Concerned that world bosses will become the same as the ones in Guild Wars 2

Was watching the latest dev update and the bit where they discuss world boss scaling got me thinking about why I quit doing them in Guild Wars 2.

They weren't fun because everyone just stood in the safest spot and stayed there the whole time.

The only real solution to this is minimize the "safe spots" so that there isn't much of that, but I think player collision will be huge in these events, but then the battlefields will have to be HUGE to house that many people, and allow them to move enough to dodge the attacks.

Just wanted to toss this out there and start the discussion!

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

FuryBladeborne

Noaani wrote: »

The way almost all guilds will eventually realize is the best way to take on content that has these scaling mechanics is to assume that they need to kill the hardest version of the encounter.

As such, guilds will go in to the fight under the assumption that all mechanics will be turned on, and any that are not simply make the encounter easier.

This basically leaves content as being the same as it is in other games like GW2, but with the potential for it to occasionally be easier.

That is an interesting idea.

However, we know from the loot distribution rules that at some point of increasing player count, some amount of players will not get loot. We also know that Steven intends for players to fight over resources that include such world bosses. It seems apparent that guilds trying to max the difficulty by bringing the max players will only increase loot to a certain point and beyond that will only continue to increase difficulty.

i.e. Assuming that loot scales to 40 players for a 40 man open world raid while additional challenges such as added AOE traps and AOE attacks are added on a scale of up to 120 (or more) players. If a guild brings 120 players, they have apparently greatly increased the challenges for no additional reward and 2/3 of the players are coming just for the gain of the first 1/3. If the additional AOE's are devastating enough, the additional players could easily make the raid challenge worse than if they weren't there.

The problem gets even worse if you count additional competing raid groups showing up to the fight if they trigger additional AOE challenges on top of the PvP element.

Debase

I would expect that if additional players outside of the dominant guild negatively impacts either the progression or the loot of the guild in open world encounters, the dominant guild(s) will either kill their opposition, ally with them, or a mix of both. I don't think you are going to guilds allowing freelancers to jump into their content if doing so has consequences. If the encounters matter for gear or progression, I expect the guilds doing it to be ruthless.

Dygz

Atama wrote: »

Yeah, I was also under the impression that raids and dungeons are open world, they have to be to support PvX. If we have instances that’s the first I’ve heard of it.

Ashes has solo and group instances.
80% open world/20% instanced.

Bricktop

GW2 is a super casual game, probably the most casual I have ever played. The devs of GW2 intend for the game to be easy and casual and a dopamine inducing reward fest for every participant.

Have a little faith the Ashes devs can make open world bosses that are somewhat difficult and interesting since they don't subscribe to the "Reward every player as often as possible" philosophy that GW2 devs perpetuate.

Noaani

Bricktop wrote: »

GW2 is a super casual game, probably the most casual I have ever played. The devs of GW2 intend for the game to be easy and casual and a dopamine inducing reward fest for every participant.

Have a little faith the Ashes devs can make open world bosses that are somewhat difficult and interesting since they don't subscribe to the "Reward every player as often as possible" philosophy that GW2 devs perpetuate.

While I do agree with the fact that Intrepid want Ashes to be more than what GW2 is,the open world encounters in that game are among the best in open world settings.

So, while it is likely safe to say ashes wont be the same casual focused game that GW2 is, that in itself doesn't necessarily mean this will apply to open world raids

As you know though,I do *have faith" in Intrepid, which is why I have been saying for a while that they will end up instancing a portion of raid encounters

Bricktop

Noaani wrote: »

As you know though,I do *have faith" in Intrepid, which is why I have been saying for a while that they will end up instancing a portion of raid encounters

I'm of the belief that "instanced raids" will be single boss encounters with room lockout mechanics that can be initially PvPed over much similarly to L2. We've had this conversation before that 20% instancing is fine with me it's when people argue for much more than that it kind of ruins the game in my eyes. I would be very surprised if there ended up being "instances" with 5-6 or more bosses inside that people can sit inside and beat their heads against all night free of peril from other players. That kind of instance just doesn't really make sense in the context of the game to me personally since it's basically free gear eventually. However, I could easily see a single boss instance that has a lengthy quest to summon that you need to defend the portal into the room and it has lockout mechanics. I could also see a boss like that being the "Only 1% of players will do this PvE content" stuff that the devs have said. I could obviously be wrong here about this all.

Noaani

Bricktop wrote: »

I would be very surprised if there ended up being "instances" with 5-6 or more bosses inside that people can sit inside and beat their heads against all night free of peril from other players. That kind of instance just doesn't really make sense in the context of the game to me personally since it's basically free gear eventually.

My reply to you wasn't in disagreement with what you were saying, just adding my perspective to it.

I wouldn't want multi-encounter instances at launch, and possibly not at all. I can see a specific eventuality where it would make sense to add them in the future, but I wouldn't be arguing for that unless that eventuality actually occurred, which is in no way a given.

I also agree that I would want some form if PvP involved in what ever the hardest encounter in the game is - though perhaps unlike you I do see space for an amount of instanced content that is not subject to PvP at all during the encounter (though obviously would be both before and after).

Bricktop

Noaani wrote: »

I wouldn't want multi-encounter instances at launch, and possibly not at all. I can see a specific eventuality where it would make sense to add them in the future, but I wouldn't be arguing for that unless that eventuality actually occurred, which is in no way a given.

Interesting. This whole entire time I was under the assumption you were championing for multi boss instances to be added in for most of our past conversations. This has most likely been a cause of some misunderstanding between us. I've always been totally fine with single boss instances with lockout mechanics for the record.

Noaani

Bricktop wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I wouldn't want multi-encounter instances at launch, and possibly not at all. I can see a specific eventuality where it would make sense to add them in the future, but I wouldn't be arguing for that unless that eventuality actually occurred, which is in no way a given.

Interesting. This whole entire time I was under the assumption you were championing for multi boss instances to be added in for most of our past conversations. This has most likely been a cause of some misunderstanding between us. I've always been totally fine with single boss instances with lockout mechanics for the record.

Nope, I am after dungeons with single boss instances in them - but I would want multiple of these instances spread out across each dungeon. To me, the ideal ratio is 3 major "open world" bosses, 12 - 14 minor "open world" bosses and 3 instanced bosses (each in their own instance) as the population of note each open world dungeon - whether that dungeon is single group or multi group.

To me, this leaves enough content for people that want to run instances to be able to do so once a week (this is absolutely 100% key for guilds that are behind the curve - they need to be able to get *some* raid gear before competing with guilds that have been earning raid gear for months). There is still scope to contest this content, as I have outlined a few times on these forums (blocking access in the dungeon, altering node states to remove this content from the server, attacking the guild after completing the content in order to attempt to take the rewards).

However, while enabling guilds to have some content that they know they can get, it is leaving the bulk of the content in the open world. These open world encounters can occasionally have other mechanics on them to change things up on occasion (such as the encounter I described earlier in this thread where rival guilds can attack a secondary encounter in order to gain access to where the raid and primary encounter are).

I have detailed this in some threads the two of us have been involved in, but not directly in reply to you, I believe - and since I don't necessarily expect people to read long posts that aren't specific replies to them, I am not overly surprised if you haven't read what it is I personally specifically want to see from raid content in Ashes.

To me, the main thing you and I seem to want from raid content in Ashes is in relation to how it is contested. While I agree that all content (or the rewards from all content) need to be able to be contested at some point, I am of the opinion that this doesn't always need to take place while the raid is attempting to kill the encounter in question - even in open world encounters. To me, it is perfectly reasonable to have some encounters that are contested via PvE rather than PvP, or even via other means if the developer can come up with a way to do that. Most open world encounters should be contested via direct PvP (90%+), but not all need to be.

krakazilla

Honestly a Boss system like GW2 would begreat i think. Especially if they are like the Boss Meta Events. There you have three different event paths( most of the time) with different objectives and Task, diffrent smaller bosses with different mechanics. After the three Lines completet their tastk all three will fight the Big main Boss. Personaly i enjoy that content a lot and ist hast a lot of replay potential. (There are also pre Events for the main event to complete) in generall they executet that the bes in the Heart of Thorns extentions.

Gizban

Vhaeyne wrote: »

This is like watching flys... mate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DHB0vrNAak&ab_channel=Geksagen

This is what a raid boss looks like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0G2auMMKlo&ab_channel=dudewhereismyspoon

I have every doubt in my mind that AOC will have anything like my friend Titan in it. While I am not convinced the raid bosses even need to be that hard or complex. Considering that it is not the main appeal of the game. I will take PvE difficulty where ever I can get it.

Watching the second video.. we now know where all the jumpjump animations for the mage are coming from.

Warth

Bricktop wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I wouldn't want multi-encounter instances at launch, and possibly not at all. I can see a specific eventuality where it would make sense to add them in the future, but I wouldn't be arguing for that unless that eventuality actually occurred, which is in no way a given.

Interesting. This whole entire time I was under the assumption you were championing for multi boss instances to be added in for most of our past conversations. This has most likely been a cause of some misunderstanding between us. I've always been totally fine with single boss instances with lockout mechanics for the record.

@Noaani @Bricktop

Now kiss.

Child Item