Noaani wrote: » JamesSunderland wrote: » Noaani wrote: » JamesSunderland wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Was this not the case in the AA Library? Sadly AA Ayanad library had no PvP(on Trion NA/EU servers)(RU OFF had pvp tho) for it to be properly applied to the PvX context even tho they were far from being useless to farm, not a lot of bosses there(around ~9) but they had reasonably fast ~4 hour spawns, both monsters and bosses were even easier than L2 ones, so i don't think it can be considered "your ideal dungeon"... L2-like open world dungeons sadly wasn't really a thing in AA(closest thing was possibly Arcadian Sea Sunken Ruins). Yeah, the NA/EU version of library didn't have PvP, but it really didn't matter. One of the private servers I played on well after I left the Trion version of the game had PvP enabled in the library, and it was just as shit of a zone to be in. The best description I have of the zone (PvP or no) is that it is basically just the 3D manifestation of the notion of "meh". Other than it's rather unique outside view and it's "creative"(not really) layout, i have little to no praises for AA's Ayanad library(even with PvP, without PvP it's a complete joke), its system design flaws were too big to be ignored, like it lagging the hell up when holding not a very high number of players inside of it and such number not being even near enough to create spot/room scarcity for conflict, very little to none drop variation/uniqueness between the monsters(again no scarcity for conflict), worthless mini bosses(not even decently rewarding or challenging to compete for), completely static respawns timers, location and types of monsters of each room, It's main quest was not terrible, i guess. "meh" almost looks like a compliment for it in my eyes tbh. The performance of the zone seems (from my perspective) to be mostly a NA/EU and Korea problem. My understanding is that the RU version didn't have the issue, I know the Chinese version didn't (don't know about the Japanese version), and the private servers I played on didn't seem to have it either. I was a part of a 120-ish player fight in the zone - but it was still shit.
JamesSunderland wrote: » Noaani wrote: » JamesSunderland wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Was this not the case in the AA Library? Sadly AA Ayanad library had no PvP(on Trion NA/EU servers)(RU OFF had pvp tho) for it to be properly applied to the PvX context even tho they were far from being useless to farm, not a lot of bosses there(around ~9) but they had reasonably fast ~4 hour spawns, both monsters and bosses were even easier than L2 ones, so i don't think it can be considered "your ideal dungeon"... L2-like open world dungeons sadly wasn't really a thing in AA(closest thing was possibly Arcadian Sea Sunken Ruins). Yeah, the NA/EU version of library didn't have PvP, but it really didn't matter. One of the private servers I played on well after I left the Trion version of the game had PvP enabled in the library, and it was just as shit of a zone to be in. The best description I have of the zone (PvP or no) is that it is basically just the 3D manifestation of the notion of "meh". Other than it's rather unique outside view and it's "creative"(not really) layout, i have little to no praises for AA's Ayanad library(even with PvP, without PvP it's a complete joke), its system design flaws were too big to be ignored, like it lagging the hell up when holding not a very high number of players inside of it and such number not being even near enough to create spot/room scarcity for conflict, very little to none drop variation/uniqueness between the monsters(again no scarcity for conflict), worthless mini bosses(not even decently rewarding or challenging to compete for), completely static respawns timers, location and types of monsters of each room, It's main quest was not terrible, i guess. "meh" almost looks like a compliment for it in my eyes tbh.
Noaani wrote: » JamesSunderland wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Was this not the case in the AA Library? Sadly AA Ayanad library had no PvP(on Trion NA/EU servers)(RU OFF had pvp tho) for it to be properly applied to the PvX context even tho they were far from being useless to farm, not a lot of bosses there(around ~9) but they had reasonably fast ~4 hour spawns, both monsters and bosses were even easier than L2 ones, so i don't think it can be considered "your ideal dungeon"... L2-like open world dungeons sadly wasn't really a thing in AA(closest thing was possibly Arcadian Sea Sunken Ruins). Yeah, the NA/EU version of library didn't have PvP, but it really didn't matter. One of the private servers I played on well after I left the Trion version of the game had PvP enabled in the library, and it was just as shit of a zone to be in. The best description I have of the zone (PvP or no) is that it is basically just the 3D manifestation of the notion of "meh".
JamesSunderland wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Was this not the case in the AA Library? Sadly AA Ayanad library had no PvP(on Trion NA/EU servers)(RU OFF had pvp tho) for it to be properly applied to the PvX context even tho they were far from being useless to farm, not a lot of bosses there(around ~9) but they had reasonably fast ~4 hour spawns, both monsters and bosses were even easier than L2 ones, so i don't think it can be considered "your ideal dungeon"... L2-like open world dungeons sadly wasn't really a thing in AA(closest thing was possibly Arcadian Sea Sunken Ruins).
NiKr wrote: » Was this not the case in the AA Library?
daveywavey wrote: » From what I've gathered, the idea is that they want the dungeon loot to be contested. Player caps would reduce that. As far as boss respawns go, there will be groups that want to hold their position, and there will be groups that want to roam around. This itself will create contested space, and will encourage PvP while waiting on the respawns. Hopefully the respawns will be such that the boss drops aren't too plentiful.
Dygz wrote: » Depraved wrote: » I like combat, and I want to roleplay as the savior of the continent, and for that reason, I like slaying mobs. how dare you tell me that's not roleplaying? I'm going to roleplay as the witcher and kill all those monsters and you cant tell me I'm not roleplaying. shame on you. Except... I didn't say you couldn't be "RPing" while farming mobs. You can do that much RP in an FPS or a Survival game or an Adventure game - you can RP that much in a Sports game if you want to. Probably even in a Fighter or Flight Sim.
Depraved wrote: » I like combat, and I want to roleplay as the savior of the continent, and for that reason, I like slaying mobs. how dare you tell me that's not roleplaying? I'm going to roleplay as the witcher and kill all those monsters and you cant tell me I'm not roleplaying. shame on you.
Noaani wrote: » Depraved wrote: » unless you are willing to say that running around for several hours talking to npc's and maybe killing 5 mobs per hour is more fun. at this point, you aren't even playing your character anymore. Who said anything about talking to NPC's? You've made some assumptions in here, my dude. I'm not talking about quests at all - honestly them existing or not in a dungeon like what I am talking about is a totally different discussion. Also, I am talking about 5 bosses per hour, not 5 mobs, as I said above, the number of mobs (base population) is a function of how mobile the developers want players to be. That is in contrast to your grand total of zero bosses per hour in (most) static spot/location farming situations.
Depraved wrote: » unless you are willing to say that running around for several hours talking to npc's and maybe killing 5 mobs per hour is more fun. at this point, you aren't even playing your character anymore.
Chicago wrote: » daveywavey wrote: » From what I've gathered, the idea is that they want the dungeon loot to be contested. Player caps would reduce that. As far as boss respawns go, there will be groups that want to hold their position, and there will be groups that want to roam around. This itself will create contested space, and will encourage PvP while waiting on the respawns. Hopefully the respawns will be such that the boss drops aren't too plentiful. Unless they make them corruption free zones i dont know how many people will pvp in dungeons because once you are corrupted you are just a target for the 50 other groups
Noaani wrote: » The second is that if these dungeons are the size they should be, it would take an hour or more to get back to where you are from the respawn point. Killing a group gives you a better, cleaner shot at what ever bosses are around you for the next hour or so. They should be able to clear out 5 or 6 of those rooms an hour. That's ok though, there are literally 94 or 95 other rooms. By the time that group has cleared out their 5 or 6 in an hour, the first of those rooms has respawned.
NiKr wrote: » Noaani wrote: » The second is that if these dungeons are the size they should be, it would take an hour or more to get back to where you are from the respawn point. Killing a group gives you a better, cleaner shot at what ever bosses are around you for the next hour or so. They should be able to clear out 5 or 6 of those rooms an hour. That's ok though, there are literally 94 or 95 other rooms. By the time that group has cleared out their 5 or 6 in an hour, the first of those rooms has respawned. I'm assuming you're talking with EQ2's design in mind, so I got a question. How many parties were usually present in each of its dungeons?
Depraved wrote: » true but there is a difference. in a fighter or a shooter, my character doesnt develop and progress. in a mmorpg, when i kill mobs, my character becomes stronger and i can directly control how that strength increases. i can also get gear and control how to further increase my character strength. and allt these is the very core of an rpg, not just "acting"
Depraved wrote: » you said staying in one zone killing mobs is boring.
Dygz wrote: » Depraved wrote: » true but there is a difference. in a fighter or a shooter, my character doesnt develop and progress. in a mmorpg, when i kill mobs, my character becomes stronger and i can directly control how that strength increases. i can also get gear and control how to further increase my character strength. and allt these is the very core of an rpg, not just "acting" Typically, by the time people are farming dungeons, they are max level already. And, characters can also get stronger in shooters by gathering gear. Same in Fighters.
Farming mobs is typically rare in RPGs. Farming became a thing in MMORPGs because gamers kept racing through new content faster than the devs could implement new content. Questing is a core of RPGs - not Farming.
Depraved wrote: » not at all. this depends on how you design the game. there are games where you start farming dungeons at low levels, and you do these dungeons everyday as part of your progression until you hit max level.
Depraved wrote: » no no and no. you have a very biased notion on what is an rpg or how an rpg should be or must be. what makes an rpg an rpg is the ability to control the progression of your character (stats, skills or both) or the ability to act and pretend you are your character and the effects it has in the game.
Depraved wrote: » questing, farming, turn based combat, dice rolls, action combat, etc are just obstacles in progression or extra elements of what already is the core of an rpg, which is the 2 things that i mentioned above.
Noaani wrote: » At the start of an expansion, it wasn't unusual for there to be 12 groups in a given dungeon (for some of the larger ones). Any more than that and the game would spawn a second version of the same dungeon. As expansions went on, shared dungeons would be less full due to instanced content being harder than open content, but there would always be a few groups in any that were relevant at the level cap, and usually groups in the better lower tier dungeons during prime time.
Noaani wrote: » That said, I wouldn't take dungeons directly from EQ2 and port them to Ashes. I would design them with longer passages and add in a few additional groups of base pop. This would extend the time between bosses, make it more likely that groups would happen upon each other while in transit between bosses. I am very much thinking of this as a dungeon for actual PvX - what I would consider PvX. The PvP happening in a dungeon like this (and it will happen, just not against every group you come across) is as key as the PvE - but the PvE needs to be able to stand up as being top quality for group content in regards to MMO's as a whole. The PvE needs to be as good as what players would expect from an EQ open dungeon, but there needs to be provisions for PvP that EQ doesn't need to make - as I am sure you know, I consider PvE compatible in quality to Ashes contemporaries to be key to its success as a PvX game.
Noaani wrote: » This is why just having a dungeon with spots to grind wouldn't work. That simply won't hold up as PvE content by itself. It would only appeal to the few people that just want a grind, and not really anyone else. Whereas the above should still appeal to those wanting a grind, but will also appeal to those wanting PvE (as long as they are willing to do some PvP for it), and also those wanting some group based PvP. Edit to add; if Intrepid want to see payers fighting over specific camps, all they need to do is either concentrate bosses more in some areas, have a few bosses with notably better loot, or add in some quests. This kind of thing is probably best spread around different dungeons though, with some open world dungeons being better suited to camping a series of rooms while others are best being in full roaming mode. The spread of mini boss mobs is all it takes to change from one dungeon feel to the other.
NiKr wrote: » TL;DR How filled were the EQ2's dungeons?
Depraved wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Depraved wrote: » true but there is a difference. in a fighter or a shooter, my character doesnt develop and progress. in a mmorpg, when i kill mobs, my character becomes stronger and i can directly control how that strength increases. i can also get gear and control how to further increase my character strength. and allt these is the very core of an rpg, not just "acting" Typically, by the time people are farming dungeons, they are max level already. And, characters can also get stronger in shooters by gathering gear. Same in Fighters. not at all. this depends on how you design the game. there are games where you start farming dungeons at low levels, and you do these dungeons everyday as part of your progression until you hit max level. Farming mobs is typically rare in RPGs. Farming became a thing in MMORPGs because gamers kept racing through new content faster than the devs could implement new content. Questing is a core of RPGs - not Farming. no no and no. you have a very biased notion on what is an rpg or how an rpg should be or must be. what makes an rpg an rpg is the ability to control the progression of your character (stats, skills or both) or the ability to act and pretend you are your character and the effects it has in the game. questing, farming, turn based combat, dice rolls, action combat, etc are just obstacles in progression or extra elements of what already is the core of an rpg, which is the 2 things that i mentioned above.
Fantmx wrote: » In vanilla EQ2 they were very filled. I am with you here. EQ and EQ2 models were to camp and farm in one or more places along all levels, not just max. It was a primary source of experience, coin, items and player interaction. Both EQ and EQ2 had large difficult dungeons for players under level 10 even.
NiKr wrote: » I still don't think it would play out the way you want it to, but w/o testing we wouldn't know either way. dungeons and mobs/bosses in the best way possible to achieve that goal
Ravicus wrote: » not sure if there will be a seperation from pvp/pve gear in this game
NiKr wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » In vanilla EQ2 they were very filled. I am with you here. EQ and EQ2 models were to camp and farm in one or more places along all levels, not just max. It was a primary source of experience, coin, items and player interaction. Both EQ and EQ2 had large difficult dungeons for players under level 10 even. Ohh, differing experiences within EQ2
Ravicus wrote: » I would not have instanced dungeons at all. If it is PvX then there needs to be pvp, at least in the open world. If the dungeon drops pvp type gear (not sure if there will be a seperation from pvp/pve gear in this game) then it needs to be able to be fought over. The whole foundation of the game is open world, why give safe space in dungeons?
