (usually 10%chance of one option, 90% chance of the other option, depending on who was leading).
I mean, I agree that PvP has more possible variation. It is possible that players can do the thing that they think will most likely result in them winning, buy it is also possible they could do something that they don't think will result in them winning.
However, of the above two options, the first is obviously far, far more likely to happen. This effectively limits (even if doesn't actually limit) the options that players are going to take.
I mean, it is perfectly possible that a player in PvP may just stop, strip off, look at the floor, spin to the left and continuously crouch then jump. It isn't a likely thing to happen, but it is possible. If we are going to include things like this, then there is absolutely more variety in PvP.
However, if we are talking about what players are likely to do - there is very little in the way of surprises in PvP.
However, if we are talking about what players are likely to do - there is very little in the way of surprises in PvP.
Versus the no surprises in PvE?
Regarding Kraken, yeah the PvE part wasn't interesting. IMO, no PvE is interesting once you learn the mechanics. It just becomes a chore. The PvP at Kraken was what made it dynamic and interesting. The numbers on each side were never the same, the group comps were never the same. IDK, maybe you played on a bad server or something.
You are the only person here saying PvE is more dynamic. Your example using your coding background is irrelevant to that. Not sure how you can argue it any further without looking like a fool. If you walk into a bar, and 99 out of 100 people call it a touchdown, its probably a touchdown.
If you are at the leading edge of PvE, it has plenty of surprises.
If you are not at the leading edge, how can you call it top end PvE?
Now, if you watch a few videos on an encounter, if you know what to expect when going in, obviously there will be few surprises.
But that is on you. Get better and take on that content before those videos exist. If you aren't able to do this, you aren't in a place to talk about top end PvE - obviously.
If you do that content before those videos exist - as I do - then every encounter is nothing but surprises.
Going back to the Kraken, it wasnt hard to only give would be attackers a single viable option to attack. It isnt even hard, it's just about placement of your raid/ships. Make it look like you have a really weak spot, and that is where you will be attacked. It really is the easiest thing in the world, people are predictable. It's literally like leaving a breadcrumb trail, people will follow it without thinking.
It didnt really matter what the numbers were, and it REALLY doesnt matter what the classes were (its early Archeage - there were three classes of note, everyone else was worthless).
You are the only person here saying PvE is more dynamic. Your example using your coding background is irrelevant to that.
Ok so, two points.
First, it isnt me using my coding background in this argument, it is @Azherae
Second, the above OBVIOUSLY means your first point above isnt true.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I don't understand why Dygz keeps posting. I understand he's "interested" in the development due to some personal relationships, but why keep posting? You can just lurk instead of posting your same old opinion with nothing new to contribute in any thread that mentions Pvp. Your obviously not going to play, so imo your borderline trolling at this point.
LMAO
Why would I not post?
Especially when people continue to talk about me and misunderstand and misrepresent my perspective.
End game PvP in most MMOS is instanced based and therefore size of groups is normalized and equal. So this whole thing is wrong.
While I agree that this may be the case, in the same way I don't consider all MMO's with PvE to have top end PvE, I don't consider all games with PvP to have top end PvP.
WoW doesn't have top end PvP, as an example.
Archeage, on the other hand, does - and it isn't the arena.
The thing is, instanced PvP still doesn't have all that much variation - because players are far more easily manipulated than scripts are. When you are talking about large scale PvP, if you know who is in charge, you probably know what they are going to do. More to the point, you can perform a few minor maneuvers to encourage them in to the thing you think they are going to do.
Archeages Mistmerrow was a great example of this. If I was running my faction for this, the first thing I would want to know is who was in charge of the main raid from the other faction. From there, I knew what the opposition were going to do down to either two or three options (usually 10%chance of one option, 90% chance of the other option, depending on who was leading).
I mean, I agree that PvP has more possible variation. It is possible that players can do the thing that they think will most likely result in them winning, buy it is also possible they could do something that they don't think will result in them winning.
However, of the above two options, the first is obviously far, far more likely to happen. This effectively limits (even if doesn't actually limit) the options that players are going to take.
I mean, it is perfectly possible that a player in PvP may just stop, strip off, look at the floor, spin to the left and continuously crouch then jump. It isn't a likely thing to happen, but it is possible. If we are going to include things like this, then there is absolutely more variety in PvP.
However, if we are talking about what players are likely to do - there is very little in the way of surprises in PvP.
Here you talk in case that you already know the leader and your opponent and the classes so you know the mechanics...
If you are at the leading edge of PvE, it has plenty of surprises.
If you are not at the leading edge, how can you call it top end PvE?
Now, if you watch a few videos on an encounter, if you know what to expect when going in, obviously there will be few surprises.
But that is on you. Get better and take on that content before those videos exist. If you aren't able to do this, you aren't in a place to talk about top end PvE - obviously.
If you do that content before those videos exist - as I do - then every encounter is nothing but surprises.
Going back to the Kraken, it wasnt hard to only give would be attackers a single viable option to attack. It isnt even hard, it's just about placement of your raid/ships. Make it look like you have a really weak spot, and that is where you will be attacked. It really is the easiest thing in the world, people are predictable. It's literally like leaving a breadcrumb trail, people will follow it without thinking.
It didnt really matter what the numbers were, and it REALLY doesnt matter what the classes were (its early Archeage - there were three classes of note, everyone else was worthless).
You are the only person here saying PvE is more dynamic. Your example using your coding background is irrelevant to that.
Ok so, two points.
First, it isnt me using my coding background in this argument, it is @Azherae
Second, the above OBVIOUSLY means your first point above isnt true.
but here you talk about the encounter before you know the mechanics so you are comparing apples with potatoes( please dont get me wrong i mean no offence here).
In case of first time experiancing a PvE encounter ofcourse there will be many stuff which you dont know same for pvp if you fight for first time it will be even more stuff which you dont know compared to PvE and you will have very bad experience because you wont know what , why and how killed you.
If you already done the encounter at least once you already know everything about the encounter and what to expect from it so there is no surprise at all which means that after you know the mechanics it all comes down to their proper execution, and here for me is the difference between a hard engaging PvE and a bad one. If the execution of the mechanics is tight it will be fun and engaging experience, if not then after the first clear it just becomes a chore.
In PvP there much more stuff which need to be learned, first what are the classes and what are their strengths weakness, after that what are the synergies between this classes and the different compositions, what are the combat mechanics and how they work, after you learn all that ofcourse the valuable options are not countless they are limited but still the execution of the mechanics is more challenging and its much harder to be proactive in pvp while in PvE its very easy when you learn the mechanics because they dont change and they happen at very easy to predict times, while in PvP thats not the case even when you know all of the mechanics its much harder to predict what exactly will happen. Also you talk about large scale PvP, there is no MMO with good large scale pvp because its really hard to balance the game around it. If the game is balanced around large scale pvp then in small scale pvp nobody will be able to kill nobody, so thats the reason why large scale PvP is not that challenging also in large scale pvp your individual skill contribute very small portion in the equation which predicts the outcome of the fight. So if you compare Raids to just large scale PvP i understand why you find PvP easier, but this modes are fundamentally different in design, Raids in the modern age are designed in a way that even if 1 person fails a curtail mechanics the whole raid fails, while in Large scale PvP thats not the case and if 1 person dies he comes back into the fight shortly, thats why its much more appropriate to compare Raid to PvP mode in which individual skill matters much more as for example 3v3 or 5v5 mode and in this case pvp is much more unpredictable and harder than PvE raid even if you know perfectly what all the enemy classes can do and what their composition can do. Another thing is that in PvP you can design different objectives which lead to "winning" in a lot of different ways, while in PvE the objective is 1 kill the boss and you dont have different ways of killing the boss than executing the mechanics correctly. Ofcourse all of that depend on the combat mechanics of the game too but generally speaking PvE is much more predictable therefore much easier than PvP.
Actually I think I know how to explain this, it MIGHT be the answer to your confusion.
There are things in hard PvE that the average player, if not TOLD or SHOWN that it is done, will conclude that they are PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
You don't get a lot of success in gaming these days by making things that the majority of people conclude 'this is physically impossible to do'. You give them something, you make it weaker, you give them gear to help, you give them power to overcome it faster so that they can win by luck.
The level at which most players conclude 'this is impossible to do' is the level where I start to pay attention.
Two levels higher is where I start to have fun.
Four levels more is where I start to think 'this is physically impossible for me to do if I don't practice for four months'. Which is also the point where a friend of mine starts to have fun.
I'm not saying that PvP is not all the things you said. I'm saying that PvE often goes way beyond that, but how would one even convince the average person 'this is where I start to enjoy it' after they've concluded that there 'must be another way' because the game cannot possibly expect a human being to do it?
You must be quite "elite"
Here is a raid that every level of player will give up on except for .000001% or so. You must enter the first 100,000 digits of pi and enter them in sequence. Do that and you win the raid. It fills your criteria to interest you lmfao, the only people who would bother are ones with Hyperthymesia.
I don't see why it's so important for people to have Ashes of Creation with less PvP, if it was said from the start open world will be 80/20 of the content and this open world will be fully PvP-ON with an anti grief system..? Would you rather have them kill every system they've put that circles around a full PVX world in place just so you can have the game you want?
Actually I think I know how to explain this, it MIGHT be the answer to your confusion.
There are things in hard PvE that the average player, if not TOLD or SHOWN that it is done, will conclude that they are PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
You don't get a lot of success in gaming these days by making things that the majority of people conclude 'this is physically impossible to do'. You give them something, you make it weaker, you give them gear to help, you give them power to overcome it faster so that they can win by luck.
The level at which most players conclude 'this is impossible to do' is the level where I start to pay attention.
Two levels higher is where I start to have fun.
Four levels more is where I start to think 'this is physically impossible for me to do if I don't practice for four months'. Which is also the point where a friend of mine starts to have fun.
I'm not saying that PvP is not all the things you said. I'm saying that PvE often goes way beyond that, but how would one even convince the average person 'this is where I start to enjoy it' after they've concluded that there 'must be another way' because the game cannot possibly expect a human being to do it?
You must be quite "elite"
Here is a raid that every level of player will give up on except for .000001% or so. You must enter the first 100,000 digits of pie and enter them in sequence. Do that and you win the raid. It fills your criteria to interest you lmfao, the only people who would bother are ones with Hyperthymesia.
It is because of exactly this type of response and the usual attitude underneath it, that there is a problematic disconnect within competitive gaming.
One does not have to be the top to UNDERSTAND how the top works. Both 'denying them' and 'trying to bring them down' fails because there is no way to do that from this stance. A lot of the time, people who think they are average could be MUCH closer to top than they are if they actually understood what the top was doing instead of having this reaction type.
I'm not saying I'm elite, I'm not even saying that I would be better than you at any given game, particularly not Ashes.
But the number of people like me is not THAT small, they just don't normally play MMOs because MMOs are generally unrewarding. So you're right on that front. If the genre keeps churning out content that is meant to be cleared by people who don't like any of the things I like, then obviously I won't play those games.
Whether or not that's a good thing is entirely subjective towards what a given person enjoys.
I do recognize that you are being hyperbolic, but what good is it? I'm not sure if this post makes you feel better through venting, or is just random 'fun' because you didn't feel like engaging, or if I touched a nerve somehow.
The thing is, instanced PvP still doesn't have all that much variation - because players are far more easily manipulated than scripts are. When you are talking about large scale PvP, if you know who is in charge, you probably know what they are going to do. More to the point, you can perform a few minor maneuvers to encourage them in to the thing you think they are going to do.
I mean, I agree that PvP has more possible variation. It is possible that players can do the thing that they think will most likely result in them winning, buy it is also possible they could do something that they don't think will result in them winning.
I mean, it is perfectly possible that a player in PvP may just stop, strip off, look at the floor, spin to the left and continuously crouch then jump. It isn't a likely thing to happen, but it is possible. If we are going to include things like this, then there is absolutely more variety in PvP.
However, if we are talking about what players are likely to do - there is very little in the way of surprises in PvP.
If you already done the encounter at least once you already know everything about the encounter and what to expect from it so there is no surprise at all which means that after you know the mechanics it all comes down to their proper execution, and here for me is the difference between a hard engaging PvE and a bad one. If the execution of the mechanics is tight it will be fun and engaging experience, if not then after the first clear it just becomes a chore.
In PvP there much more stuff which need to be learned, first what are the classes and what are their strengths weakness, after that what are the synergies between this classes and the different compositions, what are the combat mechanics and how they work, after you learn all that ofcourse the valuable options are not countless they are limited but still the execution of the mechanics is more challenging and its much harder to be proactive in pvp while in PvE its very easy when you learn the mechanics because they dont change and they happen at very easy to predict times, while in PvP thats not the case even when you know all of the mechanics its much harder to predict what exactly will happen. Also you talk about large scale PvP, there is no MMO with good large scale pvp because its really hard to balance the game around it. If the game is balanced around large scale pvp then in small scale pvp nobody will be able to kill nobody, so thats the reason why large scale PvP is not that challenging also in large scale pvp your individual skill contribute very small portion in the equation which predicts the outcome of the fight. So if you compare Raids to just large scale PvP i understand why you find PvP easier, but this modes are fundamentally different in design, Raids in the modern age are designed in a way that even if 1 person fails a curtail mechanics the whole raid fails, while in Large scale PvP thats not the case and if 1 person dies he comes back into the fight shortly, thats why its much more appropriate to compare Raid to PvP mode in which individual skill matters much more as for example 3v3 or 5v5 mode and in this case pvp is much more unpredictable and harder than PvE raid even if you know perfectly what all the enemy classes can do and what their composition can do. Another thing is that in PvP you can design different objectives which lead to "winning" in a lot of different ways, while in PvE the objective is 1 kill the boss and you dont have different ways of killing the boss than executing the mechanics correctly. Ofcourse all of that depend on the combat mechanics of the game too but generally speaking PvE is much more predictable therefore much easier than PvP.
Anyways i think we are a bit offtopic
Most of this doesn't match my experience.
"If you already did the encounter at least once you already know everything about the encounter" - not in the games I play.
"In PvP there is much more stuff that needs to be learned." - Also not true. I would elaborate here but I usually get the 'Fighting Games aren't MMOs' response, which is correct because MMOs are almost always less complicated.
"Execution of the mechanics is more challenging" - nope.
"Raids in the modern age" - Assume that if I am talking, and I BET that when Noaani is talking, this isn't what is being talked about.
"Another thing is that in PvP you can design different objectives which lead to "winning" in a lot of different ways, while in PvE the objective is 1 kill the boss and you dont have different ways of killing the boss than executing the mechanics correctly." - I once again feel sorrow at the state of the genre if this is the experience of most players. I will continue to hope that Ashes can live up to the standards of the MMOs of Yore so that people can have an experience beyond this.
If you already done the encounter at least once you already know everything about the encounter and what to expect from it so there is no surprise at all which means that after you know the mechanics it all comes down to their proper execution, and here for me is the difference between a hard engaging PvE and a bad one. If the execution of the mechanics is tight it will be fun and engaging experience, if not then after the first clear it just becomes a chore.
In PvP there much more stuff which need to be learned, first what are the classes and what are their strengths weakness, after that what are the synergies between this classes and the different compositions, what are the combat mechanics and how they work, after you learn all that ofcourse the valuable options are not countless they are limited but still the execution of the mechanics is more challenging and its much harder to be proactive in pvp while in PvE its very easy when you learn the mechanics because they dont change and they happen at very easy to predict times, while in PvP thats not the case even when you know all of the mechanics its much harder to predict what exactly will happen. Also you talk about large scale PvP, there is no MMO with good large scale pvp because its really hard to balance the game around it. If the game is balanced around large scale pvp then in small scale pvp nobody will be able to kill nobody, so thats the reason why large scale PvP is not that challenging also in large scale pvp your individual skill contribute very small portion in the equation which predicts the outcome of the fight. So if you compare Raids to just large scale PvP i understand why you find PvP easier, but this modes are fundamentally different in design, Raids in the modern age are designed in a way that even if 1 person fails a curtail mechanics the whole raid fails, while in Large scale PvP thats not the case and if 1 person dies he comes back into the fight shortly, thats why its much more appropriate to compare Raid to PvP mode in which individual skill matters much more as for example 3v3 or 5v5 mode and in this case pvp is much more unpredictable and harder than PvE raid even if you know perfectly what all the enemy classes can do and what their composition can do. Another thing is that in PvP you can design different objectives which lead to "winning" in a lot of different ways, while in PvE the objective is 1 kill the boss and you dont have different ways of killing the boss than executing the mechanics correctly. Ofcourse all of that depend on the combat mechanics of the game too but generally speaking PvE is much more predictable therefore much easier than PvP.
Anyways i think we are a bit offtopic
Most of this doesn't match my experience.
"If you already did the encounter at least once you already know everything about the encounter" - not in the games I play.
"In PvP there is much more stuff that needs to be learned." - Also not true. I would elaborate here but I usually get the 'Fighting Games aren't MMOs' response, which is correct because MMOs are almost always less complicated.
"Execution of the mechanics is more challenging" - nope.
"Raids in the modern age" - Assume that if I am talking, and I BET that when Noaani is talking, this isn't what is being talked about.
"Another thing is that in PvP you can design different objectives which lead to "winning" in a lot of different ways, while in PvE the objective is 1 kill the boss and you dont have different ways of killing the boss than executing the mechanics correctly." - I once again feel sorrow at the state of the genre if this is the experience of most players. I will continue to hope that Ashes can live up to the standards of the MMOs of Yore so that people can have an experience beyond this.
I remember when I created a thread for what people expect in raids and people didn't really respond to it much. If you have certain expectations of difficulty it's better to push that kind of thread with examples and such as good feedback. If it is old mmorpgs people don't play, were not mainstream, etc it's going to be hard to expect that type of content in anyway without fully expressing it enough and what you desire as a player for content and difficulty.
Here you talk in case that you already know the leader and your opponent and the classes so you know the mechanics...
But here
...
but here you talk about the encounter before you know the mechanics so you are comparing apples with potatoes( please dont get me wrong i mean no offence here).
This is a fair point to bring up, but only for the sake of clarity.
In the several years unplayed Archeage, the opposing faction only ever had 3 PvP leaders good enough to need thought to beat.
In that same time in a PvE game, I would expect to see several hundred raid encounters.
If it MUCH easier to produce a new PvE encounter than it is to find someone with the ability to lead a raid effectively.
Also, some PvE encounters are built with an amount of randomness to them. Not many, to be fair, but some. I have had some encounters where our path or so kill of the mob was the first time we came across a particularly devastating AoE. That was one hell of a surprise.
The thing is, instanced PvP still doesn't have all that much variation - because players are far more easily manipulated than scripts are. When you are talking about large scale PvP, if you know who is in charge, you probably know what they are going to do. More to the point, you can perform a few minor maneuvers to encourage them in to the thing you think they are going to do.
I mean, I agree that PvP has more possible variation. It is possible that players can do the thing that they think will most likely result in them winning, buy it is also possible they could do something that they don't think will result in them winning.
I mean, it is perfectly possible that a player in PvP may just stop, strip off, look at the floor, spin to the left and continuously crouch then jump. It isn't a likely thing to happen, but it is possible. If we are going to include things like this, then there is absolutely more variety in PvP.
However, if we are talking about what players are likely to do - there is very little in the way of surprises in PvP.
What are you playing against bots?
I'm not. I am (or was) playing against people, and people have limited intelligence and imagination. If you understand what motivates people, they are really easy to predict.
Honestly, they are easier to predict than a script.
If you are at the leading edge of PvE, it has plenty of surprises.
If you are not at the leading edge, how can you call it top end PvE?
Now, if you watch a few videos on an encounter, if you know what to expect when going in, obviously there will be few surprises.
But that is on you. Get better and take on that content before those videos exist. If you aren't able to do this, you aren't in a place to talk about top end PvE - obviously.
If you do that content before those videos exist - as I do - then every encounter is nothing but surprises.
Going back to the Kraken, it wasnt hard to only give would be attackers a single viable option to attack. It isnt even hard, it's just about placement of your raid/ships. Make it look like you have a really weak spot, and that is where you will be attacked. It really is the easiest thing in the world, people are predictable. It's literally like leaving a breadcrumb trail, people will follow it without thinking.
It didnt really matter what the numbers were, and it REALLY doesnt matter what the classes were (its early Archeage - there were three classes of note, everyone else was worthless).
You are the only person here saying PvE is more dynamic. Your example using your coding background is irrelevant to that.
Ok so, two points.
First, it isnt me using my coding background in this argument, it is @Azherae
Second, the above OBVIOUSLY means your first point above isnt true.
I have world firsted raid content, and server firsted much more. There is nothing dynamic about it. It is simple trial and error, and then execution once you know the strat. Not sure if you intended to use surprise instead of dynamic. My guess is you did because you can't actually argue that raids are dynamic, since, you know, they are scripted... Well, you'll try to argue it actually is my guess.
You obviously played on a bad server I guess in Archeage if every fight at Kraken went the same way. Did you not have a pirate faction that was competitive? Did you play in the zerg faction? Did the same faction win every time? I'd also like to know what three classes you think were worth it because I bet you don't name the one I played, which would also lead me to believe you didn't play on a decent server. I was the most feared single person in my faction when I played. You also conveniently forgot to talk about OwPvP which I mentioned before Kraken.
What about territory wars, node wars, sieges in other games? Do they play the same way every time? I've had sieges that were similar because we were much more powerful than the opponent and steamrolled them. But I can't say I've ever had a siege go the same way twice against competent opponents.
My bad, as I said I was on my phone. Regardless, your the minority in this thread and in anyone I play games with opinion's. Your getting pretty petty now. Please give us an example of a dynamic PvE encounter. Keep in mind, seeing a new mechanic is not dynamic. It may be a surprise, but it is not dynamic (which is why I think you specifically used that word instead of addressing dynamic).
If you are at the leading edge of PvE, it has plenty of surprises.
If you are not at the leading edge, how can you call it top end PvE?
Now, if you watch a few videos on an encounter, if you know what to expect when going in, obviously there will be few surprises.
But that is on you. Get better and take on that content before those videos exist. If you aren't able to do this, you aren't in a place to talk about top end PvE - obviously.
If you do that content before those videos exist - as I do - then every encounter is nothing but surprises.
Going back to the Kraken, it wasnt hard to only give would be attackers a single viable option to attack. It isnt even hard, it's just about placement of your raid/ships. Make it look like you have a really weak spot, and that is where you will be attacked. It really is the easiest thing in the world, people are predictable. It's literally like leaving a breadcrumb trail, people will follow it without thinking.
It didnt really matter what the numbers were, and it REALLY doesnt matter what the classes were (its early Archeage - there were three classes of note, everyone else was worthless).
You are the only person here saying PvE is more dynamic. Your example using your coding background is irrelevant to that.
Ok so, two points.
First, it isnt me using my coding background in this argument, it is @Azherae
Second, the above OBVIOUSLY means your first point above isnt true.
I have world firsted raid content, and server firsted much more. There is nothing dynamic about it. It is simple trial and error, and then execution once you know the strat. Not sure if you intended to use surprise instead of dynamic. My guess is you did because you can't actually argue that raids are dynamic, since, you know, they are scripted... Well, you'll try to argue it actually is my guess.
You obviously played on a bad server I guess in Archeage if every fight at Kraken went the same way. Did you not have a pirate faction that was competitive? Did you play in the zerg faction? Did the same faction win every time? I'd also like to know what three classes you think were worth it because I bet you don't name the one I played, which would also lead me to believe you didn't play on a decent server. I was the most feared single person in my faction when I played.
What about territory wars, node wars, sieges in other games? Do they play the same way every time? I've had sieges that were similar because we were much more powerful than the opponent and steamrolled them. But I can't say I've ever had a siege go the same way twice against competent opponents.
My bad, as I said I was on my phone. Regardless, your the minority in this thread and in anyone I play games with opinion's. Your getting pretty petty now. Please give us an example of a dynamic PvE encounter. Keep in mind, seeing a new mechanic is not dynamic. It may be a surprise, but it is not dynamic (which is why I think you specifically used that word instead of addressing dynamic).
You should define it, probably. No point in having people bring a bunch of examples that you then say don't count.
And it has definitely been a long time since MMOs made proper dynamic content. The last time we tried to have this discussion with someone it was just:
"Those games are too old, no one plays them."
Can we count on you to not do that and actually address the specifics of the encounter?
EDIT: since these discussions always end up back here...
All mobs in this game have a meter for their larger special attacks (but not spells).
Boss mobs often have this meter passively rise, but it also rises by 10% of a required 1000 to do an attack every time anyone hits it, including with damaging magic. Normally this doesn't mean it just does the moves constantly even with a lot of people hitting it, but the move may be more powerful if the meter is higher depending on what it is.
The move done is chosen mostly-randomly, with OCCASIONAL bosses that have either a nonstandard preference (as mentioned there) or 'use specific very powerful nearly-unstoppable ones if they get high meter'.
You can stun these attacks but if you do, 90% of the time the METER REMAINS, so you can 'stun the megadeath move' and then it just randomly choose that one again and now it will be even stronger and probably someone's stun is on cooldown.
It takes forever to explain the sort of encounter being discussed here because the nature of a Dynamic encounter is that it cannot be discussed in that way because it is not scripted.
I don't understand why Dygz keeps posting. I understand he's "interested" in the development due to some personal relationships, but why keep posting? You can just lurk instead of posting your same old opinion with nothing new to contribute in any thread that mentions Pvp. Your obviously not going to play, so imo your borderline trolling at this point.
LMAO
Why would I not post?
Especially when people continue to talk about me and misunderstand and misrepresent my perspective.
Thanks for proving my point by once again not contributing to the discussion. Trolling confirmed.
You will be challenged by all these things when you play at all times.
In my opinion, this sums up everything.... Anything else is just off topic or simply not being interested in the answer..... Ashes is going to be pvx because of this explanation.... Y'all are just trying to remove pvp or pve from pvx... Pvx, in as straightforward a definition as possible, means you can't have either pvp or pve without the other..... And deciding before the alpha 2 is even out that bosses won't be good is just not solid.... You haven't even seen a gameplay with a boss involved, not even with a high level mob, coupled with the fact that they are still in development....... Seems to me that some of you just enjoy making baseless judgements 🤷♂️
If you already done the encounter at least once you already know everything about the encounter and what to expect from it so there is no surprise at all which means that after you know the mechanics it all comes down to their proper execution, and here for me is the difference between a hard engaging PvE and a bad one. If the execution of the mechanics is tight it will be fun and engaging experience, if not then after the first clear it just becomes a chore.
In PvP there much more stuff which need to be learned, first what are the classes and what are their strengths weakness, after that what are the synergies between this classes and the different compositions, what are the combat mechanics and how they work, after you learn all that ofcourse the valuable options are not countless they are limited but still the execution of the mechanics is more challenging and its much harder to be proactive in pvp while in PvE its very easy when you learn the mechanics because they dont change and they happen at very easy to predict times, while in PvP thats not the case even when you know all of the mechanics its much harder to predict what exactly will happen. Also you talk about large scale PvP, there is no MMO with good large scale pvp because its really hard to balance the game around it. If the game is balanced around large scale pvp then in small scale pvp nobody will be able to kill nobody, so thats the reason why large scale PvP is not that challenging also in large scale pvp your individual skill contribute very small portion in the equation which predicts the outcome of the fight. So if you compare Raids to just large scale PvP i understand why you find PvP easier, but this modes are fundamentally different in design, Raids in the modern age are designed in a way that even if 1 person fails a curtail mechanics the whole raid fails, while in Large scale PvP thats not the case and if 1 person dies he comes back into the fight shortly, thats why its much more appropriate to compare Raid to PvP mode in which individual skill matters much more as for example 3v3 or 5v5 mode and in this case pvp is much more unpredictable and harder than PvE raid even if you know perfectly what all the enemy classes can do and what their composition can do. Another thing is that in PvP you can design different objectives which lead to "winning" in a lot of different ways, while in PvE the objective is 1 kill the boss and you dont have different ways of killing the boss than executing the mechanics correctly. Ofcourse all of that depend on the combat mechanics of the game too but generally speaking PvE is much more predictable therefore much easier than PvP.
Anyways i think we are a bit offtopic
Most of this doesn't match my experience.
"If you already did the encounter at least once you already know everything about the encounter" - not in the games I play.
"In PvP there is much more stuff that needs to be learned." - Also not true. I would elaborate here but I usually get the 'Fighting Games aren't MMOs' response, which is correct because MMOs are almost always less complicated.
"Execution of the mechanics is more challenging" - nope.
"Raids in the modern age" - Assume that if I am talking, and I BET that when Noaani is talking, this isn't what is being talked about.
"Another thing is that in PvP you can design different objectives which lead to "winning" in a lot of different ways, while in PvE the objective is 1 kill the boss and you dont have different ways of killing the boss than executing the mechanics correctly." - I once again feel sorrow at the state of the genre if this is the experience of most players. I will continue to hope that Ashes can live up to the standards of the MMOs of Yore so that people can have an experience beyond this.
I remember when I created a thread for what people expect in raids and people didn't really respond to it much. If you have certain expectations of difficulty it's better to push that kind of thread with examples and such as good feedback. If it is old mmorpgs people don't play, were not mainstream, etc it's going to be hard to expect that type of content in anyway without fully expressing it enough and what you desire as a player for content and difficulty.
Part of the problem with that thread, as I remember it, is that you literally don't believe that the things we tell you about the PvE we have experienced are possible.
Or you think they're bad design. So you kinda automatically disqualify all the content we consider interesting.
As for 'expressing it', I think that would be a bad idea here kind of. I want Ashes to succeed. Ashes is based on AA and L2 and might be losing any FFXI/EQ influence it has, as we move forward.
If the game system doesn't suit the type of encounters I am talking about, they should not make them. If it does, I am so confident that they are ALREADY making them, that the only reason I even try to explain anything to anyone else is because I am sad that y'all don't know 'what is coming'.
I'm sure you will adapt, it's not going to be some 'mind-blowing wake-up call' if you have to face the type of content I'm used to. It might be jarring at first to 'randomly die because you thought it was scripted' or you weren't prepared for something you've never seen the boss do before, but that's part of the fun.
So I don't really feel the need to express it. If Ashes doesn't intend to have this PvE type, they probably did extensive analysis on why their game won't work if they have it. If they DO intend to have it, then all I can do is help you understand that it exists so you can give feedback on how you feel about it.
All I hope is that either TL or Ashes has it, and given the other decisions on Ashes side, for my selfish perspective I have to hope it is TL. Ashes should do whatever Steven enjoys.
Comments
But am I wrong in equating a mass of players with boss rng? Noaani said that he considers mass pvp being the high end pvp content in an mmo (and I agree). With mass pvp you gotta know how to control your enemies on a granular scale, because some parties might not react to your baiting or might overreact and your slight bait would lead to a few deaths on your side which makes you overextend to res them, and so on and so on.
Obviously you can agro the boss and/or its adds, but unless the boss has rng agro stages/abilities/triggers - you'd be able to fully control the boss, which would let you do other things to the boss like maybe triggering new mechanics or just better react to incoming ones.
And I know that you've said that people can be controlled too, but from my experience out of, say, 50 people at the front of a moving crowd of enemies maybe 10-20 might do the same thing, while the other 30 will react in different ways. And then their counterreactions to your reaction would also be different because some of them might not be as well-coordinated with their PL and GL, so their responses are staggered which leads to pickoffs which leads to overextensions.
The flow of the battle can become quite chaotic even when you're attempting to properly control it. To me that sounds like a high end pve encounter. Am I wrong in that assumption?
You are.
For a reason that most will consider insulting or arrogant.
What you've described only happens if your opponents suck.
High end PvP is very mechanical.
An opponent 'doing something poorly' or 'reacting strangely' is nearly NEVER a reason to change your strategy. That's why you get those 'unbeatable people' in some games. They have learned 'the strategy that basically does not lose', but they're not even THINKING about you when they execute it.
Some people can do this in 16v16 combat. Some can go higher than that.
You see chaos, I don't. I see 'headless chickens' and switch to 'rounding up the chickens' mode, which doesn't require as much thought either.
Once again, top end gamers are INSANE and they are generally NOT doing or even thinking in the way that most people believe they are. So, complex PvE is added to push them more. Top end League players for example think so differently that they can't always even remember/understand why certain things are possible in the lower tiers of play.
It is possible for a thing that seems like a useful tool for a very long time while in the mid-levels to be 100% always a bad idea against a skilled enough opponent who has frame-perfect timing. And games WITHOUT frame-perfect timings literally make it so that those people don't even have to stress while doing it.
I don't doubt that there're insanely skilled players out there and I'm sure they'd be able to beat a ton of people (like I said, I've seen that happen, though usually through overgearing on top of their skill, rather than pure skill). But what would be the limit?
PvE limits the amount of insane people you could bring to the encounter, while owpvp doesn't. And when we talk about subjective winning sides, the entirety of the zerg would've been attempting the hardest pvp content all up until they'd turn into a zerg big enough to overpower those "insane ones". At which point the insane ones would have to come up with ways to beat the zerg, which would now be a challenge to them and the difficulty of the challenge would depend on the quality and size of the zerg.
And another example I know from L2's history is of a highly skilled and geared party that broke off of the strongest guild on the official servers (pretty much pinnacle of L2's power scaling), made their own guild with a few other strong parties and started standing up to their original guild. And they were managing to win fights.
So again, even when you're at the top - someone will come for you in some shape or form. This is why I think that PvP can still be as difficult as PvE. It's just a different kind of difficult. Leading and tearing apart a zerg until they all die is somewhat different from trying to control a boss agro and managing his mechanics and abilities.
Though maybe I'm missing a yet another FF11 or EQ2 boss, where you had to pretty much fight a "zerg boss" with 40 mechanics and a 100 attacks of different kinds
You are.
I don't really have a point to further make here.
I just don't agree that 'being outnumbered' is difficulty, because I'm a programmer.
I know there comes a point where you CANNOT do it. The code offers no way to do it.
I'm telling you that the top end gamers hit the 'code's limit' relatively easily. Zergs just bring that limit DOWN more in online games because latency is a thing.
The greatest enemy of a top Online fighting game/FPS player is the speed of light itself. Second is 'the amount of time their monitor takes to render the information received from VRAM'.
Anything less, they usually overcome about 3-6 months in. Some can do it in days. Xiaohai can do it in TWENTY MINUTES.
PvE can go beyond aspects of this because PvE only has the code limit on one side, and it's easier to get around it on that side (this is speaking from the Machine Code level of programming). Human input requires an input device.
If you want balance in PvP, you're not getting a higher challenge than PvE. If you don't mind throwing out balance entirely and allowing Kara cancels and Option Selects, you can get close, but then those would work in PvE too.
All PvE is dumbed down to be possible to non-superhumans. Adding more numbers to the PvP also dumbs it down unless you don't care about balance.
There are things in hard PvE that the average player, if not TOLD or SHOWN that it is done, will conclude that they are PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
You don't get a lot of success in gaming these days by making things that the majority of people conclude 'this is physically impossible to do'. You give them something, you make it weaker, you give them gear to help, you give them power to overcome it faster so that they can win by luck.
The level at which most players conclude 'this is impossible to do' is the level where I start to pay attention.
Two levels higher is where I start to have fun.
Four levels more is where I start to think 'this is physically impossible for me to do if I don't practice for four months'. Which is also the point where a friend of mine starts to have fun.
I'm not saying that PvP is not all the things you said. I'm saying that PvE often goes way beyond that, but how would one even convince the average person 'this is where I start to enjoy it' after they've concluded that there 'must be another way' because the game cannot possibly expect a human being to do it?
1) The guy who claimed PvE is more dynamic than PvP probably has never pvped more than getting ganked. I literally almost spit out my beer laughing. In my vast experience, Pvp is only somewhat static at higher levels of arena when people have full knowledge of their class and the meta. Using AA as an example, I'd win almost every single 1v1 I participated in, but owPvP whether solo or grouped, or fight at Kraken (can't remember what it was called) was always different because there were inherently more variables. The supercomputer analagy was accurate.
2) I don't understand why Dygz keeps posting. I understand he's "interested" in the development due to some personal relationships, but why keep posting? You can just lurk instead of posting your same old opinion with nothing new to contribute in any thread that mentions Pvp. Your obviously not going to play, so imo your borderline trolling at this point.
3) I understand why a lot of people don't understand this, but in most "top-end" Pvp guilds I've been in, roughly 80% of the people do all the content in the game including gathering/crafting. They just get the most enjoyment from Pvp. Myself included. If you think your just going to be a crafter and never Pvp, your not going to get the good stuff handed to you because there is going to be someone who likes to PvP who has just as high of a crafter level as you. No one is going to sell it to you until it's trivial for that guild.
4) To the dude who said he was a top end PvPer, then proceeded to list CS:Go and Lost Ark as his credentials. Lol ok. One isn't even an MMO, and Lost Ark is widely considered terrible PvP (the only positive PvP aspect it had was equalized arenas imo) . Having played LA for far longer than I should have, I can definitely attest to that statement. Calling LA a success is highly debatable as well considering the excessive bot problem inflating the numbers for the entire life time of when I played ( quit just before clown).
5) There was one more point, but I can't recall it at this point so I'll end with my 2 cp.
My guild killed it early in Archeage, and as soon as we saw how pathetic it was as an encounter, more than 90% of the guild just quit the game on the spot.
Even when there is multiple raids worth of PvP present, it is a joke, a waste of space.
It is absolutely not "more dynamic" than top end PvE in a good PvE MMO.
People that come along to contest the encounter really only have two or three options, and which option they pick is basically up to how you set yourself up. It is absolutely possible (easy, in fact) to basically guarantee what any potential opponent will do - all you need to do is work out what you want them to do, and then figure out what it is you and your raid need to do in order to get them to do that thing.
People are inherently predictable - and inherently susceptible. The more people involved in an action, the easier it is top predict what that action will be.
End game PvP in most MMOS is instanced based and therefore size of groups is normalized and equal. So this whole thing is wrong.
PvP is harder than PvE because of multiple reasons:
1. your enemy are not scripted;
2. The compositions which you fight against can vary a lot so every match need different tactic in order to win depending on your team strength and weakness and your opponent strength and weaknesses
3. Usually objective driven pvp modes have multiple different ways to win so you have different options while in pve there is 1 kill the boss, so you just need to have the right gear and perform the scripted mechanics.
But this is very generalized. for Example in Open world massive PvP, the individual skills does not matter that much so ofcourse there the army with the bigger size will most probably win, same can be said for open world bosses the guild with most players will kill the boss easier and faster. But if we look at instanced content where you have strict limitations and equalizations then PvP is much more unpredictable therefore harder than PvE, because of the reasons mentioned above.
Figuring out a fight does not make it hard. Ofcourse it will take tame to figure out what exactly you need to do if you didnt watched any guides and etc so you will die a lot during that time. What defines is a encounter hard is how hard is to execute the mechanics of that encounter not how hard is to figure them out.
WoW doesn't have top end PvP, as an example.
Archeage, on the other hand, does - and it isn't the arena.
The thing is, instanced PvP still doesn't have all that much variation - because players are far more easily manipulated than scripts are. When you are talking about large scale PvP, if you know who is in charge, you probably know what they are going to do. More to the point, you can perform a few minor maneuvers to encourage them in to the thing you think they are going to do.
Archeages Mistmerrow was a great example of this. If I was running my faction for this, the first thing I would want to know is who was in charge of the main raid from the other faction. From there, I knew what the opposition were going to do down to either two or three options (usually 10%chance of one option, 90% chance of the other option, depending on who was leading).
I mean, I agree that PvP has more possible variation. It is possible that players can do the thing that they think will most likely result in them winning, buy it is also possible they could do something that they don't think will result in them winning.
However, of the above two options, the first is obviously far, far more likely to happen. This effectively limits (even if doesn't actually limit) the options that players are going to take.
I mean, it is perfectly possible that a player in PvP may just stop, strip off, look at the floor, spin to the left and continuously crouch then jump. It isn't a likely thing to happen, but it is possible. If we are going to include things like this, then there is absolutely more variety in PvP.
However, if we are talking about what players are likely to do - there is very little in the way of surprises in PvP.
Versus the no surprises in PvE?
Regarding Kraken, yeah the PvE part wasn't interesting. IMO, no PvE is interesting once you learn the mechanics. It just becomes a chore. The PvP at Kraken was what made it dynamic and interesting. The numbers on each side were never the same, the group comps were never the same. IDK, maybe you played on a bad server or something.
You are the only person here saying PvE is more dynamic. Your example using your coding background is irrelevant to that. Not sure how you can argue it any further without looking like a fool. If you walk into a bar, and 99 out of 100 people call it a touchdown, its probably a touchdown.
If you are at the leading edge of PvE, it has plenty of surprises.
If you are not at the leading edge, how can you call it top end PvE?
Now, if you watch a few videos on an encounter, if you know what to expect when going in, obviously there will be few surprises.
But that is on you. Get better and take on that content before those videos exist. If you aren't able to do this, you aren't in a place to talk about top end PvE - obviously.
If you do that content before those videos exist - as I do - then every encounter is nothing but surprises.
Going back to the Kraken, it wasnt hard to only give would be attackers a single viable option to attack. It isnt even hard, it's just about placement of your raid/ships. Make it look like you have a really weak spot, and that is where you will be attacked. It really is the easiest thing in the world, people are predictable. It's literally like leaving a breadcrumb trail, people will follow it without thinking.
It didnt really matter what the numbers were, and it REALLY doesnt matter what the classes were (its early Archeage - there were three classes of note, everyone else was worthless).
Ok so, two points.
First, it isnt me using my coding background in this argument, it is @Azherae
Second, the above OBVIOUSLY means your first point above isnt true.
Why would I not post?
Especially when people continue to talk about me and misunderstand and misrepresent my perspective.
Here you talk in case that you already know the leader and your opponent and the classes so you know the mechanics...
But here
but here you talk about the encounter before you know the mechanics so you are comparing apples with potatoes( please dont get me wrong i mean no offence here).
In case of first time experiancing a PvE encounter ofcourse there will be many stuff which you dont know same for pvp if you fight for first time it will be even more stuff which you dont know compared to PvE and you will have very bad experience because you wont know what , why and how killed you.
If you already done the encounter at least once you already know everything about the encounter and what to expect from it so there is no surprise at all which means that after you know the mechanics it all comes down to their proper execution, and here for me is the difference between a hard engaging PvE and a bad one. If the execution of the mechanics is tight it will be fun and engaging experience, if not then after the first clear it just becomes a chore.
In PvP there much more stuff which need to be learned, first what are the classes and what are their strengths weakness, after that what are the synergies between this classes and the different compositions, what are the combat mechanics and how they work, after you learn all that ofcourse the valuable options are not countless they are limited but still the execution of the mechanics is more challenging and its much harder to be proactive in pvp while in PvE its very easy when you learn the mechanics because they dont change and they happen at very easy to predict times, while in PvP thats not the case even when you know all of the mechanics its much harder to predict what exactly will happen. Also you talk about large scale PvP, there is no MMO with good large scale pvp because its really hard to balance the game around it. If the game is balanced around large scale pvp then in small scale pvp nobody will be able to kill nobody, so thats the reason why large scale PvP is not that challenging also in large scale pvp your individual skill contribute very small portion in the equation which predicts the outcome of the fight. So if you compare Raids to just large scale PvP i understand why you find PvP easier, but this modes are fundamentally different in design, Raids in the modern age are designed in a way that even if 1 person fails a curtail mechanics the whole raid fails, while in Large scale PvP thats not the case and if 1 person dies he comes back into the fight shortly, thats why its much more appropriate to compare Raid to PvP mode in which individual skill matters much more as for example 3v3 or 5v5 mode and in this case pvp is much more unpredictable and harder than PvE raid even if you know perfectly what all the enemy classes can do and what their composition can do. Another thing is that in PvP you can design different objectives which lead to "winning" in a lot of different ways, while in PvE the objective is 1 kill the boss and you dont have different ways of killing the boss than executing the mechanics correctly. Ofcourse all of that depend on the combat mechanics of the game too but generally speaking PvE is much more predictable therefore much easier than PvP.
Anyways i think we are a bit offtopic
You must be quite "elite"
Here is a raid that every level of player will give up on except for .000001% or so. You must enter the first 100,000 digits of pi and enter them in sequence. Do that and you win the raid. It fills your criteria to interest you lmfao, the only people who would bother are ones with Hyperthymesia.
It is because of exactly this type of response and the usual attitude underneath it, that there is a problematic disconnect within competitive gaming.
One does not have to be the top to UNDERSTAND how the top works. Both 'denying them' and 'trying to bring them down' fails because there is no way to do that from this stance. A lot of the time, people who think they are average could be MUCH closer to top than they are if they actually understood what the top was doing instead of having this reaction type.
I'm not saying I'm elite, I'm not even saying that I would be better than you at any given game, particularly not Ashes.
But the number of people like me is not THAT small, they just don't normally play MMOs because MMOs are generally unrewarding. So you're right on that front. If the genre keeps churning out content that is meant to be cleared by people who don't like any of the things I like, then obviously I won't play those games.
Whether or not that's a good thing is entirely subjective towards what a given person enjoys.
I do recognize that you are being hyperbolic, but what good is it? I'm not sure if this post makes you feel better through venting, or is just random 'fun' because you didn't feel like engaging, or if I touched a nerve somehow.
What are you playing against bots?
Most of this doesn't match my experience.
"If you already did the encounter at least once you already know everything about the encounter" - not in the games I play.
"In PvP there is much more stuff that needs to be learned." - Also not true. I would elaborate here but I usually get the 'Fighting Games aren't MMOs' response, which is correct because MMOs are almost always less complicated.
"Execution of the mechanics is more challenging" - nope.
"Raids in the modern age" - Assume that if I am talking, and I BET that when Noaani is talking, this isn't what is being talked about.
"Another thing is that in PvP you can design different objectives which lead to "winning" in a lot of different ways, while in PvE the objective is 1 kill the boss and you dont have different ways of killing the boss than executing the mechanics correctly." - I once again feel sorrow at the state of the genre if this is the experience of most players. I will continue to hope that Ashes can live up to the standards of the MMOs of Yore so that people can have an experience beyond this.
Bonus for NiKr so this post isn't just counterpoints.
I remember when I created a thread for what people expect in raids and people didn't really respond to it much. If you have certain expectations of difficulty it's better to push that kind of thread with examples and such as good feedback. If it is old mmorpgs people don't play, were not mainstream, etc it's going to be hard to expect that type of content in anyway without fully expressing it enough and what you desire as a player for content and difficulty.
In the several years unplayed Archeage, the opposing faction only ever had 3 PvP leaders good enough to need thought to beat.
In that same time in a PvE game, I would expect to see several hundred raid encounters.
If it MUCH easier to produce a new PvE encounter than it is to find someone with the ability to lead a raid effectively.
Also, some PvE encounters are built with an amount of randomness to them. Not many, to be fair, but some. I have had some encounters where our path or so kill of the mob was the first time we came across a particularly devastating AoE. That was one hell of a surprise.
I'm not. I am (or was) playing against people, and people have limited intelligence and imagination. If you understand what motivates people, they are really easy to predict.
Honestly, they are easier to predict than a script.
I have world firsted raid content, and server firsted much more. There is nothing dynamic about it. It is simple trial and error, and then execution once you know the strat. Not sure if you intended to use surprise instead of dynamic. My guess is you did because you can't actually argue that raids are dynamic, since, you know, they are scripted... Well, you'll try to argue it actually is my guess.
You obviously played on a bad server I guess in Archeage if every fight at Kraken went the same way. Did you not have a pirate faction that was competitive? Did you play in the zerg faction? Did the same faction win every time? I'd also like to know what three classes you think were worth it because I bet you don't name the one I played, which would also lead me to believe you didn't play on a decent server. I was the most feared single person in my faction when I played. You also conveniently forgot to talk about OwPvP which I mentioned before Kraken.
What about territory wars, node wars, sieges in other games? Do they play the same way every time? I've had sieges that were similar because we were much more powerful than the opponent and steamrolled them. But I can't say I've ever had a siege go the same way twice against competent opponents.
My bad, as I said I was on my phone. Regardless, your the minority in this thread and in anyone I play games with opinion's. Your getting pretty petty now. Please give us an example of a dynamic PvE encounter. Keep in mind, seeing a new mechanic is not dynamic. It may be a surprise, but it is not dynamic (which is why I think you specifically used that word instead of addressing dynamic).
You should define it, probably. No point in having people bring a bunch of examples that you then say don't count.
And it has definitely been a long time since MMOs made proper dynamic content. The last time we tried to have this discussion with someone it was just:
"Those games are too old, no one plays them."
Can we count on you to not do that and actually address the specifics of the encounter?
EDIT: since these discussions always end up back here...
Well, I have a LITTLE time so here's a minor something. This isn't a 40 man raid, for that you'd have to go back to
https://ffxiclopedia.fandom.com/wiki/Jormungand
All mobs in this game have a meter for their larger special attacks (but not spells).
Boss mobs often have this meter passively rise, but it also rises by 10% of a required 1000 to do an attack every time anyone hits it, including with damaging magic. Normally this doesn't mean it just does the moves constantly even with a lot of people hitting it, but the move may be more powerful if the meter is higher depending on what it is.
The move done is chosen mostly-randomly, with OCCASIONAL bosses that have either a nonstandard preference (as mentioned there) or 'use specific very powerful nearly-unstoppable ones if they get high meter'.
You can stun these attacks but if you do, 90% of the time the METER REMAINS, so you can 'stun the megadeath move' and then it just randomly choose that one again and now it will be even stronger and probably someone's stun is on cooldown.
It takes forever to explain the sort of encounter being discussed here because the nature of a Dynamic encounter is that it cannot be discussed in that way because it is not scripted.
So, there's two.
I have about 400 more if you like.
Thanks for proving my point by once again not contributing to the discussion. Trolling confirmed.
In my opinion, this sums up everything.... Anything else is just off topic or simply not being interested in the answer..... Ashes is going to be pvx because of this explanation.... Y'all are just trying to remove pvp or pve from pvx... Pvx, in as straightforward a definition as possible, means you can't have either pvp or pve without the other..... And deciding before the alpha 2 is even out that bosses won't be good is just not solid.... You haven't even seen a gameplay with a boss involved, not even with a high level mob, coupled with the fact that they are still in development....... Seems to me that some of you just enjoy making baseless judgements 🤷♂️
Part of the problem with that thread, as I remember it, is that you literally don't believe that the things we tell you about the PvE we have experienced are possible.
Or you think they're bad design. So you kinda automatically disqualify all the content we consider interesting.
As for 'expressing it', I think that would be a bad idea here kind of. I want Ashes to succeed. Ashes is based on AA and L2 and might be losing any FFXI/EQ influence it has, as we move forward.
If the game system doesn't suit the type of encounters I am talking about, they should not make them. If it does, I am so confident that they are ALREADY making them, that the only reason I even try to explain anything to anyone else is because I am sad that y'all don't know 'what is coming'.
I'm sure you will adapt, it's not going to be some 'mind-blowing wake-up call' if you have to face the type of content I'm used to. It might be jarring at first to 'randomly die because you thought it was scripted' or you weren't prepared for something you've never seen the boss do before, but that's part of the fun.
So I don't really feel the need to express it. If Ashes doesn't intend to have this PvE type, they probably did extensive analysis on why their game won't work if they have it. If they DO intend to have it, then all I can do is help you understand that it exists so you can give feedback on how you feel about it.
All I hope is that either TL or Ashes has it, and given the other decisions on Ashes side, for my selfish perspective I have to hope it is TL. Ashes should do whatever Steven enjoys.