Jindoshi wrote: » I'm not sure how this topic turned into a pvp discussion, after reading all the comments above there is an easy solution to the pvp open world question, just do what Blizzard did make a war mode option. Those that want to pvp can turn on war mode and they can be attacked anywhere, those that don't want to be attacked can turn war mode off. That way everyone wins!
morphwastaken wrote: » PvX = infinite content. Endless combination of places, monsters, enemies and friends.
Depraved wrote: » what is a pvx game anyways?
George_Black wrote: » Depraved wrote: » what is a pvx game anyways? Ow pvp. No PvP only zones.
Veeshan wrote: » They can make deep PvE encounters tbh if they wanted, lets say there a dungeon with a raid boss in to enter the boss room you pass through a door when 40 players pass the door the door slams shut preventing anyone else entering the room to prevent zerging the boss (I would add a buff to the boss too if there more than 40 people in the room he gets stronger to stop groups trying to run 10 people though at once before door can shut) This way you can focus the pve boss fight agaist a certain number of players, However the door that shuts people in can be destroyed destroying this door will allow other raid groups to contest the boss by killing the group on him however (boss will get expotentially stonger due to buff to stop friendly player destroying the gate and zerging boss) I would make this a one way door too so people inside can exit to engage the other group before thge gate goes down if everyone leave the room boss resets.
Depraved wrote: » make the boss spawn every day... or every few hours (depending on the rewards) or make the events that trigger the bosses to happen more often. or make enough open world bosses that one guild cant take them all at the same time etc etc etc etc
Dygz wrote: » Depraved wrote: » what is a pvx game anyways? Better to ask for a list of PvX MMORPGs.
Noaani wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » They can make deep PvE encounters tbh if they wanted, lets say there a dungeon with a raid boss in to enter the boss room you pass through a door when 40 players pass the door the door slams shut preventing anyone else entering the room to prevent zerging the boss (I would add a buff to the boss too if there more than 40 people in the room he gets stronger to stop groups trying to run 10 people though at once before door can shut) This way you can focus the pve boss fight agaist a certain number of players, However the door that shuts people in can be destroyed destroying this door will allow other raid groups to contest the boss by killing the group on him however (boss will get expotentially stonger due to buff to stop friendly player destroying the gate and zerging boss) I would make this a one way door too so people inside can exit to engage the other group before thge gate goes down if everyone leave the room boss resets. They could, but there is one major issue with this. If you are going to have that level of deep, intricate curated content, you need to build up to it. You can't just go from trash tier to god tier. In order for there to be that build up, there needs to be an entire raid progression. A raid progression is a lot of work from the developers. If raid bosses are open world, that means only one guild is getting the kill per week. It also means only one guild is working on that progression at a time, since open world. This means developers would find themselves spending more time on raid content than all players combined spend on raid content. It is normal for developers to spend more time on raid content than any one guild would spend on that content, but with instancing, you have many guilds running that content on each server rather than just one guild. Instancing increases the bandwidth of players on a given piece of content. This is what makes encounters that take so much time viable from a business perspective. This is why instanced content exists - it allows more people to be working on progression, it allows more people to experience the work and effort developers put in. A proper raid progression like players today understand it isn't viable without instancing. Deep PvE encounters aren't viable without raid progression. Thus, deep PvE encounters aren't viable without instancing.
Veeshan wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » They can make deep PvE encounters tbh if they wanted, lets say there a dungeon with a raid boss in to enter the boss room you pass through a door when 40 players pass the door the door slams shut preventing anyone else entering the room to prevent zerging the boss (I would add a buff to the boss too if there more than 40 people in the room he gets stronger to stop groups trying to run 10 people though at once before door can shut) This way you can focus the pve boss fight agaist a certain number of players, However the door that shuts people in can be destroyed destroying this door will allow other raid groups to contest the boss by killing the group on him however (boss will get expotentially stonger due to buff to stop friendly player destroying the gate and zerging boss) I would make this a one way door too so people inside can exit to engage the other group before thge gate goes down if everyone leave the room boss resets. They could, but there is one major issue with this. If you are going to have that level of deep, intricate curated content, you need to build up to it. You can't just go from trash tier to god tier. In order for there to be that build up, there needs to be an entire raid progression. A raid progression is a lot of work from the developers. If raid bosses are open world, that means only one guild is getting the kill per week. It also means only one guild is working on that progression at a time, since open world. This means developers would find themselves spending more time on raid content than all players combined spend on raid content. It is normal for developers to spend more time on raid content than any one guild would spend on that content, but with instancing, you have many guilds running that content on each server rather than just one guild. Instancing increases the bandwidth of players on a given piece of content. This is what makes encounters that take so much time viable from a business perspective. This is why instanced content exists - it allows more people to be working on progression, it allows more people to experience the work and effort developers put in. A proper raid progression like players today understand it isn't viable without instancing. Deep PvE encounters aren't viable without raid progression. Thus, deep PvE encounters aren't viable without instancing. I would do this to end bosses in the OW dungeons so the very last boss in a dungeon is a difficult challenge to overcome so there wouldnt be to many of them and killing them could effect the world or dungeon for some way. They should be memorable when they are defeated.
morphwastaken wrote: » I have not played any besides Lineage2. I've heard 1-2 others being mentioned, but i don't remember the names. Don't think there are any that came out in the past 10 years.
Noaani wrote: » Considering L2 to be a PvX game as opposed to a PvP game is like considering FFXIV to be a PvX game rather than a PvE game.
Ashes of Creation is a PvX game. Players will naturally encounter both PvP and PvE elements. It is unlikely that a player could purely focus on just PvP or just PvE. Around 80% of the content is open-world, where healthy competition is an instigator for player friction; for potential cooperation; for the ability to yield alliances; and the political theater that comes with it. This is an intended part of the PvX game design.
morphwastaken wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Considering L2 to be a PvX game as opposed to a PvP game is like considering FFXIV to be a PvX game rather than a PvE game. You have shown endless times that you have no clue what PvX game is. Why do you think your opinion on L2 matters to anyone? From AoC wiki: Ashes of Creation is a PvX game. Players will naturally encounter both PvP and PvE elements. It is unlikely that a player could purely focus on just PvP or just PvE. Around 80% of the content is open-world, where healthy competition is an instigator for player friction; for potential cooperation; for the ability to yield alliances; and the political theater that comes with it. This is an intended part of the PvX game design.
Noaani wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Depraved wrote: » what is a pvx game anyways? Better to ask for a list of PvX MMORPGs. Here is my list of PvX MMORPG's, both released and in development; That is all.The thing is, since there isn't an actual definition of PvX, no one can say I'm wrong - they can just disagree subjectively.
Noaani wrote: » morphwastaken wrote: » Noaani wrote: » You say this as if a game that doesn't have enough content for its players is a good thing. PvX = infinite content. Endless combination of places, monsters, enemies and friends. I mean, this isn't true. This is what people that feel the need to essentially romanticize PvP say. It isn't how PvX games play out in practice.
morphwastaken wrote: » Noaani wrote: » You say this as if a game that doesn't have enough content for its players is a good thing. PvX = infinite content. Endless combination of places, monsters, enemies and friends.
Noaani wrote: » You say this as if a game that doesn't have enough content for its players is a good thing.
Dygz wrote: » morphwastaken wrote: » PvX = infinite content. Endless combination of places, monsters, enemies and friends. PvX = endless combat There. I fixed it for you.
