Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
How difficult do you think it should be to take down larger foes?
Azherae
Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
See title.
The latest tweet.
It's kinda too broad a question for raw feedback, I think, and it fits into a space I like discussing so I make the thread.
Difficult is subjective and should almost certainly be on a spectrum, so I'm going to frame this entirely differently, in terms of two things I can quantify. I will use BDO and Throne and Liberty for this, not Ashes, for a specific reason related to the other discussion about Tanking and Threat Management.
Difficulty in a PvE focused MMO or a game like Monster Hunter relative to large mobs basically comes down to two things:
"How fast can it wear you down when you make mistakes?"
and
"How long does it take to kill it?"/"What is the time limit on the fight?"
(Can skip to bottom from here if not interested in my 'definitions')
These multiply against each other for difficulty. If 'everything oneshots you if you don't parry/evade it' and 'you have to fight the thing for an hour', then it probably counts as 'very hard'. Fun not relevant to the question. It's hard because you have to play perfectly, but it could theoretically be easy or MADE easy to always parry/evade it (basically the mob could just be boring).
Similarly, if you have to take risks to defeat it within the time limit, and those risks cause you to get worn down/caught in loops of being unable to do damage so you have to take more risks to make up for it, it's usually also 'very hard'.
Add a group situation to this and it starts to apply only to the Tank if the mob's threat mechanics are generally controllable, especially with less AoEs or easily dodged ones. Which brings us to a conceptual space Throne and Liberty 'tanking' occupies. The Tank has another weapon. They can swap to it whenever they have 'enough threat' to do more damage. I mention this only because it is explicitly a 'stance change' where no matter what the mechanics are, the only reason to make this choice is that you're looking at the 'two things' I mentioned and deciding which one is the 'current problem'.
"I am not going to change, because if I make a mistake it will wear us down."
"I am going to change, because if we don't kill it faster, it will wear us down."
On a spectrum of 'Wears me down fast but takes 10m to kill' to 'Causes complex scenarios but takes 30m to kill or enrages at 30m', where are you?
If you like neither AND don't like the inbetween, please note what your concept of 'hard' is, or if you just think large mobs should be 'easy'.
The latest tweet.
It's kinda too broad a question for raw feedback, I think, and it fits into a space I like discussing so I make the thread.
Difficult is subjective and should almost certainly be on a spectrum, so I'm going to frame this entirely differently, in terms of two things I can quantify. I will use BDO and Throne and Liberty for this, not Ashes, for a specific reason related to the other discussion about Tanking and Threat Management.
Difficulty in a PvE focused MMO or a game like Monster Hunter relative to large mobs basically comes down to two things:
"How fast can it wear you down when you make mistakes?"
and
"How long does it take to kill it?"/"What is the time limit on the fight?"
(Can skip to bottom from here if not interested in my 'definitions')
These multiply against each other for difficulty. If 'everything oneshots you if you don't parry/evade it' and 'you have to fight the thing for an hour', then it probably counts as 'very hard'. Fun not relevant to the question. It's hard because you have to play perfectly, but it could theoretically be easy or MADE easy to always parry/evade it (basically the mob could just be boring).
Similarly, if you have to take risks to defeat it within the time limit, and those risks cause you to get worn down/caught in loops of being unable to do damage so you have to take more risks to make up for it, it's usually also 'very hard'.
Add a group situation to this and it starts to apply only to the Tank if the mob's threat mechanics are generally controllable, especially with less AoEs or easily dodged ones. Which brings us to a conceptual space Throne and Liberty 'tanking' occupies. The Tank has another weapon. They can swap to it whenever they have 'enough threat' to do more damage. I mention this only because it is explicitly a 'stance change' where no matter what the mechanics are, the only reason to make this choice is that you're looking at the 'two things' I mentioned and deciding which one is the 'current problem'.
"I am not going to change, because if I make a mistake it will wear us down."
"I am going to change, because if we don't kill it faster, it will wear us down."
On a spectrum of 'Wears me down fast but takes 10m to kill' to 'Causes complex scenarios but takes 30m to kill or enrages at 30m', where are you?
If you like neither AND don't like the inbetween, please note what your concept of 'hard' is, or if you just think large mobs should be 'easy'.
♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish ♪
0
Comments
time to kill for a solo player, ~1-2 min on trash mobs
Difficulty should be - enough potential that a mob 2-3 levels below you, can still kill you if you misplay. Enough danger to feel and even suffer the experience debt mechanics in each level. Difficult enough, that a solo player wont or shouldnt be able to handle a 2v1 situation with the mob. Patience and Smart pulls are rewarded.
Difficulty: Darksoul
The Bosses, Named Mobs, Mini-Bosses, World bosses - Difficulty level: the NES "Ghouls n Goblins" Hard, Battletoad Motorcycle Level Hard.
I think I'd prefer the harder fights to be due to the boss also having a group.
And there should be some rock-paper-scissors challenges from their abilities.
Time should not be the primary factor to worry about for wear-down.
And, I don't think it should be about "making a mistake".
Players should have to counter the mob builds and abilities - and Ashes says those configurations will change session to session - which means players can't just base ther strategies on the guides they found on Google or rely only on the exact same tactics that helped them win the last time they defeated the boss.
I'm a hardcore time player, so... I'm OK with boss fights taking 30+ minutes.
I expect to be able to eventually figure out a winning strategy - although... sometimes, we should need to retreat and perhaps acquire different gear or maybe bring more players.
But, there should also be engaging content for casual time players who only have 30 minutes to play.
Thank you, and yes, noted, that's my bad.
At the level I normally play games at, being an 'Extreme Hardcore Challenge' player in most games, 'not adapting in time when you have the capacity to do so' is generally treated as a 'mistake'.
But you're absolutely right, that when one goes down to 'Average Challenge' games like BDO (bosses only, except their newest one) 'making a mistake' means something different, i.e. 'Don't stand in the fire!' -> 'Oh snap there was FIRE, my bad..."
(please correct me if this distinction is WAY off)
And I would love if bosses had "more than one hand". If a mob is huge, its reach should be bigger than just to the tank. I'd prefer something like the SAO's skeletal scorpion boss fight where they needed 2 different players to tank each of the claws of the boss. If that particular thing is impossible in the current engine, I think it could be replicated by just super fast double attacks where the second hit goes towards the second player on the threat list (or at least the one who's right next to the boss).
Nothing worse than being forced to take multiple tanks for one boss in a 5 boss situation.
Interesting, but kinda off topic.
Assume that this sort of thing is common/easy/has been done for many years. Feel free to assume 'yeah this is all required to beat the boss' (as usual, this is unfortunately partially from your limited group PvE experiences).
With that in mind, 'which side do you want the difficulty on?'
Your answer DOES imply 'how fast can it wear you down', but once synergies start getting involved in games where synergies are a path to damage, it could also be perceived as 'how fast can we kill it', y'know?
So pretty much the plain "boss has stages and becomes harder with time", but with a bit more control of how hard it becomes by the players. And ideally the boss' triggers would be randomized and their amount would be at least twice of what's required for a single kill. So that players need to always be on their toes. The triggers would probably have to come at random times within an hp window too.
So I'm pretty sure this is just a semi-hard boss from any given good pve game
Yes, this is why I say (I always feel like I'm coming off as 'dissing Ashes' when I say it, I'm sorry Intrepid, know that I absolutely don't mean it like that)...
What Ashes is talking about/promising is just the baseline for an EQ2/FFXI player, sometimes not even that. I do feel like that was just 'Steven confirming it for such people' which at the same TIME might sound impressive to those who played easier-PvE games.
So go the other way. Imagine the COOLEST boss type you can think of. Stuff that you would not expect to be in games at all because it just seems SO insane/complex. Start from the other end. Most people don't want to fight a boss with 50 abilities, I would assume, so just dial it down to 'what you figure the standard player seeking a challenge but not a headache' wants to fight. (if you can't think of one, see below)
Melee : All iron giant melee attacks are treated as job abilities (they cannot be staggered while attacking in Abyssea). Additional effects: Stomp: Amnesia; Lateral Swing: Knockback; Vertical Swing: Stun.
Ballistic Kick : Conal attack, reduces HP to critical, and knockback. Inflicts Encumberance (approx 30 sec)
Scapula Beam : AoE Damage, wipes shadows.
Seismic Impact : AoE Earth damage, inflicts Terror.
Turbine Cyclone : AoE damage and dispels 1-3 buffs
Arm Cannon : AoE fire damage; 19-20' range.
Incinerator : Cone attack fire damage and Burn.
Auger Smash (head) : Single Target Physical damage, wipes Utsusemi.
Area Bombardment (head) : Delivers a cone attack that deals damage, inflicts Flash, and dispels multiple effects. Resets enmity.
(I don't have any real examples of 'how to fight this mob' because every instance of it is different, and every party composition approaches it differently)
With that boss in mind, you're still in the middle, right?
In an RPG, there should be a variety of winning strategies - that also allow for a variety of class combos - and then each group has to figure out how to synergize the abilties and tactics they have to find a strategy that works for them.
To me, it shouldn't be about who made a mistake, rather it should be about discovering how we can best synergize our abilities for the specific encounter. And that should also not be the same static rotation that wins every encounter unless someone makes a mistake.
The challenge should be learning how to defeat the encounter with the players who are with you - covering each others' flaws while bolstering each others' strengths.
But, I am a Casual Challenge/Hardcore Time player.
And I'm confident that, given enough time, my group(s) can find a winning strategy to defeat any mob encounter.
Might be that Hardcore Challenge players prefer to drastically narrow the number of winning strategies so most players fail if everyone is not playing their absolute A game.
Because that helps trigger the arenaline rush Steven loves.
(I wish MMORPGs did not have an obsession with DPS, but it seems to be the way most MMO gamers think about defeating mobs.)
As a Hardcore Challenge player, I would argue that these things are not connected.
I do not believe that one needs to lower the number of potential winning strategies in order for the challenge to be hardcore, in a balanced game. You just have to require that the various strategies be EXTREMELY good at their Synergies (and sometimes reactions).
I don't know if you haven't played such games in general, or haven't played much 'Extreme Hardcore Challenge' content, but while there is often a meta, skilled groups of friends tend to ignore it and just work out their own way unless the game is designed quite poorly.
I believe that those who will be toxic will be toxic equally because one 'didn't synergize perfectly', as for if one 'makes a mistake' (and as noted, I find it hard to distinguish them in some cases).
At the end of the day, if one CAN 'make many mistakes' and still win, it's almost by definition not Hardcore Challenge. To put it more directly, if you use the first ability and your ally who should trigger the synergy does not use the second ability in time because they were in some state where they could not (including just being distracted), ONE of you 'made a mistake' in my world.
Either you for not noticing, them for not telling you, or 'them for being more worried about something else than about the required synergy'. That's the definition being used.
'Toxic' people will 'get mad and kick that person for often missing the timing' (or like me, knowing that they are that type of person, never have them in the group to begin with, if I want to defeat the challenge, because they often miss the timings).
A subset of 'Toxic' people will go further and not be willing to even adapt strategy to incorporate someone who has the 'skill', because it is not 'meta'. Those are two different types of 'Toxicity'. But in the case of the first, if the group accepts the person based on skill and not 'build' or 'willingness to follow the meta guide' and 'keeps trying even if they miss the timing', in my mind 'until they get the timing right' they 'should still lose'.
tl;dr finding a winning strategy does not grant the ability to execute it, for some people. Perhaps that is not true for your groups, but I've been in groups with people who lack the awareness/cognitive ability to succeed in certain content.
I hope that made any kind of sense
Ok then yes, you want 'the choice' (which I find is the most common response from PvE players of complex games, that I know).
You are amongst good (in my obvious biased opinion) company.