Dungeon Boss Grinding - PvE talk

Bosses should spawn often 30m - 4hrs. Scaling depending on quality of the drops the bosses possess. And how deep in the dungeon they reside, biome, etc.

Main thing that needs to be balanced is drop rates, and recipe requirements.

Appropriate resource requirements for crafting and proper drop tables. Facilitates grinding bosses and the common interaction of other groups through out the day. Then you dont get piles of groups waiting, but more of a rotation throughout the world of the different dungeons for different componets.

There is just no reasonable way people could obtain sufficient components if respawns are on long extended timers.

You want many people having components they can buy/sell instead of them be clustered into large guilds that will horde or gouge prices.

The uber elite components would be low drop rates. Forcing contesting of the boss area but not guaranteeing success. Making even large guilds to have to stay spread out in the world to gather components.

Side note we need more details for their plans for dungeon content and PvE.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Noaani

Spif wrote: »

If you go back to DAoC, all dungeons were open world, and they were mostly filled with camp spots. IE, you camp in a specific spot kill a few spawns in rotation getting drops and XP. Maybe you check to see if a named mob was up every once in a while, and you went to kill him.

The notion that people consider this to be content baffles me.

This should not be the standard by which Ashes dungeons are measured. They should far surpass this at a bare minimum.

If you are in a dungeon, you should be moving between bosses at all times. The only situation in which it is acceptable to consider base population as content is while solo. As soon as you are in even a small group, bosses and mini-bosses should be the only thing you are going after, with base population there simply as a time sink.

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

IF there is ever a point where bosses are all dead and its hard to ever get one since you have to wait for them to spawn and they take forever, people will start to look at it as more just a pvp game than a PvX game.

See, this is a point I have been making for a long time.

To me it is a little further than this though, players need to have some actual PvE experiences mixed in with their PvP experiences in order to not feel like the game is a PvP game.

The problem with fast boss respawning is that it necessitates a downward adjustment in the drops offered per kill. If a mob reopens every hour, the developers need to assume it will be killed 120+ times a week, and set the drops for it accordingly.

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

So, we have the situation where if 40 player content is at the end of a dungeon, guilds will rush through that dungeon en masse in order to kill that content, and this would be somewhat disruptive in an 8 player dungeon.

So, this is why my suggestion is to make dungeons with 40 player content at the end also have 40 player content all the way through.

This way, when those masses of players gather together, the only PvP they are likely to come across are other masses of players.

Additionally, those groups of 8 players running content designed for 8 players are likely to only run in to other groups of 8 players.

While I'm all for overwhelming an enemy with numbers, that should be something a guild has to actively do, not something they do by accident while going after a different goal.

Here's a runthrough of a dungeon with one of the dragons from L2 (starts at 1:45).

https://youtu.be/s-2uP-IWUrM?t=105

Each room (or two) is pretty much 9-man party content, depending on character strength. The teleport to the dragon himself is shown on this map as hall of flames (the video runs past that point).

And this is the hall of flame map after the tp.

And I'm pretty sure this video is from one of the rooms in the hall of flame. This is how your guild would be welcomed if your war enemies knew you were planning to come to the boss (so in theory an hour or two before his minimal respawn).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKAn_oBdDrU

Alternatively some rooms on the way would just be farmed by the clueless war enemies and your guild would run over them on your way to the boss. Which would trigger a response from those enemies and it would be you who're the welcoming side from that video.

Imo making a full dungeon purely for 40-man raids would be a waste of space because 40-man raids should be rare and epic times rather than something mundane, and, as far as I see it, open world dungeons are somewhat mundane because you spend most of your time there (unless you're a hardcore gatherer/quester).

If you have repeatable (or grindable) 40-man dungeons that have best quality mob drops (they'd have to due to their requirements) - you're dooming any smaller guild on never having the chance to farm them by themselves. While a big guild could easily have several groups that could constantly farm it throughout the day. Obviously small guilds can collaborate on it, but it'd be very difficult to keep having 40 people all online at the same time who also have nothing else to do.

Maybe we're just talking about different types of content again. I see open world dungeons as something that can be grindable, which allows for friction and all that. Do you see them as more of a "we go kill a boss or two in the dungeon and leave" kind of content or smth else?

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

The notion that people consider this to be content baffles me.

This should not be the standard by which Ashes dungeons are measured. They should far surpass this at a bare minimum.

If you are in a dungeon, you should be moving between bosses at all times. The only situation in which it is acceptable to consider base population as content is while solo. As soon as you are in even a small group, bosses and mini-bosses should be the only thing you are going after, with base population there simply as a time sink.

So yeah, we were in fact talking about different types of content.

akabear

NiKr wrote: »

akabear wrote: »

NiKr perhaps the more recent game has short respawn times and/or private servers but I recall the spawn time for some of the important raid bosses occuring every 2, 4 weeks apart.. one I had to wait 3 months before a chance to finish a quest.

On official servers? I don't think I've ever heard that they were that long.

I was thinking of Baium, the boss that was needed to visit to complete a class quest or something.
The reality of the 5 days +/- 1-8 hrs was it had to fall on a day off AND also spawn when my own clan was online! Correlating the three too 3 months!

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

This is how your guild would be welcomed if your war enemies knew you were planning to come to the boss

In my experience, MMO players are significantly more apathetic than they used to be.

I would fully expect there to be one or two.spawn cycles with a turnout like you posted, and that is likely to end in a stalemate.

However, those people wont turn out in those numbers every spawn - people just dont care that much any more.

NiKr wrote: »

Imo making a full dungeon purely for 40-man raids would be a waste of space because 40-man raids should be rare

This is basically saying any existing, organized guild shouldn't consider Ashes.

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

The notion that people consider this to be content baffles me.

This should not be the standard by which Ashes dungeons are measured. They should far surpass this at a bare minimum.

If you are in a dungeon, you should be moving between bosses at all times. The only situation in which it is acceptable to consider base population as content is while solo. As soon as you are in even a small group, bosses and mini-bosses should be the only thing you are going after, with base population there simply as a time sink.

So yeah, we were in fact talking about different types of content.

Yes.

You are talking about filler for a PvP game, I am talking about PvE content.

akabear

On a few occasions, when the spawn occurred during low population times, warring clans dropped grievances in order to boulster numbers and invited war tagged players to the raids.. was quite odd having a tag over your head in amongst many, many enemies and remain untouched!

Ludullu

akabear wrote: »

I was thinking of Baium, the boss that was needed to visit to complete a class quest or something.
The reality of the 5 days +/- 1-8 hrs was it had to fall on a day off AND also spawn when my own clan was online! Correlating the three too 3 months!

Ah, that makes more sense.

Noaani wrote: »

In my experience, MMO players are significantly more apathetic than they used to be.

I would fully expect there to be one or two.spawn cycles with a turnout like you posted, and that is likely to end in a stalemate.

However, those people wont turn out in those numbers every spawn - people just dont care that much any more.

Which is why I think that 40-man raids should be a rarer thing. So that people would get hyped for the "big thing" happening, say, once a week or so.

Noaani wrote: »

This is basically saying any existing, organized guild shouldn't consider Ashes.

But how often to they gather though? Did people in EQ2 always play as a 40-man stack? And if yes, how long and how often did they play?

Noaani wrote: »

Yes.

You are talking about filler for a PvP game, I am talking about PvE content.

I mean, one doesn't really stand in the way of the other and imo only fills out the time of anyone who's not interested in the artisanal part of the game but still has time to play after or before the big boss fight.

You said that you think it should just be bosses on top of bosses on top of bosses, but that doesn't really work in an open world game. Well, unless there's hundreds of 40-man bosses with short respawns. And while I could maybe see Ashes getting up to that number after a while, I'm not sure if it would be feasible to make that many bosses for release.

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

But how often to they gather though? Did people in EQ2 always play as a 40-man stack? And if yes, how long and how often did they play?

In EQ2 the raid cap was 24.

We would be in 24 person raids for 12 to 20 hours per week taking on content.

If Ashes wants to attract PvE players, that is the expectation. If they want to make the raid cap 40 people, then they should be providing that amount of content for that size raid.

Or, you know, just make a PvP game.

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

In EQ2 the raid cap was 24.

We would be in 24 person raids for 12 to 20 hours per week taking on content.

If Ashes wants to attract PvE players, that is the expectation. If they want to make the raid cap 40 people, then they should be providing that amount of content for that size raid.

Or, you know, just make a PvP game.

Ah, so barely 2-3 hours a day. Was that hours of pure content from start to finish or does that include the time required to gather up the people and get to the boss locations? I'm assuming it's the former.

EQ was more about the pve side, so I think it'd be fair to have 1/2, or at least 1/3, of that time be spent on pvp. Depending on how Intrepid sets up respawn timers around dungeons, a well-coordinated 40-man raid should be able to wipe their enemies once, maybe twice, and start the pve fight. Dungeon (or boss room to be exact) design would have to account for that battle and give either mana regen or hp/mana regen once the "door closes" and before the fight itself, so that the group that stayed alive during the closing of the door would have a proper go at the boss.

If we're talking super hardcore bosses (which I'm sure you are), I'd personally prefer a mechanic that lets the other raid get to the boss immediately if the first raid wipes. Imo this would give the more pve-inclined people a chance to prove their superiority, so even if they lose the pvp for the first rights they still have a chance to fight the boss in case their enemies fail.

Have 10-15 raid bosses with weekly respawns and you'll have yourself around 2h a day of pvx content (which includes the pve content you'd deem good). Another hour would be required for travel, but with some good planning and good coordination, I think that can be cut down somewhat.

There'd also be a ton of bosses for smaller groups and general mobs (if varying difficulty) for prolonged grinding. Obviously the drops would have to be properly balanced across these all versions of pve content, and considering that it all can involve pvp in some way - it'd be PvXey.

There'd be all the other primetime and offtime activities that might let smaller guilds farm some stuff (or at least try), because the bigger guilds would see those activities as more important at the time.

Or, well, I'd see this as a good setup for day-to-day gameplay and an overall gameplay loop. I'd imagine you disagree with this though

Mag7spy

Honestly i expect some full dungeons meant for like 24 or 40 people.

akabear

One day I hope for a mmo with dungeons similar to what was planned for ever quest next.
The players dig the dungeons themselves, minecraftesque!.. Deeper you go, the hidden veins of trouble or fortune! One day!

wrms

Might be an unpopular opinion but I personally hope we see some "rare spawns" in addition to just timed boss mobs. I know they can be grindy and some people dont like it, but I always found it exhilarating when your rare mob finally popped and gave you a chance at that piece of loot you wanted. It also felt like you had a bit more agency in trying to get your item, since one dedicated group couldn't just lock down a timed mob by coming back every 12 hours or whatever and taking it again.

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

In EQ2 the raid cap was 24.

We would be in 24 person raids for 12 to 20 hours per week taking on content.

If Ashes wants to attract PvE players, that is the expectation. If they want to make the raid cap 40 people, then they should be providing that amount of content for that size raid.

Or, you know, just make a PvP game.

Ah, so barely 2-3 hours a day. Was that hours of pure content from start to finish or does that include the time required to gather up the people and get to the boss locations? I'm assuming it's the former.

The former.

As to a game like Ashes having half the content of a PvE game, doing that would again make Ashes a PvP game.

If the goal is to attract people that prefer PvE but are happy to accept some PvP, then the only thing you have to attract them to the game is PvE. If you have half the PvE of other games, why would they come here?

Having half the content means you are only going to attract those who mostly want PvP but would accept some PvE. If the bulk of your population is only willing to accept PvE, rather than it being a driving force for them, why even have it?

NiKr wrote: »

Have 10-15 raid bosses with weekly respawns and you'll have yourself around 2h a day of pvx content (which includes the pve content you'd deem good). Another hour would be required for travel, but with some good planning and good coordination, I think that can be cut down somewhat.

Let's work with this for a minute, and I'll say cool, that's my guild sorted.

With 50k players per server, is it Intrepids intention to only attract 50 PvE players per 50k total players? A total of 0.1%?

If they want more PvE players, where is their content?

This is the second function instancing provides that world instances do not. Making people PvP for all content makes your game PvP.

Abarat

Noaani wrote: »

If they want more PvE players, where is their content?

Given that none of us, not one single person here, has even played the game for a second... No one has seen the game, right?

Why are you so insistent there is not content? How do you know anything about what pve content there will be?

I can understand if you are concerned there wont be enough, but you somehow have convinced yourself (and are working really really hard to convince the rest of us) there IS NO PVE CONTENT.

Why?

Noaani

Abarat wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

If they want more PvE players, where is their content?

Given that none of us, not one single person here, has even played the game for a second... No one has seen the game, right?

Why are you so insistent there is not content? How do you know anything about what pve content there will be?

I can understand if you are concerned there wont be enough, but you somehow have convinced yourself (and are working really really hard to convince the rest of us) there IS NO PVE CONTENT.

Why?

I never said there wont be any PvE content.

I have said that what many people are calling PvE content (base population) is in fact just filler and not content at all.

However, I have also talked at length about the bosses in Ashes, which are PvE content (or - should be).

If I am trying to say there is no PvE content as you claim, how do you explain all the times I have talked about the PvE content Ashes will have?

My concern in the portion of the post that you quoted is in relation to there being ENOUGH PvE content, not there being no PvE content.

If the game has a half dozen or so raid boss mobs that are weekly spawns, that will keep my guild half way satisfied. However, it wont d anything at all for any other guild that wants to play Ashes and enjoys PvE as much as we do.

I know you'll say that we are supposed to fight over it, because you do t have an original thought at all in your head. The thing is, that then turns that PvE content that my guild was half way satisfied with in to PvP content, leaving both guilds looking for PvE content with none, but with some PvP.

This is why I have long stated that the way Ashes looks to be going, it is a PvP game, not a PvX game.

Depraved

/facepalm

Noaani

Depraved wrote: »

/facepalm

Since this piece of communication does not do a great job of conveying your thoughts, I'm going to make an assumption. If my assumption is wrong, feel free to disregard the post and perhaps then communicate a little better.

The assumption I am making is as follows -you think my above post is missing the point of PvX in that players should be fighting for content. To you, I would assume, that is the point.

To that I say (for the several dozenth time), that makes Ashes a PvP MMO, not a PvX one.

L2, Archeage, Albion, Tera, BDO et al are PvP MMO's.

Now, if Intrepid want that for Ashes, that's fine. I spent years playing Archeage, it was an ok game.

However, IF that is what Intrepid want for Ashes, they need to stop calling the game PvX and start calling it PvP.

If they want to call the game PvX, they need to do significantly better at providing players with PvE than the above PvP games do.

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

If they want more PvE players, where is their content?

I know you hate WoW as an example and I'd assume you don't value FF14 as a great example either, but, from what I understand, both of those games have millions of players of which only a small fraction actually participates in top lvl content (namely the hardest raids in the game). Everyone else just does their own small stuff, be it some mobs farming or questing or artisan stuff or RPing.

My example of 10-15 weekly bosses accounts for 5-6 full raids that fight for the right at the boss at the same time each day, especially if it's 14 bosses a week. Each continent has 1 top lvl top difficulty boss a day every day. Raids will most likely split between them, depending on their composition and knowledge of the boss. If the boss fight takes ~20-30 minutes (with pure wipe mechanics later on in the fight) and the pvp before the boss takes roughly the same amount of time, you'll have several hours of gameplay if the boss is as hard as you say EQ2 top ones were (meaning that after the initial pvp for the first rights, the guilds would pretty much just switch between each other until either one side beats the boss or quits for the day).

And that'll be happening on both continents every day between, potentially, several raids. But even if we keep it to the minimum and say that it's just 2 raids per continent. That's 160 people who literally have their hands full with hardcore content each and every day. Especially if bosses have some rng variety to them so that the ones who've beaten it already can't just do it on repeat w/o any issues.

And that's assuming that those raids don't have guildies that might have to help the raid win the first rights in pvp, so in theory it's even more than 160, but let's just keep it with the minimal numbers.

That would be the content for the best of the best on the server. Outside of that you'd have several bosses for smaller groups (ideally a few dozen), a ton of locations for singular groups (elite mobs or group mobs or small bosses), all the overworld locations for solo players and obviously all the artisan stuff.

All of that content would be either contested or just fully packed, depending on the mob population design and balancing Intrepid goes with. And this would be purely the content that's linked to the pve side of the game in any way - that being mobs and environment in artisans' case. On top of this there'd be caravans and any potential wars/sieges going on, so the more pvp-leaning players will be taken up by that content too (on top of the pvx content).

Imo that seems like enough content for everyone, with said content being exactly the thing that those players would want while also being pvx. And I feel like I might be forgetting something too, so that's maybe not even everything in the game.

Mag7spy

Only time i can agree with him is if you are like a PvE wow style player or such looking at AoC is going to be rough for Pve content. It isn't just the amount of bosses if you are wondering if they will be enough with the sheer amount of people are the server killing them. But also travel time around the word, and finding all the dungeons and bosses. It isn't going to be like those casual games for end game where you just run dungeons and are good (unless the dungeons in aoc take hours)

I can see why anyone would be curious on the PvE side though if that is their main draw to play the game and wanting enough content to keep them happy and challenged.

It is just one of those wait and see things though as you won't know until alpha 2 how the content density will be perhaps.

Child Item