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

anotherone

Hot topic still...
in the end i gave up on this. My opinion comes also from a large mmo adventure. I just hope they do what they wanted to do and are fine with it. If it works, everybody can enjoy it, and if not, yea then... im not sad but...

...but if not, i will come back here and shout out loud "I TOLD YA GUYS, I DID" xD

But seriously, the more i read on this topic there more i want to see what this Dev crew brings up...

Cheers

AxelBlaze1

Tyrantor wrote: »

All those replies and nothing to justify the reason you supposedly posted in this thread to begin with, no facts on backing up the unchallenging PVE.

What do you mean? I saw the threads today and I decided to give my own opinion on it. I also wanted to divert some of the toxicity away, as a lot of people here seem to be taking this way too seriously. The devs are not going to read any part of your discussion if its just full of toxicity and no real discussion.

As for unchallenging PvE, I made a reply above this. I'll quote it.

AxelBlaze wrote: »

A lot of games have tried and failed. Archeage and L2 both had bad PvE content, games that Steven is drawing inspiration from. Open world content isn't as easy to balance as instanced content. I never said that its impossible. But it is definitely difficult. So the skepticism is justified.

Bricktop

AxelBlaze wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

That's the frustrating thing with this argument, you say you want challenging content and insist that it can't happen unless the content is instanced. For anyone who plays MMOs, should know that's bull. There may be some challenges to having pve content in the open world but to say it's impossible to make it challenging is lazy.

A lot of games have tried and failed. Archeage and L2 both had bad PvE content, games that Steven is drawing inspiration from. Open world content isn't as easy to balance as instanced content. I never said that its impossible. But it is definitely difficult. So the skepticism is justified.

Speak for yourself I had plenty of fun in L2 killing world bosses.

AxelBlaze1

Bricktop wrote: »

AxelBlaze wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

That's the frustrating thing with this argument, you say you want challenging content and insist that it can't happen unless the content is instanced. For anyone who plays MMOs, should know that's bull. There may be some challenges to having pve content in the open world but to say it's impossible to make it challenging is lazy.

A lot of games have tried and failed. Archeage and L2 both had bad PvE content, games that Steven is drawing inspiration from. Open world content isn't as easy to balance as instanced content. I never said that its impossible. But it is definitely difficult. So the skepticism is justified.

Speak for yourself I had plenty of fun in L2 killing world bosses.

But did that fun/difficulty come from the actual PvE content itself, or the PvP? Most likely the latter.

Tyrantor

AxelBlaze wrote: »

As for unchallenging PvE, I made a reply above this. I'll quote it.

A lot of games have tried and failed. Archeage and L2 both had bad PvE content, games that Steven is drawing inspiration from. Open world content isn't as easy to balance as instanced content. I never said that its impossible. But it is definitely difficult. So the skepticism is justified.

Well in fairness to the team developing this game, I'm not sure any of them are from the teams that designed those other games - drawing fundamental concept design has nothing to do with programing NPCs. Lastly they can balance the NPCs for gameplay with zero outside interference, and if that happens it does that will be part of the risk.

This is what none of you reaching for this instance game play seem to be able to explain, why can you not contend with the risk associated with an open world even on the boss fight, every other aspect of the game you're OK with it but if the boss fight gets interrupted the game is ruined for you? How does this even make sense. You're OK dying on the way there, dying on the way out, dying every time you fight in non-instance content, but in these rare boss fights, that ruins it for you? Literally the smallest margin of PvP especially in the scenario of 1 spawn per day or 3 spawns per week - you would risk dying more often in every other aspect of the game but you need instances.

Got it.

Noaani

mcstackerson wrote: »

Almost all resources come from PvE. Their are no direct rewards for pvp. Just because pve content isn't instanced doesn't mean it has to be easy.

PvE not being instanced means it will either be easy or impossible while PvP is present.

The fact taht virtually all resources come from PvE is why this game needs to ensure it has a solid PvE playerbase, as well as a PvP player base.

If all the people that want to primarily PvE leave the game, all the people wanting to primarily PvP will have nothing left to fight over.

Yes, that absolutely does mean the PvE crowd needs to be catered to at least to a degree - and the games design as it stands right now does very little of that.

Demidreamer

Just because the personalities of some people tend to be less vocal doesn't mean we are not logging in a reading various threads. I just don't feel like bickering on and on really solves anything. Make a post and give your opinion, done. Shouldn't have to drag it out.

In the end, this is Steven's game. I would like to think if someone contributes something useful/insightful and within the bounds of his vision, that, could be included, at Steven's discretion of course.

Noaani

Demidreamer wrote: »

Just because the personalities of some people tend to be less vocal doesn't mean we are not logging in a reading various threads. I just don't feel like bickering on and on really solves anything. Make a post and give your opinion, done. Shouldn't have to drag it out.

In the end, this is Steven's game. I would like to think if someone contributes something useful/insightful and within the bounds of his vision, that, could be included, at Steven's discretion of course.

So what you are saying is "don't discuss things, but feel free to discuss things".

ok.

Demidreamer

Repeating yourself over and over is really working for you

Tyrantor

Noaani wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Almost all resources come from PvE. Their are no direct rewards for pvp. Just because pve content isn't instanced doesn't mean it has to be easy.

PvE not being instanced means it will either be easy or impossible while PvP is present.

The fact taht virtually all resources come from PvE is why this game needs to ensure it has a solid PvE playerbase, as well as a PvP player base.

If all the people that want to primarily PvE leave the game, all the people wanting to primarily PvP will have nothing left to fight over.

Yes, that absolutely does mean the PvE crowd needs to be catered to at least to a degree - and the games design as it stands right now does very little of that.

LOL this keeps getting better.

Hold on boys if all the PvE players leave the game we'll never figure out how to kill those NPCs and get the loot. Lets give them what they want, it's over they called our bluff.

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

Hold on boys if all the PvE players leave the game we'll never figure out how to kill those NPCs and get the loot. Lets give them what they want, it's over they called our bluff.

No, if PvE players leave the game, you'll have to spend more time PvE'ing, which means less time PvP'ing.

Noaani

Demidreamer wrote: »

Repeating yourself over and over is really working for you

If I wasn't willing to repeat myself, I would have left these forums about 2 years ago - back when they were the old forums.

Even with this influx of new people recently, there hasn't been any actual new topics since that point.

Tyrantor

Noaani wrote: »

Tyrantor wrote: »

Hold on boys if all the PvE players leave the game we'll never figure out how to kill those NPCs and get the loot. Lets give them what they want, it's over they called our bluff.

No, if PvE players leave the game, you'll have to spend more time PvE'ing, which means less time PvP'ing.

Uhm I'm planning to PvE too, get this, with the risk of being killed from other players while I do it. (GASP).

Demidreamer

I am willing to wager that pvp'ers are quite exceptional pve'rs. imho

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Tyrantor wrote: »

Hold on boys if all the PvE players leave the game we'll never figure out how to kill those NPCs and get the loot. Lets give them what they want, it's over they called our bluff.

No, if PvE players leave the game, you'll have to spend more time PvE'ing, which means less time PvP'ing.

Uhm I'm planning to PvE too, get this, with the risk of being killed from other players while I do it. (GASP).

I'm not saying you aren't.

I'm saying the more primarily PvE players the game has, the more PvP it can support.

This isn't about you specifically (even if I did use the would "you"), this is about the game. If you want a game where PvE generates rewards and PvP distributes them, then the primary thing you need in the game is healthy PvE.

Get that right, and the PvP will follow.

Noaani

Demidreamer wrote: »

I am willing to wager that pvp'ers are quite exceptional pve'rs. imho

I'll take that bet. My experience of PvP players attempting to get in to serious PvE is of them getting frustrated and quitting out of embarassment.

PvP players lack the inherent willingness to cooperate that is key to most top end PvE. Too many of them think that all they need to do is top the combat tracker for what ever it is they bring to the raid, and when asked to perform a task the encounter requires someone perform, they act out like a child, not understanding that they have just been asked to perform the single most important role in the encounter.

I've dealt with this same situation a few dozen times.

While I'm absolutely sure there would be exceptions to this rule, I've yet to see even one.

Tyrantor

Noaani wrote: »

I'm saying the more primarily PvE players the game has, the more PvP it can support.

.

Having more PvE players doesn't = more PvP. It may in a game with no corruption, but this game model isn't based on that.

The only true statement here would be having more players in the game world, the more PvP. I find it less likely that most PvP in this game model will be driven by PvE content. Of course people will PvP around high end content but the amount of high end loot content versus sieges, caravans, arena play, guild wars etc? Such a small percentage yet again.

The risk to go corrupt so every non-combatant in the game can attack you without flagging is what will prevent a lot of PvE players from dying to PvP it's not an instance that is saving you.

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

Having more PvE players doesn't = more PvP. It may in a game with no corruption, but this game model isn't based on that.

Top end PvE drop materials that are used to create top end gear.

Killing top end players results in a chance of those materials dropping.

This is how PvP players gain access to top end gear. If you suspect a player or group have just been taking on top end content, then it absolutely will be worth attacking them in an attempt to gain those rewards.

Remember, corruption and it's penalties will need to be tuned so that there will always be times when players will consider the risk of corruption to be worth it. The developers are building in many levers to make sure they can easily adjust things to this end (amount of corruption per kill, amount of corruption needed before items start dropping, amount of additional corruption gained for lower elvel kills, amount of corruption gained (if any) from group members killing non-combatants, speed at which corruption can be wroked off, to name just a few).

If there were ever to be a time when attacking a player was worth the corruption risk, that time would be when the player is suspected of carrying materials used in creating top end items.

If it is not worth attacking a player at all in this situation, then it is never worth attacking a player in open PvP, and open PvP may as well be removed from the game (not a suggestion I am making).

So no, your statement here is incorrect by necessity. If it turns out to be true that it is not worth gaining corruption when there is the chance of obtaining top end gear from that PvP, the game would have failed as a PvP game anyway.

mcstackerson

AxelBlaze wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

That's the frustrating thing with this argument, you say you want challenging content and insist that it can't happen unless the content is instanced. For anyone who plays MMOs, should know that's bull. There may be some challenges to having pve content in the open world but to say it's impossible to make it challenging is lazy.

A lot of games have tried and failed. Archeage and L2 both had bad PvE content, games that Steven is drawing inspiration from. Open world content isn't as easy to balance as instanced content. I never said that its impossible. But it is definitely difficult. So the skepticism is justified.

So you couldn't figure out a way to make a pve encounter difficult in the open world?

Just games have had open world pve content doesn't mean they tried to make to challenging. Lets also not forget that there have been plenty of games with instanced content that was not challenging. To assume instance = challenge is lazy correlation = causation logic.

Yes, Steven is the creative director who is steering the ship but the one design the content is Jeff and his design team. I did not play EQ2 but from what i have read, players like the content he delivered. That said, even if you don't didn't like his content, him making it instanced wouldn't suddenly make it challenging.

Hurf Derfman

Noaani wrote: »

Demidreamer wrote: »

Just because the personalities of some people tend to be less vocal doesn't mean we are not logging in a reading various threads. I just don't feel like bickering on and on really solves anything. Make a post and give your opinion, done. Shouldn't have to drag it out.

In the end, this is Steven's game. I would like to think if someone contributes something useful/insightful and within the bounds of his vision, that, could be included, at Steven's discretion of course.

So what you are saying is "don't discuss things, but feel free to discuss things".

ok.

This is an effective reply. Glad to see you're taking my advice. 😉

Child Item