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

Tyrantor

Hard pass for you unless the game has 3 scheduled instance PVE events per week? Where do you draw the line in the sand man? I mean I'm not sure why you're trying to threaten your exit as an excuse for the developers to change their core model of the game. Then of course you've got this self serving example again "hard pass for a lot of people". How do you know this? Have you conducted a survey? Is it based on the 4 people in this 19 page thread that have agreed? lol come on.

Tragnar

You misunderstand - the line is existence of progression path without PvP

and how do I know that it is a hard pass for a lot of people? Name 1 MMO where PvP players outnumber PvE players

unknown

This content has been removed.

Tyrantor

There is no progression path without the risk of PvP hence the open world concept. This is why asking for instanced combat at max level makes no sense, you go the entire game without it and now it's required for you to stay? (Yes I get there is some story line/other instance play but it's not going to be where you get from level 1-50).

Name 1 MMO where every PvP player never had to PvE.

Just for the sake of argument here however I'll say Shadowbane had more PvP players than PvE.

Shadowbane was a top-10 best selling PC game at launch, and had two noteworthy aspects. First, the majority of the game world allowed for open player versus player combat, making it an early pioneer title in the PvP MMO genre. Second, it was the first major MMO to offer dynamic world content as a primary feature of the game. Most MMOs are static, meaning the world itself does not change based on player actions. Dynamic worlds allow player to change the game world itself; morphing terrain, building and destroying buildings and fortifications. - Wiki.

Marcet

Tragnar wrote: »

You guys don't understand simple fact.

If everything in the game is a subject to PvP then it is a hard pass for a lot of people - myself included. If all that Ashes aims to be is a PvP playground for PvP monopoly treadmill with few thousand players then all power to you.

How it's going to be a PvP playground with the corruption system?? You always forget that part of the equation. I've played games with less punishing corruption and people respects it, no one is gonna kill you if it's not very worth it. Entire guilds force themselves to get corrupted and being hated by the server for stealing from a PvE raid. Trust me its gonna be a serious thing to massacre others. You don't want bad reputation or enemies in a PvP game.

Tragnar

It all depends on the PvE - I'd honestly hate if raids are designed with PvP in mind

Tyrantor

Tragnar wrote: »

It all depends on the PvE - I'd honestly hate if raids are designed with PvP in mind

I'm sure you'll get plenty of fun PvE content. I'm sure there will be plenty of PvE centric guilds to play with (and against) for bragging rights. Stick around, don't sweat the investment you made in the game. If you've never experienced the open world concept it (imo) enhances the PvE experience substantially. Give it a shot and dont get so caught up in this instance non sense I'm sure the devs can make this work.

Tragnar

I think you mistake me if you think that I want instanced content - I am ok if all raids are only open world if there are ways to "claim" it and being protected from PvP during the fights.

But I also agree that if getting corrupted by wiping a raid group makes your character get unbearable amount of corruption then it is ok - I never had problems with the open world nature - just the quality and challenge suffering from possible PvP

Kneczhevo

@Tyrantor

I can name a million MMOs that don't have PVE. They are called FPSs. I know, you meant MMORPG, I digress. But, that's the kind of confusion that lead to these debates. 🙃

Tarkorov and ARMA (DayZ) are decent examples for PvX, except they aren't MMORPGs. They are FPSs, in an Arena, with NPC mobs and players. So, you really can't compare, except for idiology, if you need clarification. And if y'all notice, AoC is pushing for tab/action combat, so it's morphing into the FPS genre.

Isn't EvE a Free for All PvP centric MMORPG? It's not really PvX, unless there are aliens I am not aware of (I don't play, I did try, years ago). And it's still going.

arsnn

Tragnar wrote: »

I wish Steven never said PvX, because so many people have no idea what to imagine under such a vague statement.

The most common explanation of PvX I have seen is to have in the game both PvP and PvE activities while at the same time having good rules to avoid unnecessary frustration that makes people quit the game.

Also I do not understand people that are trying to say that PvPvE activities (which are world bosses in many MMO's) are PvE activities. I need to stress out that if you allow PvP in any activity you then transform that said activity into a PvP activity

So how is 80% open world and 20% instanced not PvX ?
The emphasize is on emergent gameplay through player agency that would the "80 %".
The "20%" will be the PvE stuff.
If thats not enough, than this is not for you

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

Can you explain these first two paragraphs in more detail the way this reads to me is that open world content would be killed once per week, where as instanced content could be killed 10x per week (Is this because it's easier to kill NPCs inside of instances after all?).

Having to explain that is the sort of thing I would expect to have to do for someone that has literally never played an MMO in their life before - which is exactly the impression I am getting from a lot of the people against instanced content. Most of you seem to have a FPS or BR background, and simply fail to understand the nature of persistent worlds and how players behave in them. It is often as if you people are arguing against instanced content without actually knowing what it is.

I mean, I may be wrong here, but it does seem like some people arguing against instances don't actually understand them.

That said - top end open world raid encounters spawn weekly. They do this because if they spawn more often than that, the one or two guilds killing them and getting the loot will gear up far too fast. Realistically, raid encounters that take 40 people to kill need to drop 2 - 3 items per kill at an absolute minimum, and if a single raid of 40 were getting 21 items per week per raid mob, they would be unstoppable before too long in the game.

So developers put these mobs on roughly week long spawn timers, problem solved.

Instances, however, are created for each raid that wants one, and each instance has it's own version of the encounter. If you are in an instance with your guild and then me and my guild zone in to that same instance, we each get our own version of that instance with our own version of the encounter. If I kill it before you do, that has no effect on you, you still have your version in your instance to kill.

Developers still place a lockout of usually a week on these instances, so that no one player can be in more than one raid that attempts the instance.

This means that each raid has access to exactly one copy of the instanced encounter each week. Not all raids that have access to it will kill it, especially nearer the start. However, if there are 10 guilds on a server capable of killing the encounter, then the encounter will die 10 times a week. However, each player only has access to the encounter once, which prevents players over-farming it in a way similar to how they could if open world raids spawned more often.

This is the key reason both behind why instanced encounters are important, and also why open world raids should still drop the better items.

Instanced raids give guilds a guarantee of content - though no guarantee of success on that content, and even if successful no guarantee of getting the rewards out safely.

Also, since the instanced encounter can be killed multiple times per week on a server, and the open encounter can only be killed once, even if the instanced encounter is harder (which it will be from a PvE perspective), the rarity of the open world encounter dictates that it should have the best loot of the two.

Lastly yes I'm sure instances would be easy to implement, my rewards for instanced content would be ZERO. I do not understand why you should reward anyone for zoning into la la land to kill an NPC just so they can claim the rewards without interruption. I'll never understand why this should be rewarded even if it takes a guild or server 100 attempts to defeat that NPC.

Because PvE content is - at it's best - a contest between developer vs player, as opposed to player vs player.

I get that you haven't participated in top end content, and you don't understand what goes in to making the encounters, nor what goes in to defeating the encounters. I get that you think the only challenge in a game can only come from other players. What I don't get is why you can't look at your game history and realise that big gap in experience you have, which translates directly to a big gap in knowledge.

Your insistence that only PvP is a challenge (which is essentially the basis of your argument against instances) would suggest that there has never been a difficult single player game in history. I think anyone that has played a roguelike would disagree, or anyone that has played Dark Souls. In fact, if you look up any list of the hardest games, none of them really contain much in the way of PvP - because PvP is not hard, there is always a player that wins.

PvE - good PvE - sees players win less than 10% of the time. Players spend more time losing in PvE than they do in PvP. This is why rewrads are more than appropriate.

If everything that is dropped inside of the instance can be looted - why is this any different to you if you die before/while fighting the NPC than after you zone out of the instance? You seem to claim you're doing the PvPers a service by killing the NPC zoning out so they can then kill/loot you. If that is the case why are you in favor of it? See this is the confusing part to me, if your argument is "well we would just get killed after zoning out anyway" then you're essentially agreeing to kill the NPC for no rewards right now.

If a guild works on killing the encounter (which should take weeks) and then finally gets the kill, they know they have progressed. They have achieved something that will benefit the guild for some time to come - assuming they didn't just fluke on to a lucky spawn (encounters have an amount of randomization).

If they zone out and lose it, all that means is that they now have something else they need to work on.

A point I would like to make to pre-empt a likely reply, the instance should shut down 2 minutes after the boss is killed, booting everyone out to the entrance. This removes the ability for players to camp in the instance to avoid PvP. Since logging out will see your character remain in the game for a number of minutes, attempting to log out in the instance will result in the last half (or more) of the time your character remains in the game to take place in the dungeon.

Another point to make - it is perfectly possible to provide players with everything that an instanced encounter would provide - guaranteed access to content, inability for zerg tactics to prevail, and inability for others to interfere allowing the developers to make the encounter 100% of the challenge - without needing an actual hard instance barrier.

They absolutely could add in a lockable room of some form that can only contain 40 players, and that has a forced spawn mechanic for a raid boss. This is absolutely possible, and doesn't need the actual system of instancing to implement. However, if this were in the game, it would be an instance in all but name, and would essentially be considered to be an instance (I would call it a psuedo-instance, but that is just me).

As long as the content meets the three goals I have stated for what instanced content should provide, I'd be satisfied.

Mojottv

Noaani wrote: »

Tyrantor wrote: »

Can you explain these first two paragraphs in more detail the way this reads to me is that open world content would be killed once per week, where as instanced content could be killed 10x per week (Is this because it's easier to kill NPCs inside of instances after all?).

Having to explain that is the sort of thing I would expect to have to do for someone that has literally never played an MMO in their life before - which is exactly the impression I am getting from a lot of the people against instanced content. Most of you seem to have a FPS or BR background, and simply fail to understand the nature of persistent worlds and how players behave in them. It is often as if you people are arguing against instanced content without actually knowing what it is.

I mean, I may be wrong here, but it does seem like some people arguing against instances don't actually understand them.

That said - top end open world raid encounters spawn weekly. They do this because if they spawn more often than that, the one or two guilds killing them and getting the loot will gear up far too fast. Realistically, raid encounters that take 40 people to kill need to drop 2 - 3 items per kill at an absolute minimum, and if a single raid of 40 were getting 21 items per week per raid mob, they would be unstoppable before too long in the game.

So developers put these mobs on roughly week long spawn timers, problem solved.

Instances, however, are created for each raid that wants one, and each instance has it's own version of the encounter. If you are in an instance with your guild and then me and my guild zone in to that same instance, we each get our own version of that instance with our own version of the encounter. If I kill it before you do, that has no effect on you, you still have your version in your instance to kill.

Developers still place a lockout of usually a week on these instances, so that no one player can be in more than one raid that attempts the instance.

This means that each raid has access to exactly one copy of the instanced encounter each week. Not all raids that have access to it will kill it, especially nearer the start. However, if there are 10 guilds on a server capable of killing the encounter, then the encounter will die 10 times a week. However, each player only has access to the encounter once, which prevents players over-farming it in a way similar to how they could if open world raids spawned more often.

This is the key reason both behind why instanced encounters are important, and also why open world raids should still drop the better items.

Instanced raids give guilds a guarantee of content - though no guarantee of success on that content, and even if successful no guarantee of getting the rewards out safely.

Also, since the instanced encounter can be killed multiple times per week on a server, and the open encounter can only be killed once, even if the instanced encounter is harder (which it will be from a PvE perspective), the rarity of the open world encounter dictates that it should have the best loot of the two.

Lastly yes I'm sure instances would be easy to implement, my rewards for instanced content would be ZERO. I do not understand why you should reward anyone for zoning into la la land to kill an NPC just so they can claim the rewards without interruption. I'll never understand why this should be rewarded even if it takes a guild or server 100 attempts to defeat that NPC.

Because PvE content is - at it's best - a contest between developer vs player, as opposed to player vs player.

I get that you haven't participated in top end content, and you don't understand what goes in to making the encounters, nor what goes in to defeating the encounters. I get that you think the only challenge in a game can only come from other players. What I don't get is why you can't look at your game history and realise that big gap in experience you have, which translates directly to a big gap in knowledge.

Your insistence that only PvP is a challenge (which is essentially the basis of your argument against instances) would suggest that there has never been a difficult single player game in history. I think anyone that has played a roguelike would disagree, or anyone that has played Dark Souls. In fact, if you look up any list of the hardest games, none of them really contain much in the way of PvP - because PvP is not hard, there is always a player that wins.

PvE - good PvE - sees players win less than 10% of the time. Players spend more time losing in PvE than they do in PvP. This is why rewrads are more than appropriate.

If everything that is dropped inside of the instance can be looted - why is this any different to you if you die before/while fighting the NPC than after you zone out of the instance? You seem to claim you're doing the PvPers a service by killing the NPC zoning out so they can then kill/loot you. If that is the case why are you in favor of it? See this is the confusing part to me, if your argument is "well we would just get killed after zoning out anyway" then you're essentially agreeing to kill the NPC for no rewards right now.

If a guild works on killing the encounter (which should take weeks) and then finally gets the kill, they know they have progressed. They have achieved something that will benefit the guild for some time to come - assuming they didn't just fluke on to a lucky spawn (encounters have an amount of randomization).

If they zone out and lose it, all that means is that they now have something else they need to work on.

A point I would like to make to pre-empt a likely reply, the instance should shut down 2 minutes after the boss is killed, booting everyone out to the entrance. This removes the ability for players to camp in the instance to avoid PvP. Since logging out will see your character remain in the game for a number of minutes, attempting to log out in the instance will result in the last half (or more) of the time your character remains in the game to take place in the dungeon.

Another point to make - it is perfectly possible to provide players with everything that an instanced encounter would provide - guaranteed access to content, inability for zerg tactics to prevail, and inability for others to interfere allowing the developers to make the encounter 100% of the challenge - without needing an actual hard instance barrier.

They absolutely could add in a lockable room of some form that can only contain 40 players, and that has a forced spawn mechanic for a raid boss. This is absolutely possible, and doesn't need the actual system of instancing to implement. However, if this were in the game, it would be an instance in all but name, and would essentially be considered to be an instance (I would call it a psuedo-instance, but that is just me).

As long as the content meets the three goals I have stated for what instanced content should provide, I'd be satisfied.

Anyone read this?

Bricktop

Noaani wrote: »

Snip, wow lots of words

I read like 2 sentences and you were already saying everybody misunderstands you. Do you honestly think all these people have no idea about instances? Tons and tons and tons of these people just misunderstand you right? And they have no idea how to kill a scripted dragon. I mean these are just the most absurd mental gymnastics I have ever seen.

Noaani

Mojottv wrote: »

Anyone read this?

If people are going to ask me questions, I will answer them.

It's not my fault your reading spead is slower than my typing spead.

Kneczhevo

I read it, twice actually.

@Noaani

There you go again. I really want to agree with you. But you threw me into a telephone pole, this time.

I agree, with your raiding example, if I was playing WoW. Unfortunately, your head is stuck in a box.

We have no idea how Intrepid is going to implement raids and boss spawns. I can come up with a number of ways, to prevent griefing of these spawns, which you are so concerned with.

My simplist resolution would be: bosses spawn durning "PrimeTime". Same time as sieges, and possibly other events (put all PvP events in one time frame, imo). That way, the competition is spread out. Do you raid a node, castle or boss? You can only do one. Now, this may not be popular, but it resolves your issues. Heck, toss caravans in this time table to. Not the most popular idea, I know, but is an option.

Also, you can have an "activation" for boss mobs. That way, only the activating raid knows it's spawning (yes, spies). Sure, you might get intercepted, that's the risk. But atm, you are in control.

20% of raids will be instanced... What if there are a million raid encounters? 20% of a million is... That's a lot of instances (yes, exaggeration, you get the point). Fact is, we just don't know.

There are many options Intrepid can take, to prevent griefing. We just don't know.

How did you derail me? How the heck do you have pvp in a single player game? If I am misunderstanding you, you need to be clearer on your comments, because that's what I read, and I read it multiple times.

I like your pseudo instance idea. Just not for AoC, and an open world.

Remember. I am a Carebear, and I am against most of ideas of segregating the players, with instancing. It doesn't solve a problem, it creates more, with isolation, and not confronting the dangers of the world (this applies to RL).

Noaani

Bricktop wrote: »

I read like 2 sentences and you were already saying everybody misunderstands you.

I didn't say peopel don't understand me, I said they don't understand instances.

Having to ask why an open world encounter would be killed one time a week where an instanced encounter could be killed more times than that does indicate a lack of understanding of the basics of instances.

If I were complaining that no one understands me, as you are suggesting, I would not have then gone on to explain the basic fundamentals of instancing.

Noaani

Kneczhevo wrote: »

My simplist resolution would be: bosses spawn durning "PrimeTime". Same time as sieges, and possibly other events (put all PvP events in one time frame, imo). That way, the competition is spread out. Do you raid a node, castle or boss? You can only do one. Now, this may not be popular, but it resolves your issues. Heck, toss caravans in this time table to. Not the most popular idea, I know, but is an option.

I thought about this as well, but then I considered what I would do if I was playing a game that did that.

First of all, castle sieges are once a week events - well, three times every four weeks to be exact. If my guild has or wants a castle, missing out on encounters that spawn in those windows is fine.

Then you have sieges - and that is something that a guild wanting to gear up on top end PvE gear would be less interested in, in general.

We would obviously defend against a siege, but that is about it.

Since a metropolis level node can only be sieged once every 55 days, that would mean that spawning encounters like this would see me and my guild miss about 7 nights worth of spawns every 55 days.

The other thing I would do in this situation is send a group to each encounter we want to try and prevent others getting the kill. If the encounters are as hard as top end instanced PvE encounters, one good group will be able to prevent a full raid from killing the encounter, even if there is another full raid blocking. On the other hand, if the encoutners are designed to be able to be killed while there is a group like this trying to prevent the kill (as is almost inevitable), then the point of instanced content being the only way to provide real PvE content stands true.

How the heck do you have pvp in a single player game? If I am misunderstanding you, you need to be clearer on your comments, because that's what I read, and I read it multiple times.

The poster in question has suggested many times that the only challenge in a game comes from PvP.

This is the same as saying no single player game has any challenge. This doesn't hold up, as when you look at what games are considered to be the hardest games, none of them are PvP games. All this says is that PvP is not the only challenge that a game can offer, and such comments are ignoring actual facts - willingly.

Tyrantor

Man I was going to respond to your post but holy shit man all you're doing is attacking me now. I don't understand PvE, I've never done top "Pve", must only play BR games etc. You know my whole gaming history, got it man. I see thats how your such an expert on this game and instances now you are all knowing.

Seriously though if these are the made up stances you're going to take it's not worth my time to consider what you post as relevant any longer.

@Noaani

Kneczhevo

/cry

How are you missing 7 spawns after a siege? You have 55 days of peace, until the next siege, if that happens. Your logic is confounding. I'm confused. Your theory crafting here. I feel like a record spinning round round.

Send all the scouts you want. If you don't know where the spawn is, good luck finding it. Who says the boss is in "your" node. It might be across the world, for all we know. It's all speculation. Theory crafting.

I can theory craft to. What if there are no drops on the boss, and the rewards are given by an NPC? Solves another problem, with loot theft. Who says the mats for making that super sword, aren't on lessor or other mobs? And you just got the recipe and item from the quest giver, who asked you to kill the dragon. I know, that's very loose. But, you get the point. If not, I can simply spell it out:

We don't know how Intrepid is going to implement this feature. Stay tuned, for future developments.

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

Man I was going to respond to your post but holy shit man all you're doing is attacking me now. I don't understand PvE, I've never done top "Pve", must only play BR games etc. You know my whole gaming history, got it man. I see thats how your such an expert on this game and instances now you are all knowing.

Seriously though if these are the made up stances you're going to take it's not worth my time to consider what you post as relevant any longer.

If I am wrong, feel free to tell me how it is you don't understand as basic a function of instances as there being one for every appropriate group wanting to attempt the content.

I mean, I answered your questions for you - all of them. If you would rather get all hung up on the fact that I can't understand how you would not already understand the basic functionality of the mechanic you are debating about instead of replying to the answers I have provided you with, then that's on you.

Child Item