Baseline boss difficulty vs reward

It's counter-intuitive, but makes perfect sense in context of AoC.

Most rewarding world bosses can be mechanically most simple, since large portion of the challenge will come from other players. Those bosses just need to feel epic with huge AOEs.

It also works the other way. Most complex bosses can be given the least reward. This will make them least contested - perfect for those who primarily seek a great PvE experience.

This provides a nice content gradient form primarily PvE to primarily PvP, while being PvX all the way through.

Makes sense thematically as well - if there is 200 players around a huge dragon in the field - it's just going to breath fire at 50 of them, not really do some intricate mechanic. While some dungeon dwelling mystery monster can be all kinds of unexpected and complex.

Food for thought.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

morphwastaken

I don't think NiKr meant anything other than fight being completely solved and stale.

Azherae

morphwastaken wrote: »

I don't think NiKr meant anything other than fight being completely solved and stale.

Yes, I thought NiKr had moved beyond having that reaction, but if it ain't so, then it ain't so.

Noaani

morphwastaken wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

the demand is the same

You have more people quite literally fighting for an item. How is it same demand?

More people showing up doesn't mean more demand.

Demand is in how many people want the item. If it is the best in slot, everyone of that class wants the item - thus the demand is everyone of that class.

The people that show up to try and get the item are those that think they are in a position to get it.

If you create a Ven Diagram of these two groups, you would have a large circle that is 1/8th of the servers population (assuming the item is only of use to one class), with a smaller circle partially overlapping that represents the people that think they are in a position to defeat the encounter.

morphwastaken

Noaani wrote: »

Demand is in how many people want the item.

Being part of demand requires an actual ability to obtain an item, not an "i want it". You can't just change a definition to fit your argument.

Noaani

morphwastaken wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Demand is in how many people want the item.

Being part of demand requires an actual ability to obtain an item, not an "i want it". You can't just change a definition to fit your argument.

These items will be able to be bought and sold, there is no item binding. Thus, everyone is part of the demand.

Demand is how many people want the item, not how many people are showing up to kill the encounter on any given day. You suggesting that it is the latter that is what dictates demand is you changing the definition of demand to suit your purpose.

Part of the idea of Ashes even having top end content - by Steven's own words - is to be aspirational to all players. Thus, the literal idea of these items existing is that everyone wants them.

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

Yes, I thought NiKr had moved beyond having that reaction, but if it ain't so, then it ain't so.

It was just a generalization and an exaggeration. Obviously the raid itself is social, but in the context of instanced stuff it's cut off from the rest of the server, as opposed to ow stuff that pits players against each other.

As for the spredsheatedness, I guess I didn't understand how trackers work after all. Is it not a list of actions of players and the boss/mobs that you analyze to figure out the best approach in your next attempt? Cause to me that is precisely "a spreadsheet on how to beat the boss".

Now, as I said, it was an exaggeration, so it probably came off harder than I meant it, especially considering that this "spreadsheet" is just a digital representation of what a person who knows the encounter would have in their mind.

My point was "instanced - you fight a mob and only that mob, ow - you fight a mob and players who also want to fight that same mob". To me, the latter is a more social interaction with more potential for variety. But I know that my experience with good pve is too limited, as compared to rngness of FF11's bosses or insane design of EQ2's ones, both of which probably matched any of my big boss farms with hundreds of people involved.

Azherae

NiKr wrote: »

My point was "instanced - you fight a mob and only that mob, ow - you fight a mob and players who also want to fight that same mob". To me, the latter is a more social interaction with more potential for variety. But I know that my experience with good pve is too limited, as compared to rngness of FF11's bosses or insane design of EQ2's ones, both of which probably matched any of my big boss farms with hundreds of people involved.

At least on FF11 side, nah, they definitely didn't.

PvP-enabled bosses that are not instanced will always be more social, more dynamic, and more straining, even if only through the addition of 'scheming how to make the boss kill your enemies and not you'.

As for the other aspect, probably shouldn't discuss it much. But since we now have the point of commonality...

"If Baltheus can be perceived as a spreadsheet by you, then your comment is internally consistent."

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

"If Baltheus can be perceived as a spreadsheet by you, then your comment is internally consistent."

If I were to lay out how to approach the boss or if I was trying to explain it to someone else through a graphical medium - yeah, spreadsheet fits. Maybe not exactly a spreadsheet? Could "decision tree" fall under the umbrella of spreadsheets or are spreadsheets a bit too narrow of a term for that?

If it's too narrow, then spreadsheet would be a wrong word to use. But I feel like you could do a decision tree in a spreadsheet and it would look nice and presentable? Maybe? I dunno, last time I worked with excel was over a decade ago

Azherae

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

"If Baltheus can be perceived as a spreadsheet by you, then your comment is internally consistent."

If I were to lay out how to approach the boss or if I was trying to explain it to someone else through a graphical medium - yeah, spreadsheet fits. Maybe not exactly a spreadsheet? Could "decision tree" fall under the umbrella of spreadsheets or are spreadsheets a bit too narrow of a term for that?

If it's too narrow, then spreadsheet would be a wrong word to use. But I feel like you could do a decision tree in a spreadsheet and it would look nice and presentable? Maybe? I dunno, last time I worked with excel was over a decade ago

The most ironic thing about all this...

My group actually DOES use spreadsheets...

For PvP opponents in fighting games and Predecessor.

Just goes to show how different the experiences and priors can be.

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

For PvP opponents in fighting games and Predecessor.

I had mental spreadsheets for my 1v1 opponents in L2's arena

Raven016

Risk vs reward is probably a general concept.
Can be measured in time too. High risk can mean more time.
But you can also be lucky and get something on first attempt.
Or you can be very skilled and then is mostly skill vs reward for you.
Knowing something can push the balance to get things in less time. Or using tools or cheats.
The value of the reward is also about what you want. You want the thing? You want the gold you get if you sell it? You want to prevent others getting it to have monopoly? You want the fame of being able to get something?
There are cases when things break down.

morphwastaken

Noaani wrote: »

These items will be able to be bought and sold, there is no item binding. Thus, everyone is part of the demand.

Demand is how many people want the item, not how many people are showing up to kill the encounter on any given day. You suggesting that it is the latter that is what dictates demand is you changing the definition of demand to suit your purpose.

"No you!" At no point i said that no one wants them. I said those who simply want them don't form the demand. Items being sold, doesn't mean you can buy them. And some of those legendary items would be a miracle to see for sale btw.

I thought i am just not being specific enough, or just doing poor job of explaining, but going through this "demand back-and-forth" just reaffirms my initial opinion on you. You really don't need to understand demand either, just think logically.

Noaani wrote: »

More people coming for PvP means more risk, but also means less reward (due to a lower statistical chance of you winning that reward)

Think about what you said here. Why do you have lower chance to get it? Why does it seem like there is less reward? I will give you a hint: boss drops same loot, so something else must've changed. Any ideas?

Could it be something starting with "D"? DEEZ NUTS perhaps!? 🤷‍♂️

Noaani wrote: »

Thus, the literal idea of these items existing is that everyone wants them.

You are quick to get the reward side of things - everyone wants it. Not everyone gets it though.😟 You seem to miss this part quite often in your arguments.

Noaani

morphwastaken wrote: »

At no point i said that no one wants them. I said those who simply want them don't form the demand.

Actually, they do.

If a server has 25000 people on it, and an even split of all classes, that means there will be 3125 people of the class that the item is for. Since the item is best in slot, all 3125 of those players will want it.

Thus, the demand for the item is 3125. If 3125 of them existed on the server, 3125 of them would be used.

That is how demand is literally determined - the number of items needed to exist before one is not used, minus 1.

And some of those legendary items would be a miracle to see for sale btw.

The top 5 best items I ever saw in Archeage were all put up for sale.

These items absolutely will be put up for sale.

Noaani wrote: »

More people coming for PvP means more risk, but also means less reward (due to a lower statistical chance of you winning that reward)

Think about what you said here. Why do you have lower chance to get it? Why does it seem like there is less reward? I will give you a hint: boss drops same loot, so something else must've changed. Any ideas?

I think you should think about what I said, because it was quite basic.

More people being present for the encounter means more risk (you have more enemies to kill you, thus stand to lose more time and resources in dealing with those deaths), and less chance of getting the reward (since your reward is the statistical chance of getting the reward, that means you have less reward).

Thus, more people at the encounter means more risk, and less reward.

Proper risk vs reward dictates (not "says", not "suggests", actually dictates) that higher risk equals higher reward. That is literally the point.

You seem to somehow be conflating risk vs reward and supply and demand. They are not even remotely related to each other.

Noaani wrote: »

Thus, the literal idea of these items existing is that everyone wants them.

You are quick to get the reward side of things - everyone wants it. Not everyone gets it though.😟 You seem to miss this part quite often in your arguments.

Yes, not everyone gets it. I'm not sure why you think I am missing this part.

morphwastaken

Noaani wrote: »

Actually, they do.

Try using actual definition of demand. If you will keep trying to come up with one yourself - i will give you a hint: it has something to do with the price.

Noaani wrote: »

More people being present for the encounter means more risk (you have more enemies to kill you, thus stand to lose more time and resources in dealing with those deaths), and less chance of getting the reward (since your reward is the statistical chance of getting the reward, that means you have less reward).

I did not even try to disagree with what you said, why are you repeating yourself?
"thus stand to lose more time and resources in dealing with those deaths" - one could say you have to pay a higher price for it, huh? But if you have to pay a higher price...

Noaani wrote: »

I'm not sure why you think I am missing this part.

Because your definition of demand and reward is based on how many players want an item, instead of what they are willing to pay. It's not want = get. It's pay = get.

Myosotys

morphwastaken wrote: »

It's counter-intuitive, but makes perfect sense in context of AoC.

Most rewarding world bosses can be mechanically most simple, since large portion of the challenge will come from other players. Those bosses just need to feel epic with huge AOEs.

It also works the other way. Most complex bosses can be given the least reward. This will make them least contested - perfect for those who primarily seek a great PvE experience.

This provides a nice content gradient form primarily PvE to primarily PvP, while being PvX all the way through.

Makes sense thematically as well - if there is 200 players around a huge dragon in the field - it's just going to breath fire at 50 of them, not really do some intricate mechanic. While some dungeon dwelling mystery monster can be all kinds of unexpected and complex.

Food for thought.

I think the difficulty will be the PvP arround the boss. Would like the bosses to be very long to kill, to make sure there will PvP fight to deny it.

morphwastaken

Myosotys wrote: »

I think the difficulty will be the PvP arround the boss. Would like the bosses to be very long to kill, to make sure there will PvP fight to deny it.

Bosses seriously worth fighting for will have PvP for them before spawn window even opens, if they are anything like in Lineage 2.
And if less rewarding boss dies without contest - good job on being faster than competition

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

Thus, the demand for the item is 3125. If 3125 of them existed on the server, 3125 of them would be used.

This is not quite right, especially if repairs will require deconstruction of the same item for its mats. But even if it doesn't, there's still the OE part of the equation and people at the top always want to go higher, and with item decay (and potentially destruction) you'd need more than one item per person.

And the very top guilds would greed that shit up, so they'd go after the item even if every appropriate class in their guild already has it, so the demand would remain higher than the base supply requirement.

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

The top 5 best items I ever saw in Archeage were all put up for sale.

In my experience such items were only sold when the owner was leaving the game and wanted to rmt on his way out or when the guild with those items was so damn powerful that they controlled the entire supply constantly and everyone who needed that item in the guild already had it OEd as much as possible.

Was this the case for those AA items or was AA even weirder than how weird I already think it is?

morphwastaken

NiKr wrote: »

This is not quite right

Don't get baited into irrational discussion. He is literally assuming 7/8 of the server would not want the item in his example, if they can't use it. There is no logic there. No need to reinvent the wheel, when 30 seconds in google would give you an answer.

Ludullu

morphwastaken wrote: »

Don't get baited into irrational discussion. He is literally assuming 7/8 of the server would not want the item in his example, if they can't use it. There is no logic there. No need to reinvent the wheel, when 30 seconds in google would give you an answer.

I agree with his logic there. I just disagree that it applies to Ashes in particular. There's a limited amount of people creating the demand. Those people might be represented by a bigger number of people during the encounters, but the demand itself doesn't change. And if that demand gets fully saturated, I'd imagine that the boss would drop in popularity.

Now, there's also the fact that, hopefully, the game will be getting new players all the time who'll need those items, so the demand will never stop (even outside the repair/OE context), but I'd definitely imagine that the boss' popularity will drop with time, exactly because the demand (the people who NEED the item) will inevitable drop.

Also, obviously the boss in question wouldn't just have that single item, so it's all on a scale of importance and popularity, but that's beside the point for this particular discussion.

Child Item