mcstackerson 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. 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.
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.
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.
Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson 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. 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. EQ2 had open world content that was on par with the most challenging content in any MMORPG. Problem is, that content was not subject to PvP. This is the real issue. Since top end content acts as a beacon to top end players, you have to assume that there will be multiple guilds ready to take the content on as soon as it spawns (spawn timers are usually worked out fairly easily). Since there will be multiple guilds, there will be PvP over these encounters. Since the developers do want the encounters to be killed, they will be able to be killed while there is PvP happening - which means they are not as much of a PvE challenge as many players would like. All of this doesn't mean that this content shouldn't exist - it absolutely should in a game like Ashes. Arguably, it should be the most prolific type of top end content. However, since this type of content is only able to provide one challenge type, there is also scope to also have content that is removed from PvP and other types of interference, so that the content can be designed around offering a complete challenge to players without the need for external factors. This is, however, only one of three issues I have seen with a game that only offers content akin to L2 or Archeage - but it is a real issue. If other players are able to interfere with content, the content will be either unkillable, or a loot pinata.
Noaani wrote: » 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. 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. .
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.
Kneczhevo wrote: » I gotta hand it to @Noaani. You have been playing punching bag, for your campaign, for some time, now. Do I agree with you? I want to, I really do. Then you say one thing, that drives me off a cliff (in each post). I gotta hand it to you. You've kept the forums alive (my threads die.). Even if we don't agree with you. But, that's what it's about. The discussion. We just have to keep it civil, folks. 😁Not to derail, just talking aloud: I wonder how Intrepid is going to deal with the forums, when the "real" pvp arrives. lol
mcstackerson wrote: » Why do you assume they want the encounters to be killed? Who said that? I'm pretty sure they are fine with not allowing it to be killed if no one can hold the area long enough to do it.
What do you mean by one type of challenge? We know that content is designed to scale up and get harder as certain criteria is met. This scaling includes changes in the bosses moves, not just health scaling.
I think you are assuming the worst days on the most competitive servers but we will see. With the risk and time commitment, I don't think it's going to be as common, at least on every server. There is also supposed to be a decent amount of content spread around the world. Not saying people won't try but without fast travel, it's hard for me to imagine a lot of people trying to do everything all around the world but we will have to see how localized people really are.
Tyrantor wrote: » Noaani wrote: » 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. 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. . Yes you finally did it. You went and proved my point all by yourself. So in your own words the only PvE worth fighting over will be will be this end game "top end items". So if you go and put this shit inside of an instance dun dun dun.... right??? I mean RIGHT? lol.
See how putting the only PvE worth fighting over inside of an instance RUINS the pvp aspect of the game regarding resource control around PVE content, do you see it now? I mean you actually said it you must right? I'll leave you with this since I think you're there now. If you go back to the "well let us fight the epic mob without pvp argument" whats the point if it's just going to get you looted on exiting the instance? What's going to prevent the group from looting and then logging off from within the instance? Is everything that drops from these mobs not equip able? Can nothing be learned on the spot, say by a master crafter or other profession by simply using the recipe from within the instance? Who knows you don't and I don't. But if the instance doesn't exist then none of that matters.
Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Why do you assume they want the encounters to be killed? Who said that? I'm pretty sure they are fine with not allowing it to be killed if no one can hold the area long enough to do it. They have said they are fine with content that only a single digit percentage of players can kill. They have not said they are fine with content that no players can kill What do you mean by one type of challenge? We know that content is designed to scale up and get harder as certain criteria is met. This scaling includes changes in the bosses moves, not just health scaling. Feel free to read type of challenge as type of content if you wish, they are effectively the same thing. I am not talking about the level of challenge, simply the type. Naval combat in Ashes will likely provide a challenge, but that will be vastly different to a siege - even if they are both challenging. I think you are assuming the worst days on the most competitive servers but we will see. With the risk and time commitment, I don't think it's going to be as common, at least on every server. There is also supposed to be a decent amount of content spread around the world. Not saying people won't try but without fast travel, it's hard for me to imagine a lot of people trying to do everything all around the world but we will have to see how localized people really are. The only possible way there will not be guilds ready and waiting for top end content as it spawns will be if the randomization of those spawns is too unpredictable - and even then, it is not guaranteed. I've seen games where players camp 11 different spawn locations 24 hours a day waiting for top end content spawns in an effort to be the first guild there. If the content is top end, players will be there.
mcstackerson wrote: » I did miss-read it but please explain what you mean by types of content because with the context of the conversation, I assume you are saying all pve content is pvp content or something which is once again, silly.
Yes, there will be players who play like that but one thing they usually have fast travel which makes it easy to respond. Fast travel won't be as prevalent in ashes so it would take longer to get your numbers their.
Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » I did miss-read it but please explain what you mean by types of content because with the context of the conversation, I assume you are saying all pve content is pvp content or something which is once again, silly. I'll go over three different kinds of top end content, each of which offers a different challenge. The first is top end open world content that is PvP enabled (or even PvP encouraged). In this content, the primary challenge is the other players - a small number of them are able to completely stop a full raid from killing the encounter for as long as those players want to keep it up. A second type of content is top end open world content where PvP (and other forms of interferrence) are not enabled. This means that the primary challenge is the encounter, but you also have a limit on how much time you have with the encounter, as with each raid wipe, a different guild will be able to pull - and potentially kill - the encounter. Once killed, obviously the content is gone. A third type of challenge is content that is specific to your guild, you can pull it as often as you like, knowing that if you wipe, the encounter will still be there for you to try again on. Each of these types of content offer up a different type of challenge, and all of them have their place in a game like Ashes. They all offer something that the other types here don't and can't offer I want to point out again that I am not asking or suggesting that the game shouldn't have any of the above, I think it should have all three. Yes, there will be players who play like that but one thing they usually have fast travel which makes it easy to respond. Fast travel won't be as prevalent in ashes so it would take longer to get your numbers their. There are two basic ways this could go. The first is that the content is actually quite hard. If this is the case, a guild that is attempting this content only needs a small number of rival players preventing it from happening - and they will be able to keep this up until the rest of their guild gets there (which, since they were expecting the encounter to spawn, shouldn't take that long). The second is that the content is easy enough that a full raid is able to take the conten down even with a group or so of rivals attempting to prevent them. If this is how things play out, then the content is easy. Again, I am not saying that these things are reasons to not have this type of content - they are reasons specifically TO have it, but they are also reasons as to why some of the other types outlined above are important to have as well.
mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » I did miss-read it but please explain what you mean by types of content because with the context of the conversation, I assume you are saying all pve content is pvp content or something which is once again, silly. I'll go over three different kinds of top end content, each of which offers a different challenge. The first is top end open world content that is PvP enabled (or even PvP encouraged). In this content, the primary challenge is the other players - a small number of them are able to completely stop a full raid from killing the encounter for as long as those players want to keep it up. A second type of content is top end open world content where PvP (and other forms of interferrence) are not enabled. This means that the primary challenge is the encounter, but you also have a limit on how much time you have with the encounter, as with each raid wipe, a different guild will be able to pull - and potentially kill - the encounter. Once killed, obviously the content is gone. A third type of challenge is content that is specific to your guild, you can pull it as often as you like, knowing that if you wipe, the encounter will still be there for you to try again on. Each of these types of content offer up a different type of challenge, and all of them have their place in a game like Ashes. They all offer something that the other types here don't and can't offer I want to point out again that I am not asking or suggesting that the game shouldn't have any of the above, I think it should have all three. Yes, there will be players who play like that but one thing they usually have fast travel which makes it easy to respond. Fast travel won't be as prevalent in ashes so it would take longer to get your numbers their. There are two basic ways this could go. The first is that the content is actually quite hard. If this is the case, a guild that is attempting this content only needs a small number of rival players preventing it from happening - and they will be able to keep this up until the rest of their guild gets there (which, since they were expecting the encounter to spawn, shouldn't take that long). The second is that the content is easy enough that a full raid is able to take the conten down even with a group or so of rivals attempting to prevent them. If this is how things play out, then the content is easy. Again, I am not saying that these things are reasons to not have this type of content - they are reasons specifically TO have it, but they are also reasons as to why some of the other types outlined above are important to have as well. Feels like you are arbitrarily drawing your content lines. I guess i disagree with your types of content. Your first type can easily be the same as the second type if no one shows up or you have players outside the raid positioned to defend. For your third kind, I agree there should be content for you to do as a guild but I don't think it needs to be the same thing. Even if a raid is so challenging it can be interrupted by a small number of players, that doesn't mean the presence of a small number of players will interrupt the raid. It shouldn't take more then a few moments for a raid to dispatch a few players. In order for a small number of players to interrupt a difficult raid, they usually need to attack specific targets to either interrupt a mechanic or stop a key role. Them randomly attacking a dps who is on the boss will probably not interrupt the raid. Since you know your vulnerabilities during a raid, you can position yourself to counter anyone who would try to interrupt you. There is also the fact you can use players outside your raid to defend yourself from others. I think you are oversimplifying things and also ignoring some of the social aspects of the game. You are supposed to work with players. If one hostile person can cause so much damage to your raid, I don't think it's weird to get an ally or some mercs to keep them away. On the other side, it's hard to tell atm how often this will be an issue. Another thing to consider is what we learned about difficulty and how it scales. If you are in a raid and know you will probably have some resistance that day and you have no backup, you might consider going for an easier difficulty. On the other side, if you are having a quiet day and/or backup, you can ramp up the difficulty as you know you are safer.
mcstackerson wrote: » Feels like you are arbitrarily drawing your content lines. I guess i disagree with your types of content. Your first type can easily be the same as the second type if no one shows up or you have players outside the raid positioned to defend. For your third kind, I agree there should be content for you to do as a guild but I don't think it needs to be the same thing.
I think you are oversimplifying things and also ignoring some of the social aspects of the game. You are supposed to work with players. If one hostile person can cause so much damage to your raid, I don't think it's weird to get an ally or some mercs to keep them away. On the other side, it's hard to tell atm how often this will be an issue. Another thing to consider is what we learned about difficulty and how it scales. If you are in a raid and know you will probably have some resistance that day and you have no backup, you might consider going for an easier difficulty. On the other side, if you are having a quiet day and/or backup, you can ramp up the difficulty as you know you are safer.
Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Feels like you are arbitrarily drawing your content lines. I guess i disagree with your types of content. Your first type can easily be the same as the second type if no one shows up or you have players outside the raid positioned to defend. For your third kind, I agree there should be content for you to do as a guild but I don't think it needs to be the same thing. EQ2 had open world raids that were contested, but not subject to PvP. These include some of the most difficult encounters I have seen in any game. Any game not involving this type of content is missing out. Archeage had open world content that was subject to PvP. I've seen several hundred players fight over the red dragon in that game for hours, and I have seen a group of 15 players kill it in less than 10 minutes while the zone as not subject to PvP (they altered the way the zone enters PvP after that). Obviously, we all know what instanced content is about. I mean, you can argue that it is an arbitrary line drawn between content types, but it is not my line. I think you are oversimplifying things and also ignoring some of the social aspects of the game. You are supposed to work with players. If one hostile person can cause so much damage to your raid, I don't think it's weird to get an ally or some mercs to keep them away. On the other side, it's hard to tell atm how often this will be an issue. Another thing to consider is what we learned about difficulty and how it scales. If you are in a raid and know you will probably have some resistance that day and you have no backup, you might consider going for an easier difficulty. On the other side, if you are having a quiet day and/or backup, you can ramp up the difficulty as you know you are safer. Again, I am not saying all of this shouldn't exist. In fact, I am saying it should. Imagine you are in a guild that only decided to start raiding 9 months in to Ashes being live. Where are you going to start? You are not going to be able to compete with the guilds that have been raiding since launch, nor are you going to be able to afford mercs. You likely won't get any allies until you are able to prove yourself, but you also have no content on which to work on learning to raid together. Steven has said he expects servers to have 15 raid encoutners at the most - which is enough to keep one guild busy for a night. If there are 3 guilds on your server wanting to raid, you don't stand a chance of getting any attempts in, let alone kills. This game NEEDS some instanced raid content. Not a lot, and not full instanced dungeons. But it does NEED instanced raid content.
Hurf Derfman wrote: » Good news! They've already stated that there will indeed be a 20% of the content will in fact be instanced!
Noaani wrote: » Hurf Derfman wrote: » Good news! They've already stated that there will indeed be a 20% of the content will in fact be instanced! As long as that 20% includes raid level instances, that is all I am saying the game needs. If you pay attention, you will have seen that I have suggested the game needs precisely 3 instanced raid encounters. With the stated intention of Intrepid for there to be 15 raid encounters per server, all I am saying the game needs is that 20% of those raid encounters to be instanced. Basically, I am saying the game needs what Intrepid have said the game will have (based on one interpretation) So, assuming you are standing by this statement of yours here, you are basically saying that either the game should have what I have been saying it should have, or that Intrepid are making a mistake when their game. Which is it?
Hurf Derfman wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Hurf Derfman wrote: » Good news! They've already stated that there will indeed be a 20% of the content will in fact be instanced! As long as that 20% includes raid level instances, that is all I am saying the game needs. If you pay attention, you will have seen that I have suggested the game needs precisely 3 instanced raid encounters. With the stated intention of Intrepid for there to be 15 raid encounters per server, all I am saying the game needs is that 20% of those raid encounters to be instanced. Basically, I am saying the game needs what Intrepid have said the game will have (based on one interpretation) So, assuming you are standing by this statement of yours here, you are basically saying that either the game should have what I have been saying it should have, or that Intrepid are making a mistake when their game. Which is it? I love how you cherry pick what you're going to respond to. So far what I've learned about you is that you literally have zero sense of humor, think that brevity is a bad thing, and for some reason think that not everyone who wants to be a Navy SEAL but can't is a bad argument. Nevermind failing at the MiB test. So uh I guess good luck with your activism? 🤷
Noaani wrote: » This game NEEDS some instanced raid content.
