Zergging world bosses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlDVZCwIeRc

Here is a quick recap of this problem in other MMOs. How will this not be a problem? Thank you!

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Noaani

Depraved wrote: »

then thats how u segregate your customers and we will have another wow, eso, gw2. not the direction aoc is going.

The problem is - there aren't enough people that only want chocolate cake to keep the lights on.

Or, at least, not enough to maintain the kind of post-release development schedule Steven has talked about.

Depraved wrote: »

following your logic, lets say we add equalized arenas with instant max level / max build for those who enjoy that.

You say you are following my logic, and then imediately cease to follow my logic.

My logic is that "if you want players in your game that want to play arena content, have an arena". No where in that am I saying anything about equalized arenas.

If you have a game with solid combat, good customer experience in general and a company with an ok reputation in general, just having a basic arena will capture 90%+ of all players that any arena would capture. You don't need to go in to the specifics of them any deeper than that.

Using your cake analogy, PvP is chocolate cake, arena PvP is chocolate cake with a hint of coffee, equalized arena PvP is chocolate cake with a hint of a specific brand of coffee. Just providing a few chocolate cakes, including that chocolate cake with a hint of coffee is probably enough - but then you also need to offer up the other desserts.

If we were to look at that from a PvE perspective, where PvP is your chocolate cake, PvE is an apple pie. From there, arena PvP is one step deeper (or chocolate cake with a hint of coffee). PvE raiding is this next step, being apple pie with whipped cream.

As a third step, PvP arenas have equalized arenas (or arena modes, you could argue that equalized arenas are a fourth step in, not a third step in).

As far as I am aware, PvE simply doesn't have this third or fourth step in. I've not come across it at all.

Depraved

you didnt get it. a regular arena needs you to do pvx to get gear to do said arena. or you have a complete progression path separated from everything else.
i said equalized arena because it separates the pve and the pvp. the pve equivalent would be a progression path where you can pve, do dungeons, raids, etc without pvp, which is what you want, right? if we add that, then the same critic that you posted in another trhead of why aoc shouldnt have equalized arenas (and i agree with you in that thread) applies to why aoc cant have a pve progression path separated from pvp.

unless you are willing to say that what you want isnt a pve progression path with top end pve separated from pvp. then what is it that you want?

The problem is - there aren't enough people that only want chocolate cake to keep the lights on.

you dont know that

and before you or anyone says that most players are pve, thats not true. most people in general prefer cooperative-competitive gameplay over cooperative only. you could say that most mmorpg players prefer pve and consensual pvp, i could agree with that, but its because most mmorpg who offer a cooperative-competitive experience are usually p2w, p4c, etc or are kinda shitty so people just play league or cod. also, those mmorpg usually end up changing to cater the pure pvers and thats when they start losing players, not gaining more (maybe pve players spend more money in the game, who knows)

so the key thing isnt to make a cake for everyone, or different cakes for different people. the key thing is to make the best cake for those who enjoy the type of cake aoc is offering and players will eat that cake and want more.

Raven016

Depraved wrote: »

you didnt get it. a regular arena needs you to do pvx to get gear to do said arena. or you have a complete progression path separated from everything else.
i said equalized arena because it separates the pve and the pvp. the pve equivalent would be a progression path ...

"equalized" does not mean that all participants will have same gear?
Anyway, there will be arenas
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Arenas
And players who do not want to PvE can level up via PvP only too, theoretically, if the "diminishing" property is erased after you wait for a while.

Experience will be awarded for participating in objective-based PvP on a diminishing returns basis.[6]
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Experience

Raven016

Depraved wrote: »

The problem is - there aren't enough people that only want chocolate cake to keep the lights on.

you dont know that and before you or anyone says that most players are pve, thats not true. most people in general prefer cooperative-competitive gameplay over cooperative only. you could say that most mmorpg players prefer pve and consensual pvp, i could agree with that, but its because most mmorpg who offer a cooperative-competitive experience are usually p2w, p4c, etc or are kinda shitty so people just play league or cod. also, those mmorpg usually end up changing to cater the pure pvers and thats when they start losing players, not gaining more (maybe pve players spend more money in the game, who knows)

Cooperative-casual players like to play mmos too. They don't necessarily love the competitive players.
If they cannot play because competitive players lock them out from game content, they stop playing the subscription.

Ruerik

Raven016 wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

The problem is - there aren't enough people that only want chocolate cake to keep the lights on.

you dont know that and before you or anyone says that most players are pve, thats not true. most people in general prefer cooperative-competitive gameplay over cooperative only. you could say that most mmorpg players prefer pve and consensual pvp, i could agree with that, but its because most mmorpg who offer a cooperative-competitive experience are usually p2w, p4c, etc or are kinda shitty so people just play league or cod. also, those mmorpg usually end up changing to cater the pure pvers and thats when they start losing players, not gaining more (maybe pve players spend more money in the game, who knows)

Cooperative-casual players like to play mmos too. They don't necessarily love the competitive players.
If they cannot play because competitive players lock them out from game content, they stop playing the subscription.

True, but there is a very clear difference between
'locked out' and 'competing at the top level'

So long as casuals can join the content and play against other casuals, there shouldn't be an issue.

Depraved

Raven016 wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

The problem is - there aren't enough people that only want chocolate cake to keep the lights on.

you dont know that and before you or anyone says that most players are pve, thats not true. most people in general prefer cooperative-competitive gameplay over cooperative only. you could say that most mmorpg players prefer pve and consensual pvp, i could agree with that, but its because most mmorpg who offer a cooperative-competitive experience are usually p2w, p4c, etc or are kinda shitty so people just play league or cod. also, those mmorpg usually end up changing to cater the pure pvers and thats when they start losing players, not gaining more (maybe pve players spend more money in the game, who knows)

Cooperative-casual players like to play mmos too. They don't necessarily love the competitive players.
If they cannot play because competitive players lock them out from game content, they stop playing the subscription.

thats why there are cooperative only mmorpg and competitive players are excluded from cooperative mmorpg. why dont we change that and include competitive players?

you know, if i dont get my fill of competitive gampley and pvp and all that, ill stop paying final fantasy subscription. this is basically the same thing. so why not tell ff devs to add content for competitive players?

im not saying we must exclude them. im saying this game is targetted to cooperative-competitive players and its going into that direction. it should aim to be the best mmorpg for cooperative-competitive players. so why add things for cooperative only players? thats going into the opposite direction the game is going...

again, we go back to adding vanilla to a chocolate cake so that vanilla lovers dont feel excluded. chocolate isnt the cake for them. they should eat a vanilla cake and is should just aim to make the best chocolate cake.

Depraved

Taerrik wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

The problem is - there aren't enough people that only want chocolate cake to keep the lights on.

you dont know that and before you or anyone says that most players are pve, thats not true. most people in general prefer cooperative-competitive gameplay over cooperative only. you could say that most mmorpg players prefer pve and consensual pvp, i could agree with that, but its because most mmorpg who offer a cooperative-competitive experience are usually p2w, p4c, etc or are kinda shitty so people just play league or cod. also, those mmorpg usually end up changing to cater the pure pvers and thats when they start losing players, not gaining more (maybe pve players spend more money in the game, who knows)

Cooperative-casual players like to play mmos too. They don't necessarily love the competitive players.
If they cannot play because competitive players lock them out from game content, they stop playing the subscription.

True, but there is a very clear difference between
'locked out' and 'competing at the top level'

So long as casuals can join the content and play against other casuals, there shouldn't be an issue.

they would still be competing though.

Depraved

Raven016 wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

you didnt get it. a regular arena needs you to do pvx to get gear to do said arena. or you have a complete progression path separated from everything else.
i said equalized arena because it separates the pve and the pvp. the pve equivalent would be a progression path ...

"equalized" does not mean that all participants will have same gear?
Anyway, there will be arenas
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Arenas
And players who do not want to PvE can level up via PvP only too, theoretically, if the "diminishing" property is erased after you wait for a while.

Experience will be awarded for participating in objective-based PvP on a diminishing returns basis.[6]
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Experience

nope. look at lost ark for example. arenas are equalized but every class hs different stats. it just basically means you skip the farm. but they arent fair, thats a lie :P

also, yes, there will be arenas in aoc, and if you read the wiki it says you cant buy gear from doing arenas. you can only buy enhancement by doing arenas and other pvp content such as caravans. so it stands to reason that you still need to pvx in the open world to get the gear for arenas.

maybe they will give u some basic gear doing arenas or battlegrounds, but im sure it wont be the top gear as this gear will be crafted. arenas will probs be like lineage 2 olympiads, so you need to go out there and farm then use that gear in arenas.

also, where does it say arenas will give experience? it clearly says you will need a minimum level to participate, so you will need to level up using another method until you reach that level. they could probably give experience but it wont be a main method to level up. the experience from objective based pvp is experience you get from doing caravans, castle sieges, open seas, etc. basically open world pvp events :P

If Ashes is sticking true to its direction, arenas shouldn't offer a way to level up to max level or offer gear by completely avoiding pve, same way you shouldn't be able to level up to max level and get geared up by doing pve only and avoiding pvp

Ruerik

They would be, and thats good enough. No reason to try to equalize everything. as a response to arena only gear.

I will admit, the only places I think equalized gear should be allowed to exist is specifically in arenas, but even then I am not a fan of it. Folks work hard on their gear, time invested or game money spent should have consequences in power difference. Not unbeatable difference, but it should still exist (theres another thread for that)

Raven016

Depraved wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

The problem is - there aren't enough people that only want chocolate cake to keep the lights on.

you dont know that and before you or anyone says that most players are pve, thats not true. most people in general prefer cooperative-competitive gameplay over cooperative only. you could say that most mmorpg players prefer pve and consensual pvp, i could agree with that, but its because most mmorpg who offer a cooperative-competitive experience are usually p2w, p4c, etc or are kinda shitty so people just play league or cod. also, those mmorpg usually end up changing to cater the pure pvers and thats when they start losing players, not gaining more (maybe pve players spend more money in the game, who knows)

Cooperative-casual players like to play mmos too. They don't necessarily love the competitive players.
If they cannot play because competitive players lock them out from game content, they stop playing the subscription.

thats why there are cooperative only mmorpg and competitive players are excluded from cooperative mmorpg. why dont we change that and include competitive players?

...

If the game would encourage them to be competitive in niceness more than in jerkness...

Noaani

Depraved wrote: »

its because most mmorpg who offer a cooperative-competitive experience are usually p2w, p4c, etc or are kinda shitty so people just play league or cod. also, those mmorpg usually end up changing to cater the pure pvers and thats when they start losing players, not gaining more (maybe pve players spend more money in the game, who knows)

Think about what you are saying here.

A few points you are saying that you really, REALLY should be thinking on;

1; most games that aim to be PvP focused are either shit (as in, poorly developed), or are pay to win. What this means you are saying is that any competent MMO developer that knows how to do market research is keeping clear of this type of game, leaving it to those that can't make a decent game.

2; when PvP players feel a game isn't for them, they are more than happy to jump ship for multiple different genres. This has two distinct things you should be considering;

2a, these players you are talking about are going to be tempted to other games multipe times a year due to many of the games in the genres you are talking about have anual release stratigies. In the 10 or so years I played EQ2, the only game release that saw players consider leaving to play was Oblivion - PvP players have multiple every year that they will consider, and many will leave.

2b, even if players don't intend to leave the MMO, they will still spend a lot of time checking out each of these new games. This will still cause issues in regards to population - and from experience those players will bitch to the developer that they have fallen too far behind while they were away. In my experience, no MMO player whines more than a PvP player that feels they have been left behind (a generalization, obviously, but accurate).

In regards to both parts of this second point, keep in mind that I have said many times that PvP focused MMO's lose population much faster than PvE focused.

3, you complain about games shifting to a more PvE focus at the expense of PvP. Ask yourself why they do that - but be honest. Do you think they do it to make a few more dollars when there are (seemingly) no other MMO's out there catering to the crowd they are trying to cater to, or are they doing it because they realized that the crowd they are trying to cater to isn't large enough (or stable enough) to keep the servers up?

Surely if there were no other MMO's focusing on the PvP market, if that PvP market was viable, they would stick with it as the only option.

Could Ashes be different? I mean, anything is possible - but we have literally no reason at all to think it would be if Intrepid didn't actively try to get PvE focused players in to the game. As such, we would have to assume it will just be more of the same.

Enigmatic Sage

I believe ashes is trying to create a more socially dynamic game encouraging players to be part of a community opposed to solo play and theme park design for the sake of just farming. Many mmorpg's use transmogs and mount collecting to attract and retain players but that shouldn't be the main focus of the game. Ashes has a dynamic world building goal that will change from server to server depending on the player base and actions. There's many reasons to attract a variety of players to the game but ideally its goal is dynamic world building via nodes, guilds, sieges, economy etc.

There's many ways for players to enjoy the game but its endgame is more player driven opposed reaching some relative end point so you can collect everything on a plethora of alts across the theme park.

hanoldbuddy

McShave wrote: »

hanoldbuddy wrote: »

As far as the static nature of goals, Maybe I dont understand ashes PvP system enough of the problem in general.

I don't think there will be "static nature of goals." I might be mistaken, but here is my interpretation of how Intrepid wants this to play out.

There won't be a rush to "end game." Ashes will be a much slower game in terms of how fast it takes your character to level up, as well as the release of story content over time. The main quest line requires the world to develop and change over time, which is not something that you can rush. There will be a lot of down time of character leveling, resource gathering, node/ freehold building, etc.

The pvp comes from conflict between groups/nodes (most likely groups from different nodes, but different groups from the same node might fight each other i guess; not recommended). Dynamic world pvp will come from fighting over the right to farm resources in a certain area. Structured pvp will exist too, in castle and node sieges, as well as guild and node wars.

Also, one thing I'm skeptical on is the ability to gather enough people to zerg things (100+ players). The world is massive and the servers can only have so much population. There are a couple scenarios I can think of, however:
- At launch when people spawn in one of the few spawning portals in the world
- when we have metropolises and population is focused around those nodes
- streamers who ruin the fun for everyone else

I think my concerns are alleviated about this issue for the most part. I think the lack of fast travel and other pursuits the game has to offer might keep this mostly from happening especially for the low levels who have yet to explore more of the game. Maybe the higher levels will rampage across world for server firsts, but good for them oh well. Hopefully there will be multiple branches simultaneously open when world events trigger that will help for server history to be written by multiple groups. Not too worried about that aspect. I was mostly just worried about what I saw in the New World video. Looks really boring. get 100 pll and just 1 shot it.....great.....

George_Black

hanoldbuddy wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlDVZCwIeRc

Here is a quick recap of this problem in other MMOs. How will this not be a problem? Thank you!

Clueless youtuber, trying to get some attention.
There is the problem. 0 understanding of this mmos structures.

RazThemun

Will depend on respawn timers, difficulty reaching the boss etc. WOW, GW2, ESO etc all had this issue. It is because it was to predictable of what bosses would spawn and when. Also it was to easy to reach said boss and not fear being wiped. If the respawns are sporadic it would minimize this.

Example- boss 1 respawns in 5 minutes, boss 2 in 3 minutes, boss 3 in 5 minutes, boss 4 in 6 minutes.= easy to just rotate the bosses and have minimal wait time as they form a train to farm them.

However if each boss sometimes spawns in 5 minutes and other times 30 minutes after dying this creates more difficulty in coordinating. As few will wait around for 2-3 hours to farm 3 or 4 bosses at random. Hopefully with lack of flying and the size of the map it would be harder to pull off being able to farm every boss doing a loop.

hanoldbuddy

RazThemun wrote: »

Will depend on respawn timers, difficulty reaching the boss etc. WOW, GW2, ESO etc all had this issue. It is because it was to predictable of what bosses would spawn and when. Also it was to easy to reach said boss and not fear being wiped. If the respawns are sporadic it would minimize this.

Example- boss 1 respawns in 5 minutes, boss 2 in 3 minutes, boss 3 in 5 minutes, boss 4 in 6 minutes.= easy to just rotate the bosses and have minimal wait time as they form a train to farm them.

However if each boss sometimes spawns in 5 minutes and other times 30 minutes after dying this creates more difficulty in coordinating. As few will wait around for 2-3 hours to farm 3 or 4 bosses at random. Hopefully with lack of flying and the size of the map it would be harder to pull off being able to farm every boss doing a loop.

Yeah, I mostly think this is true. I'm open to not worrying about this issue any longer. I'm moving onto other stuff like catching up on all the dev diaries. Each time i hear more about the game its gets better and better. Thanks for all the input.

ArnasPanika

RazThemun wrote: »

Will depend on respawn timers, difficulty reaching the boss etc. WOW, GW2, ESO etc all had this issue. It is because it was to predictable of what bosses would spawn and when. Also it was to easy to reach said boss and not fear being wiped. If the respawns are sporadic it would minimize this.

Example- boss 1 respawns in 5 minutes, boss 2 in 3 minutes, boss 3 in 5 minutes, boss 4 in 6 minutes.= easy to just rotate the bosses and have minimal wait time as they form a train to farm them.

However if each boss sometimes spawns in 5 minutes and other times 30 minutes after dying this creates more difficulty in coordinating. As few will wait around for 2-3 hours to farm 3 or 4 bosses at random. Hopefully with lack of flying and the size of the map it would be harder to pull off being able to farm every boss doing a loop.

Most probably (and I hope) they will go for something like Lineage2 boss and epic boss respawn timers. Example: 12h + 24h random or 24h + 12h random or anything like this for bosses and for epic bosses from 2 or 3 days to 2/3 weeks or more + some random hours.

Child Item