Glorious Alpha Two Testers!

Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!

For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.

You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.

deep pve content?

24

Comments

  • morphwastakenmorphwastaken Member
    edited September 2023
    Noaani wrote: »
    this is not something that you should be surprised about.
    You misunderstand. I am surprised you don't realize that you "doing what you want" when there is another player "doing what you want" can result in one of the players taking away the option of "doing what you want" from another, if cooperation is not possible, or seen as a viable option.
    What you want is only possible when there is no competition. It just so happens that pretty much every aspect of this game has some form of competition in it, unlucky.
  • DepravedDepraved Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Someone else forcing their will on me when that is not what I want to do, however, doesn't have a place to most of those same people.
    "I'm gonna do, what i want do, and you can't stop me". Really?
    I mean, yeah.

    That is literally the reason most people I talk to won't play an MMORPG with open world PvP.

    You may like it, and that's great. I am willing to accept it, and that's fine. Others don't do either, so they aren't here.

    There is a reason that the 4 most popular MMO's right now all have no open world PvP. Depending on your definition of an MMO, that number could well go as high as the 8 most popular MMO's.

    Assuming you look at MMO's as a whole, this is not something that you should be surprised about.

    i thought minecraft was the most popular mmo and it has open world pvp, and its a sandbox, so lots of the content comes from the player.

    i mean mc has more registered accounts than the top 5 mmorpg together lol and has more daily players than any of them.

    but i guess what people really like is social interactions, not solo mmorpg, thats why roblox, imvu, and habbo hotel have more players than the "top 5 mmorpg" and there is pvp in some of those too xd
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    PvP can be fine in other genres of MMO, like Minecraft - though I'm pretty sure Minecraft can be played without PvP.
    PvP is not really the best fit for MMORPGs, specifically.

    Potentially good for eradicating endgame.
    We'll have to see if there are better alternatives for that by the time Ashes releases.
  • I'm not sure how this topic turned into a pvp discussion, after reading all the comments above there is an easy solution to the pvp open world question, just do what Blizzard did make a war mode option. Those that want to pvp can turn on war mode and they can be attacked anywhere, those that don't want to be attacked can turn war mode off. That way everyone wins!
  • Mag7spyMag7spy Member, Alpha Two
    edited September 2023
    Jindoshi wrote: »
    I'm not sure how this topic turned into a pvp discussion, after reading all the comments above there is an easy solution to the pvp open world question, just do what Blizzard did make a war mode option. Those that want to pvp can turn on war mode and they can be attacked anywhere, those that don't want to be attacked can turn war mode off. That way everyone wins!

    lol? Wow pve crowd starting to show up.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    this is not something that you should be surprised about.
    You misunderstand. I am surprised you don't realize that you "doing what you want" when there is another player "doing what you want" can result in one of the players taking away the option of "doing what you want" from another, if cooperation is not possible, or seen as a viable option.
    What you want is only possible when there is no competition. It just so happens that pretty much every aspect of this game has some form of competition in it, unlucky.

    You say this as if a game that doesn't have enough content for its players is a good thing.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Depraved wrote: »
    i thought minecraft was the most popular mmo

    No.

    Minecrsft is the most popular game, but persistent online versions of it are tiny in comparison.
  • Noaani wrote: »
    You say this as if a game that doesn't have enough content for its players is a good thing.
    PvX = infinite content. Endless combination of places, monsters, enemies and friends.
  • DepravedDepraved Member, Alpha Two
    Jindoshi wrote: »
    I'm not sure how this topic turned into a pvp discussion, after reading all the comments above there is an easy solution to the pvp open world question, just do what Blizzard did make a war mode option. Those that want to pvp can turn on war mode and they can be attacked anywhere, those that don't want to be attacked can turn war mode off. That way everyone wins!

    no, thats not an easy solution, and not everyone wins that way. the target audience for the game loses. this game is for people who like open world pvp, not for people who dont like open world pvp, therefore is designed around open world pvp. if you change it, then that will affect other systems and you will have to change them as well, basically making the game not ashes of creation, it would be something else, maybe wow 2.0 and we arent here for that.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    You say this as if a game that doesn't have enough content for its players is a good thing.
    PvX = infinite content. Endless combination of places, monsters, enemies and friends.

    I mean, this isn't true.

    This is what people that feel the need to essentially romanticize PvP say. It isn't how PvX games play out in practice.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Jindoshi wrote: »
    I'm not sure how this topic turned into a pvp discussion, after reading all the comments above there is an easy solution to the pvp open world question, just do what Blizzard did make a war mode option. Those that want to pvp can turn on war mode and they can be attacked anywhere, those that don't want to be attacked can turn war mode off. That way everyone wins!
    Ashes is not intended to be like WoW.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    PvX = infinite content. Endless combination of places, monsters, enemies and friends.
    PvX = endless combat
    There. I fixed it for you.
  • DepravedDepraved Member, Alpha Two
    what is a pvx game anyways?
  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Depraved wrote: »
    what is a pvx game anyways?

    Ow pvp. No PvP only zones.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Depraved wrote: »
    what is a pvx game anyways?

    Ow pvp. No PvP only zones.

    That would be a PvP game.

    Archeage is a PvP game, and it has some zones where most PvP is disabled, and times in other zones where all PvP is disabled.

    Yet it's still a PvP game.
  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Next time take the red pill
  • VeeshanVeeshan Member, Alpha Two
    They can make deep PvE encounters tbh if they wanted, lets say there a dungeon with a raid boss in to enter the boss room you pass through a door when 40 players pass the door the door slams shut preventing anyone else entering the room to prevent zerging the boss (I would add a buff to the boss too if there more than 40 people in the room he gets stronger to stop groups trying to run 10 people though at once before door can shut) This way you can focus the pve boss fight agaist a certain number of players, However the door that shuts people in can be destroyed destroying this door will allow other raid groups to contest the boss by killing the group on him however (boss will get expotentially stonger due to buff to stop friendly player destroying the gate and zerging boss)
    I would make this a one way door too so people inside can exit to engage the other group before thge gate goes down if everyone leave the room boss resets.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Veeshan wrote: »
    They can make deep PvE encounters tbh if they wanted, lets say there a dungeon with a raid boss in to enter the boss room you pass through a door when 40 players pass the door the door slams shut preventing anyone else entering the room to prevent zerging the boss (I would add a buff to the boss too if there more than 40 people in the room he gets stronger to stop groups trying to run 10 people though at once before door can shut) This way you can focus the pve boss fight agaist a certain number of players, However the door that shuts people in can be destroyed destroying this door will allow other raid groups to contest the boss by killing the group on him however (boss will get expotentially stonger due to buff to stop friendly player destroying the gate and zerging boss)
    I would make this a one way door too so people inside can exit to engage the other group before thge gate goes down if everyone leave the room boss resets.

    They could, but there is one major issue with this.

    If you are going to have that level of deep, intricate curated content, you need to build up to it. You can't just go from trash tier to god tier.

    In order for there to be that build up, there needs to be an entire raid progression.

    A raid progression is a lot of work from the developers.

    If raid bosses are open world, that means only one guild is getting the kill per week. It also means only one guild is working on that progression at a time, since open world.

    This means developers would find themselves spending more time on raid content than all players combined spend on raid content. It is normal for developers to spend more time on raid content than any one guild would spend on that content, but with instancing, you have many guilds running that content on each server rather than just one guild. Instancing increases the bandwidth of players on a given piece of content.

    This is what makes encounters that take so much time viable from a business perspective. This is why instanced content exists - it allows more people to be working on progression, it allows more people to experience the work and effort developers put in.

    A proper raid progression like players today understand it isn't viable without instancing. Deep PvE encounters aren't viable without raid progression. Thus, deep PvE encounters aren't viable without instancing.
  • DepravedDepraved Member, Alpha Two
    edited September 2023
    make the boss spawn every day... or every few hours (depending on the rewards)
    or make the events that trigger the bosses to happen more often.
    or make enough open world bosses that one guild cant take them all at the same time

    etc
    etc
    etc
    etc

    but yes i agree cant go from trash to god tier.
    people think if is adds a top pve instance at max level pve players will automatically flock to the game. it wont happen
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited September 2023
    Depraved wrote: »
    make the boss spawn every day... or every few hours (depending on the rewards)
    or make the events that trigger the bosses to happen more often.
    or make enough open world bosses that one guild cant take them all at the same time

    etc
    etc
    etc
    etc

    If the boss spawns every day, then one guild will kill it every day and get geared out from it very quickly.

    That is why most instances have a weekly lockout - it slows sdown gear based progress.

    With open world bosses, you need to assume that no more than 3 guilds on a server will be killing them, and in most cases it will be the same guild spawn after spawn. If a guild is already killing the mob every spawn and that mob is spawning daily, that guild is outgearing everyone else on the server at an actual alarming rate.

    In terms of making enough open world bosses, this is more viable but also isn't. If you do that you will have a situation where a guild is splitting it's players up. You pick one mob and start off with the minimum number of players you'll need to definately get that kill, then you pick your second choice mob and send enough players there to guarantee that you'll prevent a rival guild from killing it until that portion of your guild above has killed their mob and is able to get to where this second mob is. Then both of those groups move on to the mob that was your third pick that also has people preventing a kill, then the you carry it on with a third and fourth and sixth.

    This will take longer in Ashes than in other games, but if killing these mobs is your nights gameplay, it will be likely that one moderately large guild (a few hundred) will still end up with most kills. At the very least, the over all design of the system needs to be based on the assumption that one guild will get half of all open world encounter spawns.

    Where this option of having many bosses can work is as your entry level encounters to a raid progression (as in, tier 1 of at least 5). If they are entry level, top guilds can get everything they want from them and then assuming the second (and more likely third) tier has enough content, they simply won't have time to concern themselves with tier one encounter any more. Where even this use falls down is on servers with very large guilds - a guild of 6 or 7 hundred will have all of these encounters locked down perpetually, no matter how many of them the developers produce.

    Triggered spawns is a valid option, but larger guilds will simply have that triggered spawn camps and when your guild triggers that spawn, they will be just behind you ready to take you on - triggered spawn encounters work well as one type of encounter among many, rather than being the stand out encounter. They are great at providing variety to a raid progression, rather than at being a fix to any given issue.

    The thing is, this whole issue is something Bill Trost solved (or his team solved) over 20 years ago. The solution to the above problem isn't some unknown entity or anything. It is known, and the person responsible for it is currently developing this game.

    Thus, the question isn't coming up with a way to solve the above issue, the question is whether or not Intrepid want to solve it. If they want top end raid content, the path to it is VERY clear - *IF* they want it.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Depraved wrote: »
    what is a pvx game anyways?
    Better to ask for a list of PvX MMORPGs.

  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited September 2023
    Dygz wrote: »
    Depraved wrote: »
    what is a pvx game anyways?
    Better to ask for a list of PvX MMORPGs.

    Here is my list of PvX MMORPG's, both released and in development;



    That is all.

    The thing is, since there isn't an actual definition of PvX, no one can say I'm wrong - they can just disagree subjectively.
  • VeeshanVeeshan Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Veeshan wrote: »
    They can make deep PvE encounters tbh if they wanted, lets say there a dungeon with a raid boss in to enter the boss room you pass through a door when 40 players pass the door the door slams shut preventing anyone else entering the room to prevent zerging the boss (I would add a buff to the boss too if there more than 40 people in the room he gets stronger to stop groups trying to run 10 people though at once before door can shut) This way you can focus the pve boss fight agaist a certain number of players, However the door that shuts people in can be destroyed destroying this door will allow other raid groups to contest the boss by killing the group on him however (boss will get expotentially stonger due to buff to stop friendly player destroying the gate and zerging boss)
    I would make this a one way door too so people inside can exit to engage the other group before thge gate goes down if everyone leave the room boss resets.

    They could, but there is one major issue with this.

    If you are going to have that level of deep, intricate curated content, you need to build up to it. You can't just go from trash tier to god tier.

    In order for there to be that build up, there needs to be an entire raid progression.

    A raid progression is a lot of work from the developers.

    If raid bosses are open world, that means only one guild is getting the kill per week. It also means only one guild is working on that progression at a time, since open world.

    This means developers would find themselves spending more time on raid content than all players combined spend on raid content. It is normal for developers to spend more time on raid content than any one guild would spend on that content, but with instancing, you have many guilds running that content on each server rather than just one guild. Instancing increases the bandwidth of players on a given piece of content.

    This is what makes encounters that take so much time viable from a business perspective. This is why instanced content exists - it allows more people to be working on progression, it allows more people to experience the work and effort developers put in.

    A proper raid progression like players today understand it isn't viable without instancing. Deep PvE encounters aren't viable without raid progression. Thus, deep PvE encounters aren't viable without instancing.

    I would do this to end bosses in the OW dungeons so the very last boss in a dungeon is a difficult challenge to overcome so there wouldnt be to many of them and killing them could effect the world or dungeon for some way. They should be memorable when they are defeated.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Veeshan wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Veeshan wrote: »
    They can make deep PvE encounters tbh if they wanted, lets say there a dungeon with a raid boss in to enter the boss room you pass through a door when 40 players pass the door the door slams shut preventing anyone else entering the room to prevent zerging the boss (I would add a buff to the boss too if there more than 40 people in the room he gets stronger to stop groups trying to run 10 people though at once before door can shut) This way you can focus the pve boss fight agaist a certain number of players, However the door that shuts people in can be destroyed destroying this door will allow other raid groups to contest the boss by killing the group on him however (boss will get expotentially stonger due to buff to stop friendly player destroying the gate and zerging boss)
    I would make this a one way door too so people inside can exit to engage the other group before thge gate goes down if everyone leave the room boss resets.

    They could, but there is one major issue with this.

    If you are going to have that level of deep, intricate curated content, you need to build up to it. You can't just go from trash tier to god tier.

    In order for there to be that build up, there needs to be an entire raid progression.

    A raid progression is a lot of work from the developers.

    If raid bosses are open world, that means only one guild is getting the kill per week. It also means only one guild is working on that progression at a time, since open world.

    This means developers would find themselves spending more time on raid content than all players combined spend on raid content. It is normal for developers to spend more time on raid content than any one guild would spend on that content, but with instancing, you have many guilds running that content on each server rather than just one guild. Instancing increases the bandwidth of players on a given piece of content.

    This is what makes encounters that take so much time viable from a business perspective. This is why instanced content exists - it allows more people to be working on progression, it allows more people to experience the work and effort developers put in.

    A proper raid progression like players today understand it isn't viable without instancing. Deep PvE encounters aren't viable without raid progression. Thus, deep PvE encounters aren't viable without instancing.

    I would do this to end bosses in the OW dungeons so the very last boss in a dungeon is a difficult challenge to overcome so there wouldnt be to many of them and killing them could effect the world or dungeon for some way. They should be memorable when they are defeated.

    Assuming the game has the infrustructure in place to support that (ie, a raid progression that players have enough access to so that there are many guilds able to compete for this encounter), then yeah, that works.
  • I have not played any besides Lineage2. I've heard 1-2 others being mentioned, but i don't remember the names. Don't think there are any that came out in the past 10 years.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    I have not played any besides Lineage2. I've heard 1-2 others being mentioned, but i don't remember the names. Don't think there are any that came out in the past 10 years.

    Oh, are we talking about PvP games now?

    Plenty have come out since L2.

    Considering L2 to be a PvX game as opposed to a PvP game is like considering FFXIV to be a PvX game rather than a PvE game.
  • morphwastakenmorphwastaken Member
    edited September 2023
    Noaani wrote: »
    Considering L2 to be a PvX game as opposed to a PvP game is like considering FFXIV to be a PvX game rather than a PvE game.

    You have shown endless times that you have no clue what PvX game is. Why do you think your opinion on L2 matters to anyone?
    From AoC wiki:
    Ashes of Creation is a PvX game. Players will naturally encounter both PvP and PvE elements. It is unlikely that a player could purely focus on just PvP or just PvE. Around 80% of the content is open-world, where healthy competition is an instigator for player friction; for potential cooperation; for the ability to yield alliances; and the political theater that comes with it. This is an intended part of the PvX game design.

  • Mag7spyMag7spy Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Considering L2 to be a PvX game as opposed to a PvP game is like considering FFXIV to be a PvX game rather than a PvE game.

    You have shown endless times that you have no clue what PvX game is. Why do you think your opinion on L2 matters to anyone?
    From AoC wiki:
    Ashes of Creation is a PvX game. Players will naturally encounter both PvP and PvE elements. It is unlikely that a player could purely focus on just PvP or just PvE. Around 80% of the content is open-world, where healthy competition is an instigator for player friction; for potential cooperation; for the ability to yield alliances; and the political theater that comes with it. This is an intended part of the PvX game design.

    He also considers pvp takes no skill and people do the exact same thing and can predict their moves making combat the same. Part of his reason to push for pve lmao.
  • DepravedDepraved Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    Depraved wrote: »
    what is a pvx game anyways?
    Better to ask for a list of PvX MMORPGs.

    Here is my list of PvX MMORPG's, both released and in development;



    That is all.

    The thing is, since there isn't an actual definition of PvX, no one can say I'm wrong - they can just disagree subjectively.
    Noaani wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    You say this as if a game that doesn't have enough content for its players is a good thing.
    PvX = infinite content. Endless combination of places, monsters, enemies and friends.

    I mean, this isn't true.

    This is what people that feel the need to essentially romanticize PvP say. It isn't how PvX games play out in practice.
    Dygz wrote: »
    PvX = infinite content. Endless combination of places, monsters, enemies and friends.
    PvX = endless combat
    There. I fixed it for you.
    Dygz wrote: »
    Depraved wrote: »
    what is a pvx game anyways?
    Better to ask for a list of PvX MMORPGs.

    Ultima online
    Ragnarok online
    Lineage
    Tera
    Aion
    Albion
    Mortal Online
    BDO
    EVE
    Revelations Online
    Granado Espada
    Blade and Soul
    Forsaken World
    Perfect World
    Archeage
    Minecraft

    im probably forgetting a couple. some of these tilt more towards pvp or pve. and a couple of these arent purely pvx all the time as they separate pvp and pve to some extent, even if they don't separate the gear, however, they have an optional pvx mode, so i still included them.

    you could also say gw has an optinal pvx mode if you play in the ow pvp map, and wow was pvx at first, although not required to progress

    i think tibia is also pvx, but i didnt play it so cant confirm. i dont remember rift too much but i think it can be included here.

    ill update if i remember more games. oh and of course ashes of creation, and probably throne and liberty, but we will see with that one.




  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    I consider that to be mostly a list of PvP-centric MMORPGs. (Minecraft is not an MMORPG)
    So... again... PvX MMORPG is a meaningless term. It's just a synonym for a PvP-centric MMORPG.
Sign In or Register to comment.