Mojottv wrote: » Devs have constantly repeat that they aiming to have a game with risk vs reward system, so if you dont want to risk you dont get the best reward. Pvp in open world raids and open world PVE content adds risk. so again, if you dont want to risk, you will go for not as popular raids and hunting grounds. instanced dungeons and raids completely removes this risk. You might say, making pve in instanced dungions harder mitigates this, but in reality after a week youtube will be full of guides how to clear dungions and raids, so all mechanics will be known and content become much easier. if you clear dungeon once, it will be peace of cake to clear it again. With open world pvp you always have risk of being ganked or your raiding interfered and every encounter is different, so its adds more repeatability as never killing a raid will be same experience. Most of wow players stop playing wow after they clear all the PVE content, then wait for new expansion, clear new stuff, then wait again.
Marcet wrote: » Mojottv wrote: » Devs have constantly repeat that they aiming to have a game with risk vs reward system, so if you dont want to risk you dont get the best reward. Pvp in open world raids and open world PVE content adds risk. so again, if you dont want to risk, you will go for not as popular raids and hunting grounds. instanced dungeons and raids completely removes this risk. You might say, making pve in instanced dungions harder mitigates this, but in reality after a week youtube will be full of guides how to clear dungions and raids, so all mechanics will be known and content become much easier. if you clear dungeon once, it will be peace of cake to clear it again. With open world pvp you always have risk of being ganked or your raiding interfered and every encounter is different, so its adds more repeatability as never killing a raid will be same experience. Most of wow players stop playing wow after they clear all the PVE content, then wait for new expansion, clear new stuff, then wait again. We don't want harder PvE and remove PvP. What we fear is Intrepid making PvE too easy, cause of the PvP factor.
KHRONUS wrote: » @Bricktop I messed up the quote somehow haha. You said "AoC will be guild driven, guilds fighting for control over areas/dungeons/caravan routes/whatever. Instanced raids completely detract from the guild driven player driven game that AoC is going for. Instead of changing the game to be more like WoW, WoW players can just play WoW imo." 100% this. I love it. I don't want there to be ZERO instanced raids as I think this is a great opportunity to give us a lore style raid that people can enjoy and complete with fair to hardcore difficulties....but I would expect 95% of all raids and dungeons to be counterable.
Noaani wrote: » The issue with this is that guilds can - and will - block other guilds from progressing.
Mojottv wrote: » Marcet wrote: » Mojottv wrote: » Devs have constantly repeat that they aiming to have a game with risk vs reward system, so if you dont want to risk you dont get the best reward. Pvp in open world raids and open world PVE content adds risk. so again, if you dont want to risk, you will go for not as popular raids and hunting grounds. instanced dungeons and raids completely removes this risk. You might say, making pve in instanced dungions harder mitigates this, but in reality after a week youtube will be full of guides how to clear dungions and raids, so all mechanics will be known and content become much easier. if you clear dungeon once, it will be peace of cake to clear it again. With open world pvp you always have risk of being ganked or your raiding interfered and every encounter is different, so its adds more repeatability as never killing a raid will be same experience. Most of wow players stop playing wow after they clear all the PVE content, then wait for new expansion, clear new stuff, then wait again. We don't want harder PvE and remove PvP. What we fear is Intrepid making PvE too easy, cause of the PvP factor. well judging by most comments, pve'rs are asking for instanced dungeons and raids, to have "safespace" for pve content. I don't see any reasons for making open world raids hard, with interesting mechanics regardless of extra difficulty due to possible pvp as long as tp spots are mot next to raids, which was said will npt going to be the case, as they want distance to matter. And with family tp feature if you have smart reuse time you wont going to be able to tp whole zerg next to the boss 2nd time. So you win a pvp fight and you have some time to finish the boss.
bigepeen wrote: » Noaani wrote: » The issue with this is that guilds can - and will - block other guilds from progressing. There will already be guild wars. These can block guilds from progressing much easier and more comprehensively than just blocking access to dungeons. In fact, in a guild war, it'll be much easier to attack guilds in other ways than figuring out which dungeons the guild will be at on a given day. If guilds want to progress in the open world, they will likely have to work with other guilds or figure it out themselves. If they can't because the guild is poorly run, then the guild will die and its members will join another guild. It's not Intrepid's job to handhold guilds to ensure they succeed and beat all the content.
Marcet wrote: » Mojottv wrote: » Marcet wrote: » Mojottv wrote: » Devs have constantly repeat that they aiming to have a game with risk vs reward system, so if you dont want to risk you dont get the best reward. Pvp in open world raids and open world PVE content adds risk. so again, if you dont want to risk, you will go for not as popular raids and hunting grounds. instanced dungeons and raids completely removes this risk. You might say, making pve in instanced dungions harder mitigates this, but in reality after a week youtube will be full of guides how to clear dungions and raids, so all mechanics will be known and content become much easier. if you clear dungeon once, it will be peace of cake to clear it again. With open world pvp you always have risk of being ganked or your raiding interfered and every encounter is different, so its adds more repeatability as never killing a raid will be same experience. Most of wow players stop playing wow after they clear all the PVE content, then wait for new expansion, clear new stuff, then wait again. We don't want harder PvE and remove PvP. What we fear is Intrepid making PvE too easy, cause of the PvP factor. well judging by most comments, pve'rs are asking for instanced dungeons and raids, to have "safespace" for pve content. I don't see any reasons for making open world raids hard, with interesting mechanics regardless of extra difficulty due to possible pvp as long as tp spots are mot next to raids, which was said will npt going to be the case, as they want distance to matter. And with family tp feature if you have smart reuse time you wont going to be able to tp whole zerg next to the boss 2nd time. So you win a pvp fight and you have some time to finish the boss. That's the problem, what if there's no PvP skirmish in a dungeon end boss??? The boss is just gonna be a piece of cake??? If I can agree with keeping PvP, you have to agree to not dumb down the difficulty of PvE.
Noaani wrote: » bigepeen wrote: » Noaani wrote: » The issue with this is that guilds can - and will - block other guilds from progressing. There will already be guild wars. These can block guilds from progressing much easier and more comprehensively than just blocking access to dungeons. In fact, in a guild war, it'll be much easier to attack guilds in other ways than figuring out which dungeons the guild will be at on a given day. If guilds want to progress in the open world, they will likely have to work with other guilds or figure it out themselves. If they can't because the guild is poorly run, then the guild will die and its members will join another guild. It's not Intrepid's job to handhold guilds to ensure they succeed and beat all the content. I don't disagree with you, but lack of progress due to denial of content is a completely different situation to lack of progress due to being at war with a rival. A war gives you something to do, it is in itself an activity to do, and people are unlikely to get virwd during this time. Denial of content means you have nothing to do. You could attempt a war or some such, but since your rival is already outgearing you, and in a position where they can continue to progress you you are not, such a war is unlikely to be successful. Rivalry and competition is all good. It is what the foundation of a fame like Ashes needs to be. The thing is, and this is what I have been saying all along, that competition and rivalry can't mean players have nothing to do. If it gets to this situation, that competition goes from being good for the game to incredibly bad for the game.
bigepeen wrote: » Noaani wrote: » bigepeen wrote: » Noaani wrote: » The issue with this is that guilds can - and will - block other guilds from progressing. There will already be guild wars. These can block guilds from progressing much easier and more comprehensively than just blocking access to dungeons. In fact, in a guild war, it'll be much easier to attack guilds in other ways than figuring out which dungeons the guild will be at on a given day. If guilds want to progress in the open world, they will likely have to work with other guilds or figure it out themselves. If they can't because the guild is poorly run, then the guild will die and its members will join another guild. It's not Intrepid's job to handhold guilds to ensure they succeed and beat all the content. I don't disagree with you, but lack of progress due to denial of content is a completely different situation to lack of progress due to being at war with a rival. A war gives you something to do, it is in itself an activity to do, and people are unlikely to get virwd during this time. Denial of content means you have nothing to do. You could attempt a war or some such, but since your rival is already outgearing you, and in a position where they can continue to progress you you are not, such a war is unlikely to be successful. Rivalry and competition is all good. It is what the foundation of a fame like Ashes needs to be. The thing is, and this is what I have been saying all along, that competition and rivalry can't mean players have nothing to do. If it gets to this situation, that competition goes from being good for the game to incredibly bad for the game. Trust me, if Intrepid delivers on the scope of content they have already said will be in the game, there won't be a lack of things to do. Especially if you're in a guild war.
Noaani wrote: » bigepeen wrote: » Noaani wrote: » bigepeen wrote: » Noaani wrote: » The issue with this is that guilds can - and will - block other guilds from progressing. There will already be guild wars. These can block guilds from progressing much easier and more comprehensively than just blocking access to dungeons. In fact, in a guild war, it'll be much easier to attack guilds in other ways than figuring out which dungeons the guild will be at on a given day. If guilds want to progress in the open world, they will likely have to work with other guilds or figure it out themselves. If they can't because the guild is poorly run, then the guild will die and its members will join another guild. It's not Intrepid's job to handhold guilds to ensure they succeed and beat all the content. I don't disagree with you, but lack of progress due to denial of content is a completely different situation to lack of progress due to being at war with a rival. A war gives you something to do, it is in itself an activity to do, and people are unlikely to get virwd during this time. Denial of content means you have nothing to do. You could attempt a war or some such, but since your rival is already outgearing you, and in a position where they can continue to progress you you are not, such a war is unlikely to be successful. Rivalry and competition is all good. It is what the foundation of a fame like Ashes needs to be. The thing is, and this is what I have been saying all along, that competition and rivalry can't mean players have nothing to do. If it gets to this situation, that competition goes from being good for the game to incredibly bad for the game. Trust me, if Intrepid delivers on the scope of content they have already said will be in the game, there won't be a lack of things to do. Especially if you're in a guild war. I am talking about raid content - the content that keeps PvE guilds together. We know how many open encounters Intrepid plan on having live on each server, on average, and it is not enough. I'll likely be running the guild denying people raid content, and the amount they have said there will be is child's play to keep locked down. 12 - 15 encounters is easy to keep on lockdown. Other guilds will be able to run instanced content if there is any, and single group content, but almost all servers will have a single guild (perhaps two) that has a monopoly on the open world raid content that has been talked about - because there simply isn't enough if it.
Noaani wrote: » I am talking about raid content - the content that keeps PvE guilds together. We know how many open encounters Intrepid plan on having live on each server, on average, and it is not enough. I'll likely be running the guild denying people raid content, and the amount they have said there will be is child's play to keep locked down. 12 - 15 encounters is easy to keep on lockdown. Other guilds will be able to run instanced content if there is any, and single group content, but almost all servers will have a single guild (perhaps two) that has a monopoly on the open world raid content that has been talked about - because there simply isn't enough if it.
Mojottv wrote: » Noaani wrote: » bigepeen wrote: » Noaani wrote: » bigepeen wrote: » Noaani wrote: » The issue with this is that guilds can - and will - block other guilds from progressing. There will already be guild wars. These can block guilds from progressing much easier and more comprehensively than just blocking access to dungeons. In fact, in a guild war, it'll be much easier to attack guilds in other ways than figuring out which dungeons the guild will be at on a given day. If guilds want to progress in the open world, they will likely have to work with other guilds or figure it out themselves. If they can't because the guild is poorly run, then the guild will die and its members will join another guild. It's not Intrepid's job to handhold guilds to ensure they succeed and beat all the content. I don't disagree with you, but lack of progress due to denial of content is a completely different situation to lack of progress due to being at war with a rival. A war gives you something to do, it is in itself an activity to do, and people are unlikely to get virwd during this time. Denial of content means you have nothing to do. You could attempt a war or some such, but since your rival is already outgearing you, and in a position where they can continue to progress you you are not, such a war is unlikely to be successful. Rivalry and competition is all good. It is what the foundation of a fame like Ashes needs to be. The thing is, and this is what I have been saying all along, that competition and rivalry can't mean players have nothing to do. If it gets to this situation, that competition goes from being good for the game to incredibly bad for the game. Trust me, if Intrepid delivers on the scope of content they have already said will be in the game, there won't be a lack of things to do. Especially if you're in a guild war. I am talking about raid content - the content that keeps PvE guilds together. We know how many open encounters Intrepid plan on having live on each server, on average, and it is not enough. I'll likely be running the guild denying people raid content, and the amount they have said there will be is child's play to keep locked down. 12 - 15 encounters is easy to keep on lockdown. Other guilds will be able to run instanced content if there is any, and single group content, but almost all servers will have a single guild (perhaps two) that has a monopoly on the open world raid content that has been talked about - because there simply isn't enough if it. well, thats the problem with most mmos today, they encourage division. And they cater to either pvp or pve content. If everything will be as steven is promising to be this will encourage guilds, not pvp guilds or pve guilds, as you will not going to be able to have one without the other. You will need pvp people to clear pve content and vise versa.
On the other hand im also worried about having couple of big alliances that control everything, so i hope they will implement mechanics that discourages zerg and that make it not worth for players to be in a zerg alliance due to not being able to access content. So encouraging more mid size guilds and alliances that constantly fight against each other.
Bricktop wrote: » You COULD have a situation where guilds farmed world bosses and nobody can contest them until people start making alliances, and that's the cool thing about a player driven game. However, something simple such as a timer after a boss dies, and once that time is up the boss can RANDOMLY spawn anytime in the next 3 days or something could easily help prevent that from being so farmable.
Bricktop wrote: » I would also like to point out that world bosses will be much easier to handle as a guild in Ashes for the sole reason that WoW's close-by respawn and flight path system makes it very easy for large groups of people to move around the world quickly, and that will not be the case in Ashes. If you wipe an enemy guild that is challenging you for a world boss, it is going to take them a very long time to get back to you. They will have to Respawn at a pretty far away place, regroup all their members back together, get morale back up to try again, rebuff, run all the way back to where the world boss is, and by that time it's been 25 minutes (Or longer) and the boss is long dead and your guild is laughing all the way to the bank.
Bricktop wrote: » Marcet wrote: » Open world dungeons sounds horrible, trust me the people that defend it will be the same crying when a PvP guild wipes them and steals the boss. Plus the boss diffculty will be dumbed down just because of this. I would suggest finding a game that isn't going to be open world. The people defending it are those players from PvP guilds and individuals who like open world games, the only ones crying are people who don't want to be killed.
Marcet wrote: » Open world dungeons sounds horrible, trust me the people that defend it will be the same crying when a PvP guild wipes them and steals the boss. Plus the boss diffculty will be dumbed down just because of this.
Tragnar wrote: » I've read the whole thread and the argument here is basically this:How many players do we need to grief any raid on the server? I can see a world where the hardest PvE content is open world, if there are systems to support and limit mass frustration. Like to have open window for "qualifiers" of a mass PvP battle to get a token for entering the raid - like a key to open the raid and close the entrance once inside. If the leaderboard top-end raids are going to be open world then there needs to be ways to fight griefers without creating a zerg PvP army guarding the entrance.Without it Ashes will become the most toxic place on the internet. You cannot give individuals or small organized parties the ability to f*** over 40+ people over and over. The only way I could potentionally see open world raids is to give ramped up corruption to the griefers so if they want to grief a raid group whole night (4+ hours) then the corruption should allow to completely steal all of their belongings (including everything worn) until their corruption ends.
Tragnar wrote: » Without it Ashes will become the most toxic place on the internet. You cannot give individuals or small organized parties the ability to f*** over 40+ people over and over.
