Open world raids

There is not much information about this, but it seems that there is no limitation for the amount of raid groups inside open world raids.

Do you think it is plausible that people will just take every guild member that is online and divide them into 40m raid groups to cheese all bosses by the sheer number of people?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Noaani

Mojottv wrote: »

Well, I agree that PVE mechanics of Lineage and Archage may be well outdated, but no PVE content will ever gonna be hard, not in MMORPG.

The PvE content in those games isn't outdated, it is literally the absolute best that can be achieved in a PvP setting. Ashes will not have anything better on any encounter that is subject to PvP.

I assume you do not realise there is content out there in games that was killed single digit times while it was current.

I can think of an encounter that was killed exactly one time before the level cap was increased, and another that was only killed three times. While the game it was in was not the biggest, I know there were 50+ guilds attempting that content weekly for many months.

PvE content can be hard, and develoeprs do not need to rely on players not knowing what is going to happen in order for that to be the case.

Developers can make content difficult due to the stats of the encounter - try killing a raid encounter in any WoW expansion without leveling up to the appropriate level and you will see an encounter that is very difficult (perhaps impossible) due to stats.

Developers can also make content difficult due to adding in difficult mechanics - this could be combat mechanics or non-combat mechanics that need to be achieved during combat.

We all know that you haven't ever seen a top end PvE encounter, this is obvious - but is also perfectly fine. Thing is, you haven't seen any such content, so you shouldn't really speak to what they are or are not, as you do not know.

If you don't want instanced PvE content, cool. Don't make stuff up to attempt to rationalise your position though.

bigepeen

Noaani wrote: »

Words.

I understand that there should be challenging PvE content. World bosses shouldn't be easy to kill. Even without PvP, the rate of clearing a world boss raid shouldn't be anywhere near 100%.

In my opinion, WoW was harmed by having instanced PvE content. The open world became a waiting room for raids. A lot of people only wanted to participate in raids, and actively lobbied for the removal of anything that forced interaction with the open world. Eventually, the views of this group where so irreconcilable with everyone else that it split the community. Rather than the fundamentally different players coming together to make a better game, it completely divided the community into two worse games. So no, I don't agree with the assumption that instanced PvErs are good for the overall health of a game. A playerbase that is split, and fundamentally likes completely different things, are usually bad for a particular game.

Rather than just complaining, here is a potential solution to making PvE content hard without instancing. You can implement anti zerg mechanics (for example, maybe the boss can be on a platform, where if you exceed a weight threshold, it gets flooded with lava). Beyond anti-zerg, there are many solutions to making it difficult to contest a raid after getting wiped.

AxelBlaze1

Mojottv wrote: »

AxelBlaze wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Bricktop wrote: »

Alright. I'm absolutely done reading anything you type this will be my last one. The reason Archeage died after a few months is because of the constant addition of more and more pay 2 win, not because "The PvE and PvP didn't complement each other". Steven and his guild basically quit the game when their thunderstruck cash shop patch happened, and so did multiple other guilds on my server. I mean how delusional can you be just to suit your agenda? This campaign you lead to get the game completely changed to suit your personal wants and needs is pathetic in my eyes.

While Archeage was pay to win from the start, it didn't become too much of an issue until the game was over a year old.

Trion saw the population of the game drop off far more than they expected in the games first 6 - 9 months, and so ramping up the cash shop was all they could do to keep the game live (since making actual changes to the game was up to XL, and Trion had no real influence over XL at all).

So many people blame Archeages failure purely on the cash shop, but the game was always going to be a failure due to it's design.

And they're coming out with Archeage 2. Lmao. I agree with you @Noaani though, you make valid points. I think the people on this thread are just old school people that believes that what worked then will work now. I'm afraid that isn't the case. Whilst open world content is super fun, it isn't always as challenging. Challenge is what drives players. If a game is faceroll, it won't ever be popular, not in this era. L2 and AA may have been challenging for its time, but gamers have gotten a lot better over the years. If you go with that same difficulty, your game is narrowing its potential. You don't have to make PvE content instanced, but it has to be challenging, cuz if its not, you're losing a large amount of your potential player base.

And its not a negligible amount either. Its a lot. However, if AoC wants to focus on a niche PvPvE community, then it may well do so. Its just that, for an MMO that's looking to set a redefine the genre, that is kind of underwhelming.

Simply because, with youtube and google, every PVE mechanic will be known,

Yea but that's true for everything. Which nodes are better, which raids give you better gear, which skills are better for PvP etc., all of this will eventually be available on youtube, google etc. So you shouldn't use that as an excuse.

As long as you keep creating new content and keep balancing said content, it won't be a problem.

Also, just because you know a PvE mechanic doesn't mean that you/your group will be able to react to it perfectly. You can also circumvent it by introducing a large amount of mechanics so that only players that are truly skilled get to clear certain content.

Mojottv

bigepeen wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Words.

I understand that there should be challenging PvE content. World bosses shouldn't be easy to kill. Even without PvP, the rate of clearing a world boss raid shouldn't be anywhere near 100%.

In my opinion, WoW was harmed by having instanced PvE content. The open world became a waiting room for raids. A lot of people only wanted to participate in raids, and actively lobbied for the removal of anything that forced interaction with the open world. Eventually, the views of this group where so irreconcilable with everyone else that it split the community. Rather than the fundamentally different players coming together to make a better game, it completely divided the community into two worse games. So no, I don't agree with the assumption that instanced PvErs are good for the overall health of a game. A playerbase that is split, and fundamentally likes completely different things, are usually bad for a particular game.

Rather than just complaining, here is a potential solution to making PvE content hard without instancing. You can implement anti zerg mechanics (for example, maybe the boss can be on a platform, where if you exceed a weight threshold, it gets flooded with lava). Beyond anti-zerg, there are many solutions to making it difficult to contest a raid after getting wiped.

Exactly, MMO is about people playing in the same world, interacting with each other. With all the instancing, then it becomes online co-op game, not MMO.

Tragnar

Here we go

MMO game cannot include any co-op activities, because it stops being an MMO

open world is supposed to include a giant variety of activities and not only those that you prefer. If you don't want to participate in that content then don't demand for it to not exist

Noaani

bigepeen wrote: »

In my opinion, WoW was harmed by having instanced PvE content. The open world became a waiting room for raids. A lot of people only wanted to participate in raids, and actively lobbied for the removal of anything that forced interaction with the open world. Eventually, the views of this group where so irreconcilable with everyone else that it split the community. Rather than the fundamentally different players coming together to make a better game, it completely divided the community into two worse games. So no, I don't agree with the assumption that instanced PvErs are good for the overall health of a game. A playerbase that is split, and fundamentally likes completely different things, are usually bad for a particular game.

See, I completely agree with the issue you have identified here, I just disagree with your solution.

You are seeing an issue of a game misuing instancing as a game system, and so are saying the solution to it is to remove all instancing.

I am seeing an issue of a game misusing instancing as a game system, and so I am saying the solution is to correctly use instancing.

I have said on these forums that I barely consider WoW to be an MMO due to both it's instanced nature, and how easy it is to get in to an instance. I still stand by that opinion.

A few instances each containing exactly one encounter that are all location at the bottom of PvP enabled dungeons that players have no option of teleporting to does not remove players from the open world in a meaningful way - it is proper use of instancing as a game system.

Noaani

Mojottv wrote: »

Exactly, MMO is about people playing in the same world, interacting with each other. With all the instancing, then it becomes online co-op game, not MMO.

Yeah, because all those MMO's out there without PvP are not MMO's.

All those servers in MMO's that are not PvP servers are also somehow not MMO servers, even though the PvP ones are, am I right?

maouw

Noaani wrote: »

Mojottv wrote: »

Exactly, MMO is about people playing in the same world, interacting with each other. With all the instancing, then it becomes online co-op game, not MMO.

Yeah, because all those MMO's out there without PvP are not MMO's.

All those servers in MMO's that are not PvP servers are also somehow not MMO servers, even though the PvP ones are, am I right?

Hold up Noaani, that's not what he's trying to say.

He's pointing out that instancing destroys the concept of a single shared world, turning the world into a lonelier place where you only ever share a map with 4 people --> it's removing the massive from MMO.

Also, I get the feeling Tragnar is being sarcastic - but it's hard to say.

Noaani

maouw wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mojottv wrote: »

Exactly, MMO is about people playing in the same world, interacting with each other. With all the instancing, then it becomes online co-op game, not MMO.

Yeah, because all those MMO's out there without PvP are not MMO's.

All those servers in MMO's that are not PvP servers are also somehow not MMO servers, even though the PvP ones are, am I right?

Hold up Noaani, that's not what he's trying to say.

He's pointing out that instancing destroys the concept of a single shared world, turning the world into a lonelier place where you only ever share a map with 4 people --> it's removing the massive from MMO.

If that is the specifics of how they want to be wrong, they should be more specific in how they write their post.

This is why short posts are not always a good idea - it is more important to get your point across clearly than it is to drop a few dozen words.

I would agree that WoW levels of instancing destroys the open world nature of MMO's. But that isn't what is being asked for here. What is being asked for will absolutely destroy the ability for players to be able to attack a rival raid while they are taking on a very small number of boss encounters. However, you will be able to attack that rival on the way to that encounter, on the way back to that encounter, while fighting base poplation, while fighting other boss encounters in the open dungeon - there is still 99% of the open world present - and that is in a literal sense.

maouw

@Noaani
Those mechanics were already soft-designed into Lineage 2.
AoC is yet to announce their solutions for anti-zerg - which is strongly related to your concerns.
You're literally concerned about something that hasn't even had an opportunity to be tested.

Plus, if they do anything like Lineage 2, there will probably be an entrance that needs to be claimed and only the winning guild will be able to go through (or something along those lines) but it won't be instanced so you can still watch from the outside.

Wait for when you can test the raid and then give feedback on how difficult the raid was. Or what mechanics you want to see in the raid. Or how unfair the raid is. Stop deciding the raid is too easy before there even is a raid.

Noaani

maouw wrote: »

@Noaani
Those mechanics were already soft-designed into Lineage 2.
AoC is yet to announce their solutions for anti-zerg - which is strongly related to your concerns.
You're literally concerned about something that hasn't even had an opportunity to be tested.

Plus, if they do anything like Lineage 2, there will probably be an entrance that needs to be claimed and only the winning guild will be able to go through (or something along those lines) but it won't be instanced so you can still watch from the outside.

Wait for when you can test the raid and then give feedback on how difficult the raid was. Or what mechanics you want to see in the raid. Or how unfair the raid is. Stop deciding the raid is too easy before there even is a raid.

That deals with two out of three concerns, but honestly, the one left is the primary one.

Guilds need to know they will have at least some content on their schedule.

This is just a basic fact. You don't put a raid of 40 people together unless you know you have something to do that needs that many people.

A game having a raid count of 40 people, progression based on loot drops from PvE content, yet no ability to guarantee at least a small amount of content is simply not a game that has thought through how people play.

Guilds don't need to know they have content every day, nor do they need to have guaranteed access to every encounter. They do, however, need to know they can make plans weeks or even months ahead of time so that people with busy lives know that if they log in at the guilds designated raid time, there will be at least some content to take on.

Without the ability to organize PvE like this, the only organized guilds in Ashes will be PvP guilds.

bigepeen

Noaani wrote: »

You are seeing an issue of a game misuing instancing as a game system, and so are saying the solution to it is to remove all instancing.

I am seeing an issue of a game misusing instancing as a game system, and so I am saying the solution is to correctly use instancing.

It is not a matter of how instancing is implemented. It is a matter of players fundamentally preferring instancing that splits the playerbase, and detracts from the open world. No matter how well you design game systems around instancing, it doesn't solve the fact that some players will only prefer staying inside instanced content and will whine about any potential PvP interaction. Having two different, irreconcilable playerbases does not improve the health of a game, it detracts from it. So when you say you think there are no negative impacts from having instanced content in the game, I think this is a misguided assumption.

Tragnar

@bigepeen
Nobody here is asking for the game to be able to be played in instances entirely. You are skewing the point in its whole entirety. All that is being asked here is to make it possible for the climax PvE content being uninterrupted by PvP

plus you forget the obvious thing that this content brings to the whole economy - a gigantic demand for player power consumable items

Noaani

bigepeen wrote: »

Having two different, irreconcilable playerbases does not improve the health of a game, it detracts from it.

I agree, and I am not suggesting that this mix happens.

There are people that only want open world.

There are people that only want instanced.

There are also the bulk of the player base that are in the middle.

Your suggestion only allows for the first group, and excludes both of the other two.

My suggestion allows for the first group, excludes the second, and allows for some of the third.

People that want to stay inside instances are not going to play a game like Ashes, they are not something that needs to be worried about. However, that doesn't mean there can't still be a small number of instances.

bigepeen

Tragnar wrote: »

@bigepeen
Nobody here is asking for the game to be able to be played in instances entirely. You are skewing the point in its whole entirety. All that is being asked here is to make it possible for the climax PvE content being uninterrupted by PvP

plus you forget the obvious thing that this content brings to the whole economy - a gigantic demand for player power consumable items

I know. Noaani said that he doesn't want everything to be instanced, but he did mention that he wants instanced PvE to be relevant and drop high-end loot. The economy demands can be just as well generated by open world dungeons and raids (which can be designed to decrease the chance of PvP contention).

I think that cultivating this type of expectation in the playerbase, that PvE-instanced content is a viable way to play the game, is not healthy for this game. It's fundamentally irreconcilable with the vision of the game. People who like instanced content will inevitably want more, and I don't blame them for that. They will be acutely aware of the fact that they are less prioritized by the devs, because it will be painfully obvious that they are, by design, not able to keep up with guilds that prefer different content. This will lead to a discontented section of the fan base that will push for fundamental design changes to the open world, and the addition of even more instanced content until it reaches parity with non-instanced content. The way to stop this from happening is to not have relevant instanced content in the first place, and avoid these expectations and stop a split in the playerbase to begin with.

bigepeen

Noaani wrote: »

bigepeen wrote: »

Having two different, irreconcilable playerbases does not improve the health of a game, it detracts from it.

I agree, and I am not suggesting that this mix happens.

There are people that only want open world.

There are people that only want instanced.

There are also the bulk of the player base that are in the middle.

Your suggestion only allows for the first group, and excludes both of the other two.

My suggestion allows for the first group, excludes the second, and allows for some of the third.

People that want to stay inside instances are not going to play a game like Ashes, they are not something that needs to be worried about. However, that doesn't mean there can't still be a small number of instances.

As long as there is relevant instanced content, I think that the second group will exist. We can't explicitly exclude them from playing the game, and they will definitely feel marginalized.

Noaani

bigepeen wrote: »

I know. Noaani said that he doesn't want everything to be instanced, but he did mention that he wants instanced PvE to be relevant and drop high-end loot.

High end, but not top end.

I've said several times that the best items in the game should be from contested content - I don't personally think it should be from open world encounters that are PvP enabled (I'd rather see the best loot on contested encounters where PvP is disabled by what ever mechanic fits), but this is simply a personal preference.

Part of the reason I specifically said - many times now - that instances should be at the bottom of dungeons (specifically raid dungeons) is because that will mean that while guilds are working down towards the instances, they will invariably come across open world bosses in that dungeon. Since the loot from instances will see a raid of 40 take over a year to gear up on, coming across an open world boss with loot that is on par or better than what you would get in an instance will see many guilds stop to take advantage of the situation.

This is also why I have suggested mini-bosses. While the bigger bosses with the best loot may be monopolised by a few guilds, mini-bosses will not be worth that effort. They will be killed by the guilds that happen upon them - and are perfect content to entice guilds that prefer instanced content to also take on open world content.

Tyrantor

I see the masses still haven't come out in support.. looks like you got one more person to say they agree and you're still the vast minority with 2 of you taking up 50% entire page of replies again and again lol it must be exhausting.

Tragnar

This whole forum is just the miniscule minority of vocal individuals. Most players dont give a shit about forum posts - they either play or not

Noaani

Tragnar wrote: »

This whole forum is just the miniscule minority of vocal individuals. Most players dont give a shit about forum posts - they either play or not

To add to this, most of the longer term posters here have already have this discussion a number of times, and are not that willing to go over the same thing again.

Child Item