instanced dungeons

i like the fact that the dungeons in ashes of creation are open world, however i think they should have a cap of players that can enter each dungeon, a good example is anarchy online, they had a player cap of about 16-24 players per dungeon before a new ID was formed, or a new Layer

the problem with open world dungeons is, on paper it sounds fun, you can pvp for the chance of loot, etc etc, but in reality it will be chaos, with servers holding anywhere between 10-20,000 players at a given time people will just skip dungeons all together as competing against 500 other players for a chance of loot is just not worth it,

once the game matures and there becomes twink items dropping from certain bosses in certain dungeons this will be even worse, and i feel that a large part of the game will be just un obtainable by a vast majority of players,

i dont think dungeons instance locked like wow to a 5 man team is the way to go but maybe they should have a player cap, whats everyones thoughts

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Ludullu

Chicago wrote: »

a large part of the game will be just un obtainable by a vast majority of players

That is kind of the point

3 parties per a dungeon that can support 20 parties is kinda silly. And considering Steven's preferences and likes, 20 parties would probably be on the lower end of dungeon size.

Also, the world is huge. Say there's 3 huge top lvl dungeons (30 groups) per each metro. That's enough content for 1/3 of the entire active server population w/o any pvp at max lvl. Add to that any smaller dungeons at top lvl and a few big dungeon that have a few rooms of top lvl content - and you have yourself ~1/2 of the entire active population farming stuff w/o any pvp. So in theory, the entire other half can go fight for their right to pvp w/o too much chaos.

Except those numbers would probably be insane because people don't just spend 100% of their in-game time in dungeons (well, majority doesn't).

Open world dungeons are not just about the boss at the end, they are about a constant flow of mobs. So unless Intrepid do in fact decide to go the WoW route of dungeons (as one of their dev discussions implied) - this will most likely not be that big of an issue. And as for bosses - they would've always been "not for everyone" and Steven wants them that way.

Chicago

NiKr wrote: »

Chicago wrote: »

a large part of the game will be just un obtainable by a vast majority of players

That is kind of the point

3 parties per a dungeon that can support 20 parties is kinda silly. And considering Steven's preferences and likes, 20 parties would probably be on the lower end of dungeon size.

Also, the world is huge. Say there's 3 huge top lvl dungeons (30 groups) per each metro. That's enough content for 1/3 of the entire active server population w/o any pvp at max lvl. Add to that any smaller dungeons at top lvl and a few big dungeon that have a few rooms of top lvl content - and you have yourself ~1/2 of the entire active population farming stuff w/o any pvp. So in theory, the entire other half can go fight for their right to pvp w/o too much chaos.

Except those numbers would probably be insane because people don't just spend 100% of their in-game time in dungeons (well, majority doesn't).

Open world dungeons are not just about the boss at the end, they are about a constant flow of mobs. So unless Intrepid do in fact decide to go the WoW route of dungeons (as one of their dev discussions implicated) - this will most likely not be that big of an issue. And as for bosses - they would've always been "not for everyone" and Steven wants them that way.

i guess we will have to see when we can test it in 2027 in A2

Talents

I was gonna actually make an argument but seeing as you got a detail about Ashes wrong almost as soon as you started talking about it (10-20,000 players at a given time) I won't bother. At least read the wiki before suggesting changes to the game.

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

Open world dungeons are not just about the boss at the end, they are about a constant flow of mobs.

Open world dungeons most certainly are about the boss at the end.

It is only Korean games that are designed to keep players in their internet Cafe that design dungeons are the constant flow of base population.

George_Black

Talents wrote: »

I was gonna actually make an argument but seeing as you got a detail about Ashes wrong almost as soon as you started talking about it (10-20,000 players at a given time) I won't bother. At least read the wiki before suggesting changes to the game.

Same..

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

Open world dungeons most certainly are about the boss at the end.

It is only Korean games that are designed to keep players in their internet Cafe that design dungeons are the constant flow of base population.

Yes, and we have a creative director who loved it that korean way (with his favorite dungeon being one from L2) and now a lead designer who pretty much created the design you're talking about. We'll see who wins out at the end.

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Open world dungeons most certainly are about the boss at the end.

It is only Korean games that are designed to keep players in their internet Cafe that design dungeons are the constant flow of base population.

Yes, and we have a creative director who loved it that korean way (with his favorite dungeon being one from L2) and now a lead designer who pretty much created the design you're talking about. We'll see who wins out at the end.

Someone that played one type of dungeon that then never got any use outside of trying to manipulate players in to playing longer, vs someone that created the type of dungeon that became the defaco due to being objectively better and more enjoyable.

I think we both know who should win.

The only reason I'd be looking at this is to get an idea of if Ashes is still just an MMO for Steven, or if he actually wants it to be a successful product. It's the most clear cut situation I can see where these two aspects are diametrically opposed.

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

I think we both know who should win.

I mean, I know who you want to win. But I'd prefer the L2 type of dungeons, because those are way more fun for me than "completable" corridors.

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I think we both know who should win.

I mean, I know who you want to win. But I'd prefer the L2 type of dungeons, because those are way more fun for me than "completable" corridors.

An open dungeon isn't "completable". Not until you have literally everything you want from it (including gold).

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

An open dungeon isn't "completable". Not until you have literally everything you want from it (including gold).

Then I feel like I might've misunderstood what you said in the original response.

If dungeons are all about the boss at the end, would it not mean that you've completed the run of that dungeon once you've killed the boss? And then the boss goes on respawn and you have no point in being in that dungeon any more, until the boss respawns? Is that not the case?

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

An open dungeon isn't "completable". Not until you have literally everything you want from it (including gold).

Then I feel like I might've misunderstood what you said in the original response.

If dungeons are all about the boss at the end, would it not mean that you've completed the run of that dungeon once you've killed the boss? And then the boss goes on respawn and you have no point in being in that dungeon any more, until the boss respawns? Is that not the case?

Dungeons don't have "a" boss.

My expectation is that any dungeon in Ashes will have around 15 actual bosses, and well over 100 smaller bosses.

"The boss at the end" is probably better described as "the boss at the end of the path we are on right now".

Even if there is only one boss in the dungeon, the other, smaller bosses should still be worth the time to go after.

The reason having so many singular points (in both time and space - due to respawn timers) of interest in a large, winding, criss-crossing dungeon is so that players in dungeons will always be on the move - around very large parts of the dungeon - if not the whole dungeon itself.

Depraved

Chicago wrote: »

i like the fact that the dungeons in ashes of creation are open world, however i think they should have a cap of players that can enter each dungeon, a good example is anarchy online, they had a player cap of about 16-24 players per dungeon before a new ID was formed, or a new Layer

the problem with open world dungeons is, on paper it sounds fun, you can pvp for the chance of loot, etc etc, but in reality it will be chaos, with servers holding anywhere between 10-20,000 players at a given time people will just skip dungeons all together as competing against 500 other players for a chance of loot is just not worth it,

once the game matures and there becomes twink items dropping from certain bosses in certain dungeons this will be even worse, and i feel that a large part of the game will be just un obtainable by a vast majority of players,

i dont think dungeons instance locked like wow to a 5 man team is the way to go but maybe they should have a player cap, whats everyones thoughts

you can have 10,000 players max online at the same time, and not all 10k will be trying to farmt he same dungeon 24/7 as there are more things to do. not everybody progresses at the same speed

Noaani wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

Open world dungeons are not just about the boss at the end, they are about a constant flow of mobs.

Open world dungeons most certainly are about the boss at the end.

It is only Korean games that are designed to keep players in their internet Cafe that design dungeons are the constant flow of base population.

no, they are not. again, lack of imagination. in oepn world dungeons you can:

do repeatable quests killing mobs.
do one time quests killing mobs.
do repeatable quests killing bosses.
do one time quests killing bosses.
level up killing mobs
kill mobs for loot.
kill bosses for loot.
pvp to do those things.

instead of going from the swamps, to the desert, to the forest out in the open, you just go from floor 1 to 2 to 3, etc.
it also helps spread the player population, since now, you can fill a vertical space, not just horizontal.

Korela

Surely, zerg side wouldn't just fill the cap. Guys, the "cap" method is abusable. And in terms of AoC it is even P2W. Forget about it.

Kilion

I think the underlying assumption for this to be true is that dungeons will be very scarce and/or people will refuse to distrubute themselves more throughout the world when met with too much competition to still have fun.

In the first case we will have to wait and see what happens in A2.
In the latter case, players deliberately choose PvP over PvE.

With that being said: I also think (as discussed previously in similar threats) that there is a point to be made for mechanics inside a dungeon to increase the hurdle of access for pursuing parties e.g. by using ancient mechanisms in temples to shut doors that were open before, break down barriers that hold back strong enemies or enable/repair traps that were previously disabled/turned off.
Ultimately I think that it would be "better" to design ingame mechanics that explain why someone cannot just follow another party into a dungeon, rather than setting up external barriers like player caps.

Dygz

NiKr wrote: »

Then I feel like I might've misunderstood what you said in the original response.

If dungeons are all about the boss at the end, would it not mean that you've completed the run of that dungeon once you've killed the boss? And then the boss goes on respawn and you have no point in being in that dungeon any more, until the boss respawns? Is that not the case?

Dungeons are not all about the boss at the end. Dungeons are about collecting the "loot" that allows you to outfit your group (including guilds) in the gear necessary to face the next level of challenge.

Which is why "compleatable" is in quotes.
Noaani is not talking just about completing on run of the dungeon.

In NWO, it was commonly expected that the group would stay together long enough to repeat a dungeon by killing the bosss at least 4 times in rapid succession.

Also, it's typically possible to farm the "trash" mobs that have respawned in the dungeon or near the dungeon while waiting for the boss to respawn.

Noaani

Dygz wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

Then I feel like I might've misunderstood what you said in the original response.

If dungeons are all about the boss at the end, would it not mean that you've completed the run of that dungeon once you've killed the boss? And then the boss goes on respawn and you have no point in being in that dungeon any more, until the boss respawns? Is that not the case?

Dungeons are not all about the boss at the end. Dungeons are about collecting the "loot" that allows you to outfit your group (including guilds) in the gear necessary to face the next level of challenge.

Which is why "compleatable" is in quotes.
Noaani is not talking just about completing on run of the dungeon.

In NWO, it was commonly expected that the group would stay together long enough to repeat a dungeon by killing the bosss at least 4 times in rapid succession.

Also, it's typically possible to farm the "trash" mobs that have respawned in the dungeon or near the dungeon while waiting for the boss to respawn.

I'm thinking more of a situation where a dungeon is large, and once you kill one boss in that dungeon your group then goes off after another boss.

It's a similar end result in that the group isn't just there to run a dungeon, kill a boss and then leave - you don't "complete" the dungeon just by killing the boss.

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

The reason having so many singular points (in both time and space - due to respawn timers) of interest in a large, winding, criss-crossing dungeon is so that players in dungeons will always be on the move - around very large parts of the dungeon - if not the whole dungeon itself.

Would those smaller bosses have respawn timers of just a few minutes? Cause from what you're describing I see more of a "we run around an empty dungeon for an hour in hopes of seeing a boss" kind of gameplay, rather than a "we farm a spot or two and spend our entire primetime engaged in combat".

If bosses do respawn really fast then we're pretty much talking about the same thing. You just want each room to be of a higher quality, and I can definitely agree with that.

Raven016

Chicago wrote: »

i like the fact that the dungeons in ashes of creation are open world, however i think they should have a cap of players that can enter each dungeon, a good example is anarchy online, they had a player cap of about 16-24 players per dungeon before a new ID was formed, or a new Layer

the problem with open world dungeons is, on paper it sounds fun, you can pvp for the chance of loot, etc etc, but in reality it will be chaos,

I think a low / medium level instanced dungeon on the entire map would be interesting.
High end dungeons, if they remain open world, chaos will not be high, especially if PvP does not trigger corruption. You will have to accept the order being enforced by the bigger and stronger guild.

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

"we farm a spot or two and spend our entire primetime engaged in combat".

Do you realize how insanely boring that sounds to most people?

Farming a spot, or location, is the worst gameplay I've seen in any game genre, honestly.

I wouldn't want to put a time on what the respawn rate should be, it is determined by things like character movement speed, distance between bosses, number of encounters between bosses, etc. Boss respawn timers are one of those things that Intrepid can set up as levers to achieve a desired result.

To me, that desired result is players being mobile in criss-crossing dungeons so that they encounter other groups (and often the same group) frequently.

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

Do you realize how insanely boring that sounds to most people?

Farming a spot, or location, is the worst gameplay I've seen in any game genre, honestly.

I wouldn't want to put a time on what the respawn rate should be, it is determined by things like character movement speed, distance between bosses, number of encounters between bosses, etc. Boss respawn timers are one of those things that Intrepid can set up as levers to achieve a desired result.

To me, that desired result is players being mobile in criss-crossing dungeons so that they encounter other groups (and often the same group) frequently.

See, this is my problem though. I see the "running around the entire place" content as boring as hell.

Open world dungeons imply that there'll be a party for each boss as soon as that boss respawns. So unless bosses have, like, a 5 minute respawn - people will just spend their primetime in the game running around. That sounds like the most boring shit to me. There'll be no pvp, because there'd be no content to pvp for. There'd be no pve, because every boss has already been taken out by someone. There'd be no other content, because value of the potential boss is so much higher than any other activity that you'd still have to run around in hopes of coming across a freshly respawned boss.

So please tell me that I'm wrong and that somehow there'll always be enough bosses to satisfy most parties in the game. And if you want bosses on a short respawn - just say so, because at that point we want the same thing.

I want dungeons with mobs because that's a permanent source of pvx content. At any time of the day I'll know for damn sure that I can go to a dungeon and either find a mob to kill or a person to fight for that mob. And the same would be true for other people. That's "pvx content" for me.

And then on top of that assured content there's always several bosses that would be respawning within the primetime window that my guild/party would want to get, so we'd go to their spawn locations several minutes before the earliest spawn time. But if we see that the location is filled with a ton of stronger people - we'll always have the mobs to fall back on. As I understand your preferred design, you'd just run towards a different boss' respawn point, correct?

Child Item