Bricktop wrote: » 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. That will absolutely be in an open world game. Have a good group of people ready to defend you while you kill bosses if it makes you nervous. You might get an instanced raid here and there, but I doubt it'll have the top top gear of the game. Maybe close to it, but the absolute best will most likely come from open world. The game is slated for 80% open world content and 20% instanced. We have also already covered the definition of PvX. The game is PvX in that you need both systems in order to succeed as a player. PvErs need to PvP in order to secure world bosses, and PvPers need to kill open world bosses to craft the best gear in the game. It's all intertwined.
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.
Mojottv wrote: » Thats the concept most modern day mmo players don't understand. back in the Lineage days you didnt have PVE or PVP guilds, they were just guilds. As you cant succeed in one, without other. So mix of both, was part of the game. Hope AOC brings that back.
Bricktop wrote: » Mojottv wrote: » Thats the concept most modern day mmo players don't understand. back in the Lineage days you didnt have PVE or PVP guilds, they were just guilds. As you cant succeed in one, without other. So mix of both, was part of the game. Hope AOC brings that back. Yes, I don't think a lot of these people have seen this type of game before. There's gonna be a lot of surprised people in the few weeks after launch when guilds start claiming dungeons as their own and PKing anybody who comes close to them.
Grievousness wrote: » Xyls wrote: » The PvE purists in this thread are either ignorant or purposely ignoring a major part of content in AoC... and that is working with other guilds to complete the content. If your PvE guild wants go against a world boss with no interruptions from other players, then you are going to have to hire some PvP guilds to protect you while you are making your attempts. It won't be like instanced raids, you won't have the easy mode prep time you do in instanced content, you will have to adapt and overcome those challenges to be successful. Nobody is asking for it because they cannot work around player interaction. The point of the matter is that open world content just flat out sucks in 99% of the cases. It is mostly not skillful content but a zergfest. People want content they can strive for and work towards. PvP has sieges. What PvE content is there that is even remotely as meaningful and would prevent roughly half of the playerbase to just leave the game once grinding stuff for no reason gets boring? How is asking for PvE content that is skillful ignorant if Steven literally said they want to design PvE content for all kinds of players? Xyls wrote: » The inspiration for AoC is Archeage and L2, not WoW... not other PvE focused games. You all have plenty of games focused on that aspect of the game. Let's see where the Devs vision for AoC takes the game before you all start whining about there not being enough content for how you want to play MMOs. Archeage had instanced content it did not impact the living open world to a devastating degree if any at all. L2 is dead, it is fine to take inspiration from it but obviously it wasn't great enough to stand the test of time. Making a copy paste of it seems like a crazy thing to do. Even WoW has an open world and pvp player interaction (at least on PvP servers). What you don't get is that there is more than 100% PvP and 100% PvE things exist on a spectrum. Nobody wants or demands a full PvE game but refusing any PvE content apart from grinding without meaning is just bad for the game.
Xyls wrote: » The PvE purists in this thread are either ignorant or purposely ignoring a major part of content in AoC... and that is working with other guilds to complete the content. If your PvE guild wants go against a world boss with no interruptions from other players, then you are going to have to hire some PvP guilds to protect you while you are making your attempts. It won't be like instanced raids, you won't have the easy mode prep time you do in instanced content, you will have to adapt and overcome those challenges to be successful.
Xyls wrote: » The inspiration for AoC is Archeage and L2, not WoW... not other PvE focused games. You all have plenty of games focused on that aspect of the game. Let's see where the Devs vision for AoC takes the game before you all start whining about there not being enough content for how you want to play MMOs.
Orlando wrote: » I don't think bosses that drop the rarest loot needs to be scaled by number of players. Just make them really hard, so it requires at least 40-50 very good geared characters to kill it.
Bosses and mobs will not auto-scale based on group size.[22]
Tragnar wrote: » Orlando wrote: » I don't think bosses that drop the rarest loot needs to be scaled by number of players. Just make them really hard, so it requires at least 40-50 very good geared characters to kill it. on wiki you can find Bosses and mobs will not auto-scale based on group size.[22] Also the intended raid size is 40 players and so I think that all tuning is focused on this amount of players only Also I did not play L2 nor any true oldschool mmorpg, but from what I hear about it is that everyone cherishes the memories of zerging down world bosses with massive amounts of players. These events are awesome and I'll gladly join them in Ashes, however this is not a PvE progression path and without it many including me will just leave the game after launch "fresh" hype. Zerging world bosses is not an endgame to me - it is an event. However I might find a different type of endgame who knows - I might stop being a raider and stay with the game for different reasons
Tragnar wrote: » The struggle to achieve things seems to me is based on the absence of information. Hard to undo the youtube guide and discord revolution. You will for sure have less variance between personal achievements. To my understanding leveling up was mainly focused in grinding xp and in that department you can have leveling times almost 20times faster if you optimize what to do correctly and you know what to do. The PVX progression you are talking about is more or less just sandbox pursuit of a handful of bis items in the world and many people not actually knowing what is bis. If PvE on occasion meets PvP then it is extremely healthy for the game for the players to mingle and do things outside their comfort zone. However if their PvE progression path is dependant on their PvP path then it can be extremely frustrating and offputting for many players which will lead to the decrease in difficulty of the PvE raids that kinda require PvP to be able to do them. Which leads to braindead zergfests that is rewarding opportunity and human coordination to get people together rather than to kill difficult enemies.
Marcet wrote: » So why do they make "40 man raid dungeons" if you can go with 300 and clean it? Honest question.
Mojottv wrote: » L2 died because of servers infested with bots. L2 died because of Devs trying to copy/paste the meta of instanced gameplay. L2 died because of pay to win.
Noaani wrote: » Mojottv wrote: » L2 died because of servers infested with bots. L2 died because of Devs trying to copy/paste the meta of instanced gameplay. L2 died because of pay to win. Bots taht exist because people need to run them to gain any form of advantage, and they need that advantage to just sruvive. Devs copy/paste attempt was because it was what players demanded. Pay to win was an attempt to give players that were constantly on the losing end of PvP (and as a result, the losing end of everything) a chance to gain the upper hand - as they couldn't gain that upper hand in game as they were too far behind - even with all the bots. It doesn't seem to me to be a smart idea to attempt to copy these mistakes. In fact, it seems to me that the smart thing to do is to take the fixes that other games have applied that fixed the root cause of these issues and implement that in to the very heart of the game. I'm not going to give you any clues as to what that fix was - I think you can figure it out.
Bricktop wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Mojottv wrote: » L2 died because of servers infested with bots. L2 died because of Devs trying to copy/paste the meta of instanced gameplay. L2 died because of pay to win. Bots taht exist because people need to run them to gain any form of advantage, and they need that advantage to just sruvive. Devs copy/paste attempt was because it was what players demanded. Pay to win was an attempt to give players that were constantly on the losing end of PvP (and as a result, the losing end of everything) a chance to gain the upper hand - as they couldn't gain that upper hand in game as they were too far behind - even with all the bots. It doesn't seem to me to be a smart idea to attempt to copy these mistakes. In fact, it seems to me that the smart thing to do is to take the fixes that other games have applied that fixed the root cause of these issues and implement that in to the very heart of the game. I'm not going to give you any clues as to what that fix was - I think you can figure it out. Oh my god the lengths you people go to not PvP is absurd. Just unreal mental gymnastics here.
Noaani wrote: » Bricktop wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Mojottv wrote: » L2 died because of servers infested with bots. L2 died because of Devs trying to copy/paste the meta of instanced gameplay. L2 died because of pay to win. Bots taht exist because people need to run them to gain any form of advantage, and they need that advantage to just sruvive. Devs copy/paste attempt was because it was what players demanded. Pay to win was an attempt to give players that were constantly on the losing end of PvP (and as a result, the losing end of everything) a chance to gain the upper hand - as they couldn't gain that upper hand in game as they were too far behind - even with all the bots. It doesn't seem to me to be a smart idea to attempt to copy these mistakes. In fact, it seems to me that the smart thing to do is to take the fixes that other games have applied that fixed the root cause of these issues and implement that in to the very heart of the game. I'm not going to give you any clues as to what that fix was - I think you can figure it out. Oh my god the lengths you people go to not PvP is absurd. Just unreal mental gymnastics here. The truth is never really going to any great lengths - absurd? sometimes, mental gymnastics? if you go deep enough in to any topic, always. However, you are totally mistaken. Most of us are not at all against PvP - and your continued insistance that this debate is about avoiding PvP is actually absurd. If I wanted to avoid PvP, I wouldn't be asking for single encounter instances in the middle of contested dungeons - which is exactly what I want to see. That doesn't avoid PvP, the absolute best argument that can be made against it is that it would move PvP from occuring while also trying to fight the encounter in question, to instead taking place most likely just outside the entrance to that instance. If I was trying to avoid PvP, I would be asking for instanced dungeons, rather than instanced encounters. I would also be asking for these dungeons to only drop finished items so that we could use the family summons to exit and not be subjected to the PvP that is probably waiting for us outside. The simple fact that I am not asking for these things should tell anyone actually thinking about the arguments from a different perspective than their own that we are not asking for anything to avoid PvP. Rather, what we are saying is that we want some of those instances that are absolutely going to exist to contain content types that can only exist inside of instances. We still want the encounters where others can attack you while you are fighting - that kind of thing is great. However, we also want encounters where the actual encounter itself is a real, proper challenge - and that can not exist if PvP is also possible. This is not me saying it can't exist - this is the fact that in the several hundred or so MMO's that have existed, none of them have managed to put a proper raid encounter in a PvP setting - the best that has been achieved is a pinata where the only challenge is in fighting off other players for long enough. Again, this is great content, we want that - but we also want content where the challenge is the encounter itself, and that can only come from (and has only ever come from) instanced PvE.
Bricktop wrote: » Yes I understand that you feel as if your opinion is fact.
Noaani wrote: » Bricktop wrote: » Yes I understand that you feel as if your opinion is fact. No, facts are facts, and my opinion is an opinion. It is a fact that no MMO has ever put an encounter in a PvP setting that provides any challenge if there is no PvP present. This isn't an opinion, this is a fact. A new one for you - it is conjecture that this is simply not possible, based on all available evidence. It is an opinion that I want there to be some encounters that are a challenge based on PvP, and also some others that are a challenge based on PvE. Back to facts - it is a fact that these two challenge types are vastly different to each other, and it is also a fact that no singular piece of content in MMO history has provided both of these challenges to players at the same time. Essentially, you are saying that you only want players to have access to one of these forms of challenge. That is your entire argument - regardless of how you attempt to dress it up. I am saying I want people to have both.
