Bricktop wrote: » I agree with you, Challenging boss mechanics I expect and hope to be in the game. Instanced raids where you are under no threat besides from mobs? I don't want to see it happen personally.
Bricktop wrote: » Yes basically. I am sorry if this confuses you but Lineage 2 was an open world PvP guild driven game with harsh consequences to death and PKing where guilds fight for control of good spots on the map to level/grind mobs.
Bricktop wrote: » But I don't think the game should cater to PvE players, so this doesn't bother me personally. I hope it works so that If you want to kill bosses in ashes you better be ready to kill other players.
Bricktop wrote: » However I personally don't see it being a problem that guilds can't plan everything they do.
Bricktop wrote: » I can see your point and why they might want to add a few instanced things, but isn't it already confirmed that its something like an 80/20 split for open world vs instanced?
Grievousness wrote: » Bricktop wrote: » But I don't think the game should cater to PvE players, so this doesn't bother me personally. I hope it works so that If you want to kill bosses in ashes you better be ready to kill other players. Why shouldn't a game that advertises to have PvE content not cater to PvE players on a fair level? I don't understand why there should be no content catering for PvE players if they are actively promoting it as part of the game. If I gate PvE content behind PvP content in an absolute fashion it is not really PvE content, is it? Bricktop wrote: » However I personally don't see it being a problem that guilds can't plan everything they do. Not being able to plan something as a guild can be a huge issue. In particular smaller guilds have the risk of simply not having enough members available at each and every moment. Also it makes the game substantially worse for people who cannot be online 24/7. For example depending on boss respawn timers it would be possible that some world bosses simply aren't alive in the time frame that your guild mates are online in reasonable numbers. Bricktop wrote: » I can see your point and why they might want to add a few instanced things, but isn't it already confirmed that its something like an 80/20 split for open world vs instanced? 20% should be instanced.BUT they also stated they want them instanced for the "greater narrative appeal" which means they will probably not nesseccarily focus on making them challenging but interesting from a lore perspective.
Bricktop wrote: » Could you explain to me why AoC could not have challenging world bosses unlike other games you have played. I agree with that sentiment that most world bosses in other games I've seen are not difficult. Why can't AoC have solid world bosses with complex mechanics that start when it gets pulled? This would cut down on the chance of it just being zerged down by an unorganized mass drastically. I'm not a programmer I am genuinely asking here.
Abominatus wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Tragnar wrote: » I bought in to the ideas for socialization and build paths and many other amazing ideas, but it didn't occur to me that raids might have literally no challenge to them at all - and yeah solutions to address that usually simulate the raid being instanced. Maybe if the raid mobs had active hp scaling if there would be more than 40 players to counteract it. It had to disproportionate to discourage stacking people. Like 80 people would triple the hp instead of double it, because essentially you would have minimal amount of tanks and you are just adding another dps classes The problem with this is that if your guild is trying to kill a boss, my guild can just get together along with all our alts and friends and add 160 people to that scaling system. Best of luck killing it now. Any system the developers make to deal with this will be cheesed either by a guild trying to kill the content, or a guild trying to stop the kill. There have been exactly three mechanics that I have seen to deal with this situation; instancing, phasing and encounter locking. Very much this. As I said, there's nothing wrong with having some world-bosses in the game. Even some dungeons that are open-world. But I cannot imagine a way to build genuinely challenging PvE content without some means to restrict who can access it concurrently.
Noaani wrote: » Tragnar wrote: » I bought in to the ideas for socialization and build paths and many other amazing ideas, but it didn't occur to me that raids might have literally no challenge to them at all - and yeah solutions to address that usually simulate the raid being instanced. Maybe if the raid mobs had active hp scaling if there would be more than 40 players to counteract it. It had to disproportionate to discourage stacking people. Like 80 people would triple the hp instead of double it, because essentially you would have minimal amount of tanks and you are just adding another dps classes The problem with this is that if your guild is trying to kill a boss, my guild can just get together along with all our alts and friends and add 160 people to that scaling system. Best of luck killing it now. Any system the developers make to deal with this will be cheesed either by a guild trying to kill the content, or a guild trying to stop the kill. There have been exactly three mechanics that I have seen to deal with this situation; instancing, phasing and encounter locking.
Tragnar wrote: » I bought in to the ideas for socialization and build paths and many other amazing ideas, but it didn't occur to me that raids might have literally no challenge to them at all - and yeah solutions to address that usually simulate the raid being instanced. Maybe if the raid mobs had active hp scaling if there would be more than 40 players to counteract it. It had to disproportionate to discourage stacking people. Like 80 people would triple the hp instead of double it, because essentially you would have minimal amount of tanks and you are just adding another dps classes
Grievousness wrote: » Bricktop wrote: » Could you explain to me why AoC could not have challenging world bosses unlike other games you have played. I agree with that sentiment that most world bosses in other games I've seen are not difficult. Why can't AoC have solid world bosses with complex mechanics that start when it gets pulled? This would cut down on the chance of it just being zerged down by an unorganized mass drastically. I'm not a programmer I am genuinely asking here. Bosses are usually challenging because they are tuned pretty closely around the "power level" the players fighting it are capable of. If you don't have any mechanic that enforces a certain number of players (or instancing), it gets really hard to guess how the player-raid will perform as a whole. Therefore you cannot properly tune the boss. Think of it like that: You have a boss that is balanced for 40 players to be barely killable in 5 minutes, maybe you have a soft enrage mechanic after 4 minutes und 30 seconds making the last 30 seconds really intense. Now, since it is open world, you simply bring 45 players, resulting in a performance increases by over 12,5%. Now the soft enrage mechanic balanced for 40 players becomes irrelevant since there are 45 player and you can kill the boss in under 4 minutes. Also every mechanic that for example requires adds to be killed becomes a lot easier since you have more damage to kill them faster. Of course you could argue that you "just" need mechanics to prevent bringing more than 40, but the only foolproof way to do that is having something that will more or less play out like instancing.
Noaani wrote: » Abominatus wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Tragnar wrote: » I bought in to the ideas for socialization and build paths and many other amazing ideas, but it didn't occur to me that raids might have literally no challenge to them at all - and yeah solutions to address that usually simulate the raid being instanced. Maybe if the raid mobs had active hp scaling if there would be more than 40 players to counteract it. It had to disproportionate to discourage stacking people. Like 80 people would triple the hp instead of double it, because essentially you would have minimal amount of tanks and you are just adding another dps classes The problem with this is that if your guild is trying to kill a boss, my guild can just get together along with all our alts and friends and add 160 people to that scaling system. Best of luck killing it now. Any system the developers make to deal with this will be cheesed either by a guild trying to kill the content, or a guild trying to stop the kill. There have been exactly three mechanics that I have seen to deal with this situation; instancing, phasing and encounter locking. Very much this. As I said, there's nothing wrong with having some world-bosses in the game. Even some dungeons that are open-world. But I cannot imagine a way to build genuinely challenging PvE content without some means to restrict who can access it concurrently. Indeed. In my opinion, there are four types of raid content that a game like Ashes should attempt to have. 1, open world encounters like the red dragon from Archeage, which essentially functions as a PvP beacon. This kind of encounter should spawn in an area where corruption is turned off, and it should literally be a free for all. 2, open world encounters where the competition is the PvE, not the PvP. To me, this is what open raid dungeons should be. PvP shouldn't be turned off, but the consequences for it should be higher (respawn location placement and such) in order to discourage it - and there should be some form of penalty to attacking a raid that is fighting an encounter (guaranteed corruption to the entire attacking raid for each kill seems appropriate). 3, event encounters such as the rifts from Rift, or wtfever those portal things in ESO were - just much rarer than in either of those two games. This type of content should be all about the community coming together to defeat a challenge, and should very much be open to all players to join in. 4, the kind of raid content that is found in many other games. The kind of content a top end guild can plan a few nights worth of activities a week around. The kind of content that guilds don't just kill the first time they take it on, but may in fact take weeks of trying to finally kill. All four of these are valid content types, all four serve a different purpose in a game, and all four should be present in Ashes. Because of the requirements of that last type (guilds need to know they will have content, player count needs to be capped), I have yet to see any content type that would work for that other than instances.
Bricktop wrote: » I understand your point but hear me out It DOES have PvE content, you would just need to face the possibility that there's a CHANCE you will have to PvP to secure it for your guild. If a small guild is unhappy with their situation in the game they need to have a recruitment drive or ally themselves with a larger guild to improve their situation. All of these situations are just things that can happen in a player driven world, isn't that what the devs want? Haven't the devs said the game isn't going to be easy, fair, or for everybody and players will need to band together? I like the appeal of players fighting over limited resources.
Grievousness wrote: » Bricktop wrote: » I understand your point but hear me out It DOES have PvE content, you would just need to face the possibility that there's a CHANCE you will have to PvP to secure it for your guild. If a small guild is unhappy with their situation in the game they need to have a recruitment drive or ally themselves with a larger guild to improve their situation. All of these situations are just things that can happen in a player driven world, isn't that what the devs want? Haven't the devs said the game isn't going to be easy, fair, or for everybody and players will need to band together? I like the appeal of players fighting over limited resources. You fail to understand the point. The discussion is not about the existence of PvE content but its quality. The theory at hand is that providing some quality instanced content for PvE players increases the overall interest in AoC without destroying the open world. I don't think anyone has stated that the whole game or a major part of it must be PvE since this is of course contradicting with what the game is designed to be. If you for example watch Lazy peon's review for New World recently he basically said that he would love to grind / farm really good in gear in games like Black Desert or New World. The point why he is eventually not doing it is that he doesn't feel like there would be anything waiting to put that gear to test at the end. Right now AoC looks like it has a similar issue since the endgame looks like it is only PvP with node/castle sieges. This is fine for a pure PvP game but not nesseccarily for the majority of the PvE playerbase.
winner909098 wrote: » I think that if there is instancing, it cant have drops as good as open world.
Abominatus wrote: » winner909098 wrote: » I think that if there is instancing, it cant have drops as good as open world. Why? Are you suggesting that it’s easier to kill bosses in an instance than in the open world? That’s usually not true, since open world bosses can be zerged and instance bosses cannot be. If you’re relying on the presence of pvp to make the open world bosses hard, then the problem is that the presence of pvp contestation is erratic and if the boss is tuned to be beatable while contested, it will be trivial when it isn’t.
Bricktop wrote: » Abominatus wrote: » winner909098 wrote: » I think that if there is instancing, it cant have drops as good as open world. Why? Are you suggesting that it’s easier to kill bosses in an instance than in the open world? That’s usually not true, since open world bosses can be zerged and instance bosses cannot be. If you’re relying on the presence of pvp to make the open world bosses hard, then the problem is that the presence of pvp contestation is erratic and if the boss is tuned to be beatable while contested, it will be trivial when it isn’t. It takes the fun out of an open world game if you can safely get good gear in an instanced scripted event against AI. PvErs would never go out into the world and try and fight for resources for their guild, and if the drops weren't as good as open world drops they would sit on the forums and talk about how the unfair the game is to them. I hope it's so that If you want to PvE in ashes, you better be ready to PvP at any time. Minimal instancing or a system that allows guilds to control the entrance to the instance. PvPers are gonna have to PvE and craft to get the best gear in the game. It's an interconnected system.
Abominatus wrote: » Bricktop wrote: » Abominatus wrote: » winner909098 wrote: » I think that if there is instancing, it cant have drops as good as open world. Why? Are you suggesting that it’s easier to kill bosses in an instance than in the open world? That’s usually not true, since open world bosses can be zerged and instance bosses cannot be. If you’re relying on the presence of pvp to make the open world bosses hard, then the problem is that the presence of pvp contestation is erratic and if the boss is tuned to be beatable while contested, it will be trivial when it isn’t. It takes the fun out of an open world game if you can safely get good gear in an instanced scripted event against AI. PvErs would never go out into the world and try and fight for resources for their guild, and if the drops weren't as good as open world drops they would sit on the forums and talk about how the unfair the game is to them. I hope it's so that If you want to PvE in ashes, you better be ready to PvP at any time. Minimal instancing or a system that allows guilds to control the entrance to the instance. PvPers are gonna have to PvE and craft to get the best gear in the game. It's an interconnected system. Nobody is suggesting that YOU have to go into instances to get good gear. Get your gear through pvp if that’s the progression you want. But basically you’re saying that other people aren’t entitled to have the content and challenge that they want because it’s not the way you want to play. That’s extraordinarily selfish.
