Off-topic Discussions from 'we have a new lead game designer bill trost'

This discussion was created from comments split from: We have a new Lead Game Designer: Bill Trost.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

KaelinTV wrote: »

Where did I ever stated it funded Aion's development on the NA side?, I stated Lineage 2's success in the west lead to an increase in staff at NCWest (Western subsidiary of NCSoft), which lead into Aion from a release perspective for the west, which further increased staff at NCWest. Which lends completely against the 5 figures of profit you pulled out of thin air for the western market profits of L2 yearly. NCSoft saw the NA market as a potential option for additional revenue...They would hardly invest their time and effort if it wasn't an option for a good source of income. They also skipped the idea of allowing a publisher take the reins and not invest heavily, but instead launched it themselves at additional cost under NCWest...To think they only made 5 figures of profit yearly for the west is quite a thing to say.

I'm still trying to parse this... I think you are perhaps not understanding NCSoft Wests role within NCSoft in general.

NCSoft West have zero released titles under their banner (though one in development).

Essentially - according to NCSoft West themself - they simply manage the NCSoft portfolio across the Americas, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. They are better described as Western publishers for NCSoft than anything else.

Aion was made in Korea.

This is why I am completely unsure why you are making any connection at all between an increase in staff at NCSoft West leading in to Aion. It just doesn't make sense as a thought to even have unless you think there is a connection there somewhere - but there just isn't one.

Just to be clear, the increase in staff at NCWest was due to an increase in the number of titles they were managing.

KaelinTV wrote: »

lol. This honestly made me laugh. Of course it wouldn't. The game is nothing but a shell of it's former self, once it went F2P the game was doomed

Except it is still the 20th most played game in Korea.

Literally all of the development for that game, all the decisions made for it, they were made for the Korean market since that is the target market for the game.

The fact that it is still the 20th most popular game there, and literally no one is willing to argue that it could even be in the top 1000 games here should illustrate to you my point about games needing to be different between the two markets - which is my point.

If you wish to argue that point, then explain how L2 is still in the top 20 games played in Korea (well, as of May last year), yet is nothing but a shell of it's former self here.

KaelinTV

Noaani wrote: »

I'm still trying to parse this... I think you are perhaps not understanding NCSoft Wests role within NCSoft in general.

NCSoft West have zero released titles under their banner (though one in development).

Essentially - according to NCSoft West themself - they simply manage the NCSoft portfolio across the Americas, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. They are better described as Western publishers for NCSoft than anything else.

When did I ever say NCWest developed a title? I literally never uttered those words whatsoever. If you are mistaking "Released" as developed, you are truly grasping for anything at this point. You are the only one misunderstanding NCSoft West's role...As they were made specifically to publish NCSoft's titles, as a subsidiary of NCSoft. Stop google searching for some random information in order to prove a point that has no merit or standing in the debate.

Aion was made in Korea.

Obviously, it's a Korean developed MMO, at NCSoft, in Korea...This was never questioned at all and I never stated otherwise. When I said stated "eventual release of Aion" under the topic of NCWesat...That does not mean they "DEVELOPED" it. I specifically used the world released, as the word clearly does not mean develop. NCWest, a subsidiary and wholly owned by NCSoft, acted as a publisher, releasing the game to the west.

This is why I am completely unsure why you are making any connection at all between an increase in staff at NCSoft West leading in to Aion. It just doesn't make sense as a thought to even have unless you think there is a connection there somewhere - but there just isn't one.

Just to be clear, the increase in staff at NCWest was due to an increase in the number of titles they were managing.

I don't know how much clearer I can be. Why would a company, such as NCSoft, open up a subsidiary in the west (NCSoft West), open an office, hire personnel, only to end up making 5 figures worth of profit yearly? They wouldn't, they would just hand the title over to a third party publisher.

Did they do that? No, they did not. They established NCSoft West as they saw potential in making larger sums of money. Lineage 2 increased steadily in player count over the first few years, which means profit. NCSoft looks at said profit, likes what they see, and invests more into NCWest, increasing server counts and hiring more GM's. They follow up on the investment with localizing Aion and bringing it to the west. Do you really think they would go through all this hassle if they were only making a meager 5 figure profit yearly as you previously stated? No...They would not, they would of just handed it off to a third party publisher. It's very simple...Point of the matter, don't randomly pull a 5 figure profit sum when you clearly have no idea what you were talking about and passing it off as fact, and try to defend it in a failing manner. Once again, no offense meant...But it's clear as day to see.

Except it is still the 20th most played game in Korea.

Literally all of the development for that game, all the decisions made for it, they were made for the Korean market since that is the target market for the game.

The fact that it is still the 20th most popular game there, and literally no one is willing to argue that it could even be in the top 1000 games here should illustrate to you my point about games needing to be different between the two markets - which is my point.

If you wish to argue that point, then explain how L2 is still in the top 20 games played in Korea (well, as of May last year), yet is nothing but a shell of it's former self here.

It's not hard to explain. The Korean market embraces P2W, as they do not see it as a big problem. Their entire culture of MMORPG gaming is built around it, ours is not. It is in the top 20 in Korea because the game play is appealing, and they do not have an issue with P2W. It is not in the top 1000 in the west, because it is so ridiculously p2w that no one in the west would touch it except for whales. Just as every Korean MMORPG that ends up coming to the west that has embraced P2W mechanics, don't have a very large player base. The western player base frowns upon P2W.

You can't just compare apples to apples when we have complete societal differences considering what is acceptable and what is not. Hence why cheating is not a problem in the Korean MMO landscape due to the nature of a social security number required to play, yet you paint a picture of a flawed game as the reason why people cheat in the west. Those are societal differences, the games were never adapted for our market, societal preferences, with proper enforcement of TOS and guidelines, something we never get for Eastern MMO's coming to the west...That doesn't mean players don't like what the games have to offer...It just means that the developer and publisher failed in their job.

Hence why Lost Ark for example, which is a relatively new title to the west, has a massive player base in Korea, but in the west, averages now around 40k concurrent players. Western players do not like P2W, period. They will quickly move away from such titles, as P2W discourages the western base from playing a game. We saw it happen with Archeage even though it had massive interest. Yet the shining example I keep pointing out to you...That we saw growth in Lineage 2 for a few years under a sub model, which has literally zero p2w, you disregard as being "not liked by western markets". You are looking at everything in black and white, have made up statements which are false, and speculated massively...and it is failing you.

Also, not trying to pour salt on the wound...But Lineage 2 was one of the most hardcore MMO's there could be for the western market, and it still grew in player base. Let that sink in. The Korean style can survive, it just has to be adapted to a western taste, with no p2w, with good intentions behind the developer....Which all ring true for intrepid.

Noaani

KaelinTV wrote: »

When did I ever say NCWest developed a title? I literally never uttered those words whatsoever. If you are mistaking "Released" as developed, you are truly grasping for anything at this point. You are the only one misunderstanding NCSoft West's role...As they were made specifically to publish NCSoft's titles, as a subsidiary of NCSoft. Stop google searching for some random information in order to prove a point that has no merit or standing in the debate.

As I said, I am still trying to work out what it actually is you were saying.

You said "Lineage 2's success in the west lead to an increase in staff at NCWest, which lead into Aion from a release perspective for the west".

There is no connection at all to be made here though - the connection you seem to have found is what I am trying to establish.

An increase in staff at NCSoft West wasn't ever due to how successful any game was. For the most part, a game that has10k players takes basically the same number of staff to perform NCSoft Wests function as it would take if that same game had 100k, or a million.

Increases in staff at NCsoft West happen when they have a new game on the horizon. Basically, the increase in staff at NCSoft West that you claim were because of L2's success and lead to Aion (see the above for where you said that) were actually simply new staff bought on because of Aion itself. They bought on new staff knowing that there was a new game around the corner.

Also, you said I am misunderstanding NCSoft Wests role - yet the role I specifically said they perform is that of a publisher (managing the portfolio of NCSofts games).

I have nothing but an understanding of that role - it is your statement again that an increase in staff at NCSoft West in any way lead to Aion that is the question at hand here.

I don't know how much clearer I can be. Why would a company, such as NCSoft, open up a subsidiary in the west (NCSoft West), open an office, hire personnel, only to end up making 5 figures worth of profit yearly?

So, I didn't say that. I said that is how much they made off L2.

There was no point in time where L2 was the sole title being managed. There was no point in time where L2 was the largest title NCSoft West managed. It was the largest title in Korea, but not in the west.

You can't just compare apples to apples when he have complete societal differences considering what is acceptable and what is not.

That... thats my point.

The difference is you seem to be claiming western audiences leave due to pay to win, I am pointing out that those audiences have always started dropping off before games move over to pay to win.

Garrtok

Kilion wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Trost coming on board is probably the best news anyone wanting Ashes to be more than just another pure PvP MMO like L2, Archeage, BDO or Albion could have hoped for (and yes, as far as MMO's go, those games are pure PvP).

Ashes in no way has shown signs of being purely PvP or being overly focused on PvP anyways, so that worry seems a bit unfounded to begin with in my opinion.

What I am optimistic about is that the final product that was New World will motivate him to be part of a better project without copy pasted towns, contradicting design choices and such. That paired with Steven being quite firm on how he wants the final game to work and the immense body of experience Trost brings should do for an improved development process.

That's simply not true, of course aoc is a very pvp focused game. For everyone who can not handle this, aoc is the wrong game

Mag7spy

@Noaani

The deeper you go the more corruption you gain from lingering in the area going up towards 1-5 levels making the tick increase grow as you go into more dangerous areas. Though upon entering from the entrance you gain a bubble that gives you a large buffer from actually being corrupted. As well you can only gain so much corruption from the area before you reach max stacks (to prevent max corruption gain) Once you reach the max, it lowers you maximum hp at a smaller amount and it will continue until you die.

Death to mobs or to corruption stack ticks make you drop all the items in your inventory and destroying it on the spot so it can not be reclaimed. If someone pks you though and takes the corruption hit the items are available to be picked up but each item take adds more corruption to your character

Upon adventuring in the area taking items also add corruption to your character drop wise you you are unable to take everything without also risk. But like the self protective bubble you get on entering there can be some drops the replenish those drops, as well as finding rare random spawn things throughout the dungeon that also replenish the buff by a certain percent.

So it becomes a very hard dungeon the deeper you go the better the loot but the higher chance you have of also losing what you gained from within it. If you make it to the deepest part of the dungeon you will be able to make it to the boss dealing with its mechanics and trying to ensure you keep your protective barrier up to not end up dying and losing everything.

Upon defeating the boss you simply need to escape back where you came from for whoever is left being a survivor and trying to not die to the corruption or the monsters that have respawned.

Generally the point of this being a high risk area means there is a high cooperative elements. Meaning random pvpers / griefers, etc won't really be able to impact your group and your content since they most likely wouldn't survive. It would have to be more of a set group that knows what they are doing to be able to challenge you reducing the amount of people that will actually pvp. While adding different challenges and mechanics for the content. Though this would only be one special type of area and not a standard.

Caww

I'm glad they have a strong PvE person to balance out the game play options

Kilion

Garrtok wrote: »

That's simply not true, of course aoc is a very pvp focused game. For everyone who can not handle this, aoc is the wrong game

There is a big or significant (whatever you want to call it) focus on PvP, with that I agree. But my point was about whether it is OVERLY focused on PvP - to it's own detriment. I think not to the degree to which we can actually can make such a statement without having played anything close to the current development.

I agree that if someone resents PvP this probably won't be the right game for them but, again, I don't see Ashes being too focused on PvP at all. I'd argue that the portion of PvP is a bit lower than 50% (but that is the topic of another thread currently on the front page)

Laetitian

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Well short form besides instanced content what would you want for more pve?

@Mag7spy

Instanced content is indeed one form of content that would satisfy the points I was making. However, if instanced content were added to Ashes for the sake of the content, as opposed to for the sake of the world/lore etc, then it would need to come with an increased PvP risk of some form.
[...]
One suggestion I have made in the past is that the better rewards for killing an instanced boss need to be transported from the location of the instance to the nearest metropolis (a metropolis nearby should be needed to unlock any raid content). Additionally, a world wide announcement of the kill would probably be in order - so as to alert everyone to the fact that you are running a caravan from that location to the metropolis. This should guarantee some PvP - and even better, it will have a totally different feel to it than just fighting over an encounter.

This isn't the only way additional PvP elements could be added to instanced PvE content, but it is one way. Additionally, instanced PvE content isn't the only way to guarantee access to content.

Another form of guaranteed content is forced spawn. Have a guild collect a given number of tokens of some form (it doesn't matter what, body parts, scroll fragments, it's all the same mechanically), and go to either a specific location, or any one of many locations and spawn an encounter. With this, the guild can control when (and potentially where) the encounter takes place.

Another way to guarantee content to people is to have so much open world content (due to both number of encounters and respawn time) that there is not going to be a shortage. I'm not advocating for this specific method, I am just stating that it exists as a method.

Wait, what? How did this answer never get discussed much further? Not trying to sound dramatic, this just really surprised me.
Someone asked you to clarify what you would want AoC to have more of in terms of PvE, and you went: "Bet. Here's 2 PvP things the game should have, and also 1 surface-level PvE thing they might add, though I wouldn't personally advocate for that one."
Huh?! =D

I agree with you on everything you suggested in that comment, but can you answer the actual question too please? =') Because that was a pretty essential question for this thread.

And I guess you'll say something similar to how the game is meant to be PvX, and therefore PvP opportunities can beget more interesting PvE, but still: It's you who's asking for more PvE to pull in PvE players, so should you not have ideas in mind that actually involve different/more PvE?

Noaani

Laetitian wrote: »

I agree with you on everything you suggested in that comment, but can you answer the actual question too please? =') Because that was a pretty essential question for this thread.

I gave the answer.

instanced content and caged encounters - with the proviso that they be accompanied with an increase in PvP in some manner.

Those two things - that you seemed to think were PvP additions - were additions to what we know of about the games PvE.

That is how little PvE this game has from what we know so far, and that is why I am arguing for more.

Laetitian

Noaani wrote: »

Laetitian wrote: »

I agree with you on everything you suggested in that comment, but can you answer the actual question too please? =') Because that was a pretty essential question for this thread.

Those two things - that you seemed to think were PvP additions - were additions to what we know of about the games PvE.

The addition of transporting rewards to a city and advertise the event for PvP contestation is...a PvP addition.

I agree that the forced encounter seems to be a PvE addition. I misread its connection to the other ones. In fact it almost seems to exist to deny PvP.
All your suggestions seem to centre around PvP becoming more opt-in. Defeats the PvX philosophy in my eyes, but we might be going in circles at this point.

Noaani

Laetitian wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Laetitian wrote: »

I agree with you on everything you suggested in that comment, but can you answer the actual question too please? =') Because that was a pretty essential question for this thread.

Those two things - that you seemed to think were PvP additions - were additions to what we know of about the games PvE.

The addition of transporting rewards to a city and advertise the event for PvP contestation is...a PvP addition.

The things I was suggesting to be added were the instanced content and cage fights. We know of nothing at all like this in the game as yet. So far, all "PvE" content in the game comes hand in hand with PvP during that PvE. There is some notion of story based instanced content, but that is not something we have any details on, other than the suggestion that it isnt repeatable.

The addition of the PvP elements was as a means of pointing that such things can (and should) be added to the game without reducing the over all PvP in the game. It was a into that you can separate out some of the PvE from PvP elements without diminishing the PvP element.

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Laetitian wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Laetitian wrote: »

I agree with you on everything you suggested in that comment, but can you answer the actual question too please? =') Because that was a pretty essential question for this thread.

Those two things - that you seemed to think were PvP additions - were additions to what we know of about the games PvE.

The addition of transporting rewards to a city and advertise the event for PvP contestation is...a PvP addition.

The things I was suggesting to be added were the instanced content and cage fights. We know of nothing at all like this in the game as yet. So far, all "PvE" content in the game comes hand in hand with PvP during that PvE. There is some notion of story based instanced content, but that is not something we have any details on, other than the suggestion that it isnt repeatable.

The addition of the PvP elements was as a means of pointing that such things can (and should) be added to the game without reducing the over all PvP in the game. It was a into that you can separate out some of the PvE from PvP elements without diminishing the PvP element.

So only way there is more pve content is if it is instanced based? So it isn't about the amount of pve content that can exist it is more about adding content where pvp can become impossible during fights.

Would you have any other ideas that add more PvE content without separating the two. Because to me I don't see them lacking pve content based on that.

Ludullu

Mag7spy wrote: »

So only way there is more pve content is if it is instanced based? So it isn't about the amount of pve content that can exist it is more about adding content where pvp can become impossible during fights.

Would you have any other ideas that add more PvE content without separating the two. Because to me I don't see them lacking pve content based on that.

The only way to have pve of higher quality is to prevent pvp from happening during the encounter. "More pve" can come in whatever form Intrepid can come up with, but better pve should be in a few instances (still keeping the 80/20 split) and definitely several "cage" encounters.

L2 worked just fine with cage design, so I'm sure Steven has at least considered that approach. Hell, the volcano dragon was pretty much that, except he didn't limit entrance when the fight started. But I'd assume that's just a few additional lines of code, so there's already base design that's related to cage encounters.

And as Noaani said, there can still be pvp in the overall encounter, but just not directly during the pve part. Variety is the spice of life, so having only "there's a mob that everyone can hit and pvp around" design would be dull.

Mag7spy

NiKr wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

So only way there is more pve content is if it is instanced based? So it isn't about the amount of pve content that can exist it is more about adding content where pvp can become impossible during fights.

Would you have any other ideas that add more PvE content without separating the two. Because to me I don't see them lacking pve content based on that.

The only way to have pve of higher quality is to prevent pvp from happening during the encounter. "More pve" can come in whatever form Intrepid can come up with, but better pve should be in a few instances (still keeping the 80/20 split) and definitely several "cage" encounters.

L2 worked just fine with cage design, so I'm sure Steven has at least considered that approach. Hell, the volcano dragon was pretty much that, except he didn't limit entrance when the fight started. But I'd assume that's just a few additional lines of code, so there's already base design that's related to cage encounters.

And as Noaani said, there can still be pvp in the overall encounter, but just not directly during the pve part. Variety is the spice of life, so having only "there's a mob that everyone can hit and pvp around" design would be dull.

Then it has nothing to do with more PvE and about removing the pvp part out of it.

Also I don't agree you can have great designs that resolve around contested content but that is not even the point I'm trying to make.

If i hear something lacks pve content than I'm hearing their is a lack of actual content to do in the world for people that doesn't come close to the demand. If the discussion is they want pve content where pvp doesn't happen that doesn't mean lacking pve content.

PvP happening at the end of the day doesn't mean pve content doesn't exist suddenly.

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

So only way there is more pve content is if it is instanced based?

To add to what NiKr said above, it is also about access to content.

A siege is PvP content for up to 1,000 players at a time.

If Intrepid add in an open world encounter to the game (including the caged fights mentioned above), and put a 3 day respawn timer on it (which is short), that is one encounter for 40 people once every three days. The thing is, e days later it is probably more PvE content for that same 40 people.

If Intrepid add another encounter that spawns on a different day than the above, that is more PvE content for that same group of 40 players.

The only way to make it so open world encounters are content for different people is to have many encounters spawn at the same time.

In order to achieve the same amount of player interaction as a single siege, Intrepid need to have 25 such encounters spawn at the same time.

Or they can have one instance with a three day lockout.

If the intention is to provide PvE content with the same amount of player participation as a siege, it really isnt a hard decision to make.

The key is in making sure any potential PvP opportunities removed due to the content being instanced are made up for. Instancing to separate PvP from the moment of PvE is done, but it is not acceptable (imo) to use instancing to remove PvP from the whole picture. That is why my suggestion requires the use of the caravan system in order to get the better rewards from the encounter, and goes as far as telling the server what it is you are doing. Assuming there are organized PvP oriented guilds on your server, you will probably find yourself having to PvP the entire way - significantly more PvP than if it was just an open world encounter.

I am making the assumption Ashes will still have open world bosses to fight over - there is no reason to assume otherwise.

What having instanced content like the above means is that there is more variety in PvE encounters, there is more variety in terms of types of PvP, there is more PvP potential in terms of amount of fighting, and there is a higher quality in terms of PvE, and there is PvE content for far more players.

Essentially, it is a win all around.

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

So only way there is more pve content is if it is instanced based?

To add to what NiKr said above, it is also about access to content.

A siege is PvP content for up to 1,000 players at a time.

If Intrepid add in an open world encounter to the game (including the caged fights mentioned above), and put a 3 day respawn timer on it (which is short), that is one encounter for 40 people once every three days. The thing is, e days later it is probably more PvE content for that same 40 people.

If Intrepid add another encounter that spawns on a different day than the above, that is more PvE content for that same group of 40 players.

The only way to make it so open world encounters are content for different people is to have many encounters spawn at the same time.

In order to achieve the same amount of player interaction as a single siege, Intrepid need to have 25 such encounters spawn at the same time.

Or they can have one instance with a three day lockout.

If the intention is to provide PvE content with the same amount of player participation as a siege, it really isnt a hard decision to make.

The key is in making sure any potential PvP opportunities removed due to the content being instanced are made up for. Instancing to separate PvP from the moment of PvE is done, but it is not acceptable (imo) to use instancing to remove PvP from the whole picture. That is why my suggestion requires the use of the caravan system in order to get the better rewards from the encounter, and goes as far as telling the server what it is you are doing. Assuming there are organized PvP oriented guilds on your server, you will probably find yourself having to PvP the entire way - significantly more PvP than if it was just an open world encounter.

I am making the assumption Ashes will still have open world bosses to fight over - there is no reason to assume otherwise.

What having instanced content like the above means is that there is more variety in PvE encounters, there is more variety in terms of types of PvP, there is more PvP potential in terms of amount of fighting, and there is a higher quality in terms of PvE, and there is PvE content for far more players.

Essentially, it is a win all around.

That is fair to think based off not having shards and such there could not be enough content access wise that can support all types of players on the server.

When i hear lack of pve content, for me it gives the idea it does not exist on the game. If it is access to content, honestly i have no clue how that will turn out until more of the game is seen, and we see the size of the world, amount of content with the player population and spawn times of the content.

Will be interesting to see how that is approached in having the variety of content and it being challenging as well. The main issue with pve why people are more in line with instanced is you just zerg everything. I don't know how they will stop full on zergs unless they are doing it as caged which you suggested. I think that is the best way to do it as well tbh. But there are unique ways to approach it that can be developed as well or atleast in ways to make it feel different and a bit more organic.

Ludullu

Mag7spy wrote: »

If i hear something lacks pve content than I'm hearing their is a lack of actual content to do in the world for people that doesn't come close to the demand. If the discussion is they want pve content where pvp doesn't happen that doesn't mean lacking pve content.

But, as Noaani said, that is the case currently. The strongest few guilds will control the majority of pve content (especially bosses), because they'll be able to push anyone else out of the encounter through pvp. At which point all the other guilds simply don't have the access to pve content.

I definitely hope that the world is huge and populated enough to provide everyone with enough mid-high quality pve, with the top quality stuff being limited to power checks.

I think the easiest way to do this is with party/raid quests and "cage" triggers. Maybe there's an npc you gotta bring to a location, at which point he triggers a fight in a "cage" and then you gotta bring that npc back, but he's now a target for other people and if they kill him - your reward's gone. Or you get a key for a room in an open dungeon, where the fight happens, and you then need to go deeper into the dungeon to get your loot, but your group is now perma-flagged until you get the loot or wipe.

In other words, you have assured pve content, but you still have high risk of losing the reward for it due to pvp.

Mag7spy

NiKr wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

If i hear something lacks pve content than I'm hearing their is a lack of actual content to do in the world for people that doesn't come close to the demand. If the discussion is they want pve content where pvp doesn't happen that doesn't mean lacking pve content.

But, as Noaani said, that is the case currently. The strongest few guilds will control the majority of pve content (especially bosses), because they'll be able to push anyone else out of the encounter through pvp. At which point all the other guilds simply don't have the access to pve content.

I definitely hope that the world is huge and populated enough to provide everyone with enough mid-high quality pve, with the top quality stuff being limited to power checks.

I think the easiest way to do this is with party/raid quests and "cage" triggers. Maybe there's an npc you gotta bring to a location, at which point he triggers a fight in a "cage" and then you gotta bring that npc back, but he's now a target for other people and if they kill him - your reward's gone. Or you get a key for a room in an open dungeon, where the fight happens, and you then need to go deeper into the dungeon to get your loot, but your group is now perma-flagged until you get the loot or wipe.

In other words, you have assured pve content, but you still have high risk of losing the reward for it due to pvp.

To be fair we don't know how the case will actually be there is way too much unknown to assume anything. Again my point of saying there is not enough pve content is not about who has access to it.

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

When i hear lack of pve content, for me it gives the idea it does not exist on the game. If it is access to content, honestly i have no clue how that will turn out until more of the game is seen, and we see the size of the world, amount of content with the player population and spawn times of the content.

Obviously we dont know how much PvE content the game will have, but we can fairly safely assume there wont be enough worthwhile content for everyone with what we know so far.

To me, there are 5 types of boss encounters Intrepid should be trying to put in the game.

There are open world bosses that spawn a battleground around them, disabling corruption. These by necessity need to he fairly basic in terms of mechanics, and should have a predictable spawn time, perhaps with serverwode announcements of that fact. With no corruption their spawn should attract a massive number of people. I consider this to be PvP content more than PvE content, and this is where the beet items in the game should come from.

The point of these encounters is just outright carnage- something for players to fight over en masse.

Next down you have dungeon bosses. Still open world, but corruption is a thing, and the respawn point should be at least an hours fighting away. The respawn here should be almost totally random, and the encounters can be a little more involved than the open world bosses - but not much more.

The point of this type of encounter is to give players something where the best option would often be to cooperate to get the kill - I'd like to see a mechanic for loot to be shared across multiple raids to facilitate this.

Then there are instanced bosses. These can be as intricate as the developers can manage in terms of mechanics. This is the only real opportunity a game like Ashes has to do actual good PvE, and if they want to attract players that prefer PvE but are willing to PvP from other games, this content is the only thing Intrepid can use to entice then away. The drops for this content should be based on how difficult the encounter is, ranging from entry level raid difficulty up to the second best items. The key to making this work in a game like Ashes, as I've said before, is making sure you add back the PvP element after the fact.

The point of this content is both access to content for players in general, as well as the only means of adding PvE challenge.

Then there are cage fights. These would probably only be fought over by the top guilds on the server, as you would need to be good at PvP to have a shot, and once inside the cage the encounters can be as intricate as instanced encounters. They would probably only spawn once a week. As such, it is viable for them to drop best in slot items, though I would perhaps want to see these encounters only drop best in slot for one or two equipment slots, with the rest on the open world encounter terms above.

The point of these fights is to be the pinnacle for guilds that both PvP and PvE, as top tier skill in both are needed.

Then the last type is forced summons. This is another type of thing that can easily have two tiers. The first tier is players running group content (open dungeons) to collect items. Once enough are collected, the guild brings them to the appropriate location (ideally well out of the way of other content) and spawns a mob. These can be about as involved as the dungeon bosses, but this first tier should be fairly easy. A second tier of this can be added where the summon items drop from raid dungeon mobs, and the resulting mob is tougher.

The point of this kind of content is as an introduction to raiding at the level cap, with the second tier being an introduction to higher end raiding.

To me, that gives a massive variety of both PvP and PvE content. There is also no reason the above cant be mirrored for single group content, though I wouldnt expect the same crowds for the first content type at a single group level.

sternzy

New World game design is a tough pill to swallow for anyone who played that game from it's beginning.
Hopefully Trost was somewhat of an outsider in the development of that game and can build from the epic failures of NW.
Also, bring back the resident bard. Love that guy.

Child Item