Kilion wrote: » To begin with, this was about contesting the content of a dungeon (which is the risks and the values of said dungeon) not just the rewards someone might have gotten from successfully getting through it.
Kilion wrote: » 3) Contest of access In some cases it might make sense to not have a contest IN the dungeon but to gain access to it. Let's say this temple is still brimming with magical force but due to it's age the protective barrier is not functioning properly anymore. When the barrier deactivates/weakens, it is possible to pull some of the guardian creatures out of the barrier and kill them to obtain a crystal that allows the group to pass through the barrier even when its up - or to simply slip in. However the time window to slip in and the numbers of guardian creatures is limited. This reduces the PvP in the dungeon but creates an interesting temporary battlefield in front of the dungeon, which could be an interesting story element for later.
Strevi wrote: » Kilion wrote: » Strevi wrote: » Kilion wrote: » So what I would like to do is gather ideas for what would be good ways to design contestable dungeons to have variety and avoid all dungeons having a "the strongest group will get the boss loot" design. The game could troll "the strongest group" and drop loot to mediocre players only. I don't care. But no matter what solution is chosen, I hope outside, at dungeon entrance, the best loot of that particular dungeon is 100% drop in a pvp fight. Or at least valuable loot to have higher chance to drop than common tier.Transporting the loot back to a storage should be riskier than driving a caravan. Just so I understand correctly: "100% drop in a pvp fight" meaning A) all of it has a chance to drop when dying in PvP or B ) it will all drop with a chance of 100% when dying? If somebody has a high tier, maybe a legendary material, might try to give it to a low level alt hoping that corruption helps. Or holding in inventory common stone and wood. Such tricks should not work because render pvp useless. Also later using a caravan should be safer than using a mule.
Kilion wrote: » Strevi wrote: » Kilion wrote: » So what I would like to do is gather ideas for what would be good ways to design contestable dungeons to have variety and avoid all dungeons having a "the strongest group will get the boss loot" design. The game could troll "the strongest group" and drop loot to mediocre players only. I don't care. But no matter what solution is chosen, I hope outside, at dungeon entrance, the best loot of that particular dungeon is 100% drop in a pvp fight. Or at least valuable loot to have higher chance to drop than common tier.Transporting the loot back to a storage should be riskier than driving a caravan. Just so I understand correctly: "100% drop in a pvp fight" meaning A) all of it has a chance to drop when dying in PvP or B ) it will all drop with a chance of 100% when dying?
Strevi wrote: » Kilion wrote: » So what I would like to do is gather ideas for what would be good ways to design contestable dungeons to have variety and avoid all dungeons having a "the strongest group will get the boss loot" design. The game could troll "the strongest group" and drop loot to mediocre players only. I don't care. But no matter what solution is chosen, I hope outside, at dungeon entrance, the best loot of that particular dungeon is 100% drop in a pvp fight. Or at least valuable loot to have higher chance to drop than common tier.Transporting the loot back to a storage should be riskier than driving a caravan.
Kilion wrote: » So what I would like to do is gather ideas for what would be good ways to design contestable dungeons to have variety and avoid all dungeons having a "the strongest group will get the boss loot" design.
novercalis wrote: » It might be more like L2 since they are calling stuff as bosses in AoC I am still holding out more akin to EQ designhttps://youtube.com/watch?v=sH3kOHtx1YE Lower Guk for example - You had multiple rooms, each room usually had specific loot tables and all the frogloks were regular npc but some frogloks were "named" Lord Frogluk, Assassin Frogluk, Magi Frogluk, etc. Their pretty much got the same stat blocks as the rest of the mobs, just ma hit extra, or have a little bit more dps or hit a little bit more harder - nothing wild. Story wise - the Lord is the "final boss" but he isnt treated as anything special from the rest of the dungeon. Just the higher lvl mob, harder hitting but probably the same HP pool. Drops a very nice weapon that many melee classes seeks to camp him. The rooms don't look nearly as populated as L2 but EQ difficulty design differs. I am surprised to see soo many mobs compacted in 1 area and looks like if you pull 1, everything gets pulled. A group of 5 in EQ can maybe handle 3-4 mobs with the right CC and prioritizing the right mobs. Anything more and that's a wipe. Dungeons becomes semi safe when all rooms are camped, if not you get them to wander and almost every single fucking mob loves to run away and RUN FAST - which triggers other aggro and aggro range in EQ are LARGE. Shit begins to snowball and trains begin to happen - affecting almost everyone in the zone.
novercalis wrote: » The rooms don't look nearly as populated as L2 but EQ difficulty design differs. I am surprised to see soo many mobs compacted in 1 area and looks like if you pull 1, everything gets pulled. A group of 5 in EQ can maybe handle 3-4 mobs with the right CC and prioritizing the right mobs. Anything more and that's a wipe. Dungeons becomes semi safe when all rooms are camped, if not you get them to wander and almost every single fucking mob loves to run away and RUN FAST - which triggers other aggro and aggro range in EQ are LARGE. Shit begins to snowball and trains begin to happen - affecting almost everyone in the zone.
Neurath wrote: » I'm not against grouped mobs. I think there should be singular mobs and grouped mobs to make a dungeon more inclusive.
Myosotys wrote: » Also im not a big fan of massive bosses that must be killed by 40 players at the same time. It's laggy, and as fast as the mob becomes red, everyone starts to kill each other to get the loot. So I would prefer bosses killable by a single groupes.
Myosotys wrote: » The thing which makes me worry the most, is the corruption system near boss... When you are with a group killing a boss and another group literally steals your boss, you still get corruption if you kill them ?
NiKr wrote: » Myosotys wrote: » Also im not a big fan of massive bosses that must be killed by 40 players at the same time. It's laggy, and as fast as the mob becomes red, everyone starts to kill each other to get the loot. So I would prefer bosses killable by a single groupes. 40 people is still one group. It's a raid. And Ashes will have 250 vs 2 fucking 50 sieges (if not 500v500). If somehow a 40-man raid is laggy - the game has failed. Myosotys wrote: » The thing which makes me worry the most, is the corruption system near boss... When you are with a group killing a boss and another group literally steals your boss, you still get corruption if you kill them ? https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Loot_tagging You have the rights? Loot is yours. You didn't have the rights (not enough dmg dealt by your group)? - the other group didn't really steal your boss.
Myosotys wrote: » Is there some literature already about the functioning of these raids ?
novercalis wrote: » Neurath wrote: » I'm not against grouped mobs. I think there should be singular mobs and grouped mobs to make a dungeon more inclusive. flat no. They way Steven answered Solo play - he skirted around not to outright say there is no solo play. He said there will be some solo content - caravan, siege, BH. As for solo players doing solo XP - I dont want to see that be a thing. MAYBE 2-3 classes being somewhat capable. To be more specific - I do thing you should be able to single kill a target, but its gonna take you longer and the XP rate is NEEDS to be not worth compared to those who are in groups. Sure, you can solo - lower level single mobs in the open world. In the dungeon - forget about, unless you're a level 40 in a lvl 20 dungeon - then once again - SURE. Therefor I am against seeing individual players of equal level in equal lvl dungeons soloing. Can you single pull from someone, I guess - but dungeon mobs should look like this: level 40 player fighting a "level 40 mob" is technically a lvl 42-43 mob. In EQ a mob 2-3+ levels above you is pretty much impossible to solo. So once again, you, the solo lvl 40 player will need to fight lvl 37 dungeon mob to be MAYBE viable/doable. But you are getting the XP rate of a 37 mob, that is lower level than you, which makes it even less xp. I hope all of that made sense.
Neurath wrote: » What are you saying here? You just want grouped mobs and no solid solo mobs? Won't that get boring?