Supporting PvE Raiders in Ashes

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Hierarchical content access leads to 'matchmaking'. Exclusive content access leads to 'gatekeeping'. PvEMainly raiders have no incentive to play a PvX game built on gatekeeping.

How hard it would be for people to work together to accomplish their goals? If hardcore pvers who're not all that keen on pvping believe that they're able to beat a super difficult boss on fewer tries than a pvx (let alone pvp) group - why wouldn't they work together with a pvp group who'd provide those pvers with a chance to attempt the boss first?

You're almost there, no sarc, no insult.

Which PvP group should these theoretical PvEMainly Raiders who want a shot at the boss, work with?

NiKr wrote: »

It could be argued that Noaani's idea of post-pve caravans could balance it out, but to me it feels like it would instead just hold the pendulum on the pvp side, because now pvpers would have no benefit in working together with the pvers and they will instead just always attack them and rob them. At which point we come back to the "everyone leaves because hunters drive out the prey".

This is why that specific suggestion only has a portion of the rewards from the content require the caravan system.

And in the classic circular argument, if those pvers want to work with pvpers to get defense for their post-pve caravans - why can't they do that for pre-pve defense?

The reason is simple - I don't want to fight you for the right to play the game I am paying for.

This is what it comes down to - don't fuck with a PvE'ers access to content. If PvE'ers don't have access to content, they instead play a game in which they do. This isn't up for debate, and you do not get to use your definition of content when talking about other people.

This seems to be the biggset thing you aren't understanding.

Keep in mind, the idea of this discussion is to talk about what would get PvE players - specifically top end ones - interested in Ashes. Do you think any of your ideas would achieve that? Because it seems fairly obvious to me that they would guarantee that such players remain in other games.

Noaani wrote: »

Thing is, anyone that has played a game with this kind of content would know straight away that it is a random spawn mechanic - because that is what is needed to make this content work. You preseumably haven't seen such a system, and so thought the whole thing couldn't work because you couldn't work out a spawn timer that would work. I didn't bother mentioning it at the start because to me this is just an inherent aspect of this kind of content and doesn't actually warrent mentioning.

But not everyone has played those kinds of games, or maybe they simply use a different vernacular. This is why I keep trying to explain what I experienced in L2, so that people who haven't played L2 can better understand my position.

Of course I won't understand what you mean when you explicitly avoid explaining the basis of your position. Not everything is obvious to everyone, so it seems at least somewhat logical to help someone explain the thing they don't know, if you're trying to make them understand your point (especially when it's based on the thing that person doesn't understand).

And more on the point of "timer". I still don't understand what exactly does the word "timer" implies in this context. Or how does a respawn timer relates to random spawn mechanics. Is it "you can kill 10 mobs until the boss spawns or you can kill 1000 and it still won't"? Or is it "if the boss died at some point in the last hour and his respawn timer is an hour - it's pointless to kill any mobs until the timer is up, because the boss won't spawn"?

Noaani wrote: »

If it applies to all content of each type, then this is horrid game design.

Yes, which is why I said that if people can physically prevent someone from ever accessing smth - Intrepid should resolve that. PvPing someone to prevent them from access is not a physical prevention that can't be overcome. Get more people to kill the ones who're trying to stop you; use stealth to move past them; use defensive abilities to not die while you run past; etc etc.

As long as there's a way to overcome the blockade - imo it's not a horrid design.

Noaani wrote: »

With the content you are talking about (cages), I would expect a competent PvE guild to be able to kill it either first or second pull.

I don't see why you think this.

Noaani wrote: »

As a content type, this is not suitable for actual hard content, for reasons I mentioned a few posts above.

My expectation is about 10 wipes, at which point you would need to head back to a node with services of some form (repairing, if nothing else), and you can then head back down if you like.

I got these 2 sentences together, because I think they relate. You want to reattempt the boss immediately on the spot, which is why you think cages are not suitable.

Is that assumption incorrect? Because, as I said, I see no reason why a caged fight can't be as difficult as a n instanced one. Yes, it'll take longer for you to reattempt it, but is that your only point for why it's bad design?

Noaani wrote: »

Yeah, you shouldn't fight over them.

Fight over the drops, for sure. FIght because you don't like the other people even, if that is what you want. However, you shouldn't fight against other people for the right to play the game you are paying a subscription to play.

That is stupid.

And this is mostly the main reason why Mag keeps aggroing onto you. You want pure pve in a pvx game (I know you'll say that it's a pvp game if you gotta do pvp).

A person will pay for the game because they want to do both. Of course there's gonna be people who pay because they don't realize that they need to do both, but I blame that on poor research into their expenditures.

So far I haven't seen any indications that Steven's lying to pvers, telling them that they can enjoy the game to the fullest while completely avoiding pvp. If I missed/forgot an example - do point it out.

I definitely understand that you completely disagree with his position and think that it'll drastically change before the release, but we'll obviously only know whether it does or not on release. So far I don't really see why it would.

Of course Steven might be so absolutely stupid so as to not see the thing that's been pointed out by any WoW passerby on any social media, or by numerous forum posts/threads from you or several other posters who say that having an L2-like design in 2020s will kill the game.

If he is that stupid - well shit, aren't we even more stupid to have spent years of time investment into a game where he's the Creative Director.

Azherae wrote: »

Which PvP group should these theoretical PvEMainly Raiders who want a shot at the boss, work with?

With any group that wants a part of the drops for their job. Like I said, I know this is a naïve take, but I've experienced countless guilds working with other guilds towards a common goal. And those goals included both, defending your farm and fighting against those who've gathered together to defend their farm (which is kinda the same thing, but seen sideways).

Noaani wrote: »

This is why that specific suggestion only has a portion of the rewards from the content require the caravan system.

Did you mention that before? Cause if you did, I either missed it or forgot about it.

Noaani wrote: »

Keep in mind, the idea of this discussion is to talk about what would get PvE players - specifically top end ones - interested in Ashes. Do you think any of your ideas would achieve that? Because it seems fairly obvious to me that they would guarantee that such players remain in other games.

Yeah, I did kinda forget that this is the main goal of this thread with my response above

So, for Vaknar - there isn't a way, because you're not building a game like that. There's my main feedback for Intrepid

oh right, they can work with others to protect their farm, but that's apparently not a thing people do these days, so, yeah, nothing yall can do to help pvers.

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Which PvP group should these theoretical PvEMainly Raiders who want a shot at the boss, work with?

With any group that wants a part of the drops for their job. Like I said, I know this is a naïve take, but I've experienced countless guilds working with other guilds towards a common goal. And those goals included both, defending your farm and fighting against those who've gathered together to defend their farm (which is kinda the same thing, but seen sideways).

You maybe missed the point again.

What incentive does a PvEMainly Raider guild have, to ally with or care about anyone other than the strongest PvP guild?

If four guilds, two PvEMainly and 2 PvPMainly, want to fight a boss (the reason for the alliances between the PvE and PvP groups doesn't matter), only the PvEMainly group that is allied with the stronger PvPMainly group gets to fight the boss.

Why does the losing PvEMainly group do anything other than 'also try to Ally with the stronger PvPMainly group'?

Azherae wrote: »

Why does the losing PvEMainly group do anything other than 'also try to Ally with the stronger PvPMainly group'?

This comes down to that pvp group. If a boss can only be killed once per spawn, only one guild can ally with the pvp defenders. Of course there's possibility of backstabbing and betrayals and all that political goodness, but at that point why would that second pve group not try and ally themselves with someone who can stand up to the strongest pvp group?

This is what I was referencing when talking about my naivete when it comes to believing in people's desire to fight against strong opponents.

A different question then, NiKr, I'll keep it super short since there's no point if you give a certain answer to this.

Imagine a group of PvPMainly players who want to go into a dungeon to 'help prevent someone from fighting a boss'. (They don't know anything about the mechanics of this weird dungeon).

They reach the targets and try to flag up and get the message:
"You cannot flag for combat on this floor, you do not have the Title/Status 'Fourth Floor Challenger'." The targets get prepped, flag first, and beat them down, since they have the status required.

They go back, irritated, and find out that you get this Title/Status from beating a specific difficult boss on the third floor. This sounds good to them, since even if some group that has the '3rd Floor Challenger' status comes along, they're a great PvP group, they can handle it.

Then they find that they don't have the skills to beat the 3rd floor boss required to get the status that will let them initiate PvP on the 4th floor. Not only that, they barely have the skills to beat the 2nd floor boss required to make sure that they can initiate combat against PvEMainly people who come to steal that same 3rd floor boss and protect their farm.

You know the meme, right? Is this... "PvX"?

But more importantly, I would expect those PvPMainly players, if the game was set up like this a lot, to complain, stop, or 'try to get the strongest PvE players to help them get to PvP'. Imagine a game where this is the only PvP method. You can't flag without the 'status' for flagging in an area, and you must PvE for the status, while competing with PvE players that you can't always PvP.

That's the reflection.

NiKr wrote: »

Or how does a respawn timer relates to random spawn mechanics.

It doesn't.

In a respawn like this, there is no timer other than the reqular respawn timer of the base population.

When the mob in question respawns, there is a percentage chance that it may spawn as the boss for that room instead. No other variables involved.

This means the boss may not spawn for a week, or may spawn twice in a row.

As long as there's a way to overcome the blockade - imo it's not a horrid design.

And if there isn't?

Again, I have yet to play a game where this has not been possible. I see no reason to assume Ashes would be any different.

To most MMO developers, the entire point of open world content is so that players can block each other from it. This is actually great design - but ONLY when it is a portion of the content.

I don't see why you think this.

If it takes my guild 4 months of 100+ pulls three nights a week to get a world first kill, how long would it take to get that many pulls using this cage mechanic?

Developers tend to only develop reasonable content - or at least attempt to do so. They won't put something in the game that would take you years to kill - in an MMORPG that content should be obsolite by then anyway.

Thus, in order to make sure that an encounter that has a limited number of pulls available on it, and where those pulls need to be fought for, the encounter itself needs to be easier.

This is a factor with instanced content in Ashes as well - but I have long said that there is no hope of getting the actual top end of PvE in Ashes, and the 10 pull at a time comment from above would make all but the actual hardest content perfectly viable.

You want pure pve in a pvx game

Again, if PvP arenas exist, there is no argument in regards to Ashes being a PvX game that detracts from the existance of repeatable PvE instances.

You should note though, every actual suggestion I have made has been based on access to content being unfettered, but the rewards always having a PvP component associated with it.

No one here is asking to be able to fully avoid PvP any more than people wanting PvP arenas are asking to be able to avoid PvE. As long as arenas (and sieges) exist, this isn't a valid argument to make against PvE instances existing.

Saying that what I am asking for is pure PvE and so shouldn't exist in Ashes, but not saying the same about PvP arenas is pure hypocracy.

So, for Vaknar - there isn't a way, because you're not building a game like that.

No, the correct statement here should be that if you want to create a game like this, all the information is in this thread to be able to do so (or, more specifically, all the information is in the minds of the develoeprs you have on staff).

From there, there is no question as to whether you can (adding PvE instances with a portion of the reward then being subject to the caravan system 100% fits in with what Ashes is as a game). It is purely a case of whether Intrepid/Steven want to do it or not.

If the answer is that they do not want to do it, any comments that this game will appeal to people that accept PvP but prefer PvE is misleading.

Azherae wrote: »

You know the meme, right? Is this... "PvX"?

To me - yes. Because people at the top of it all would be the strongest pvxers, who managed to kill all the bosses and then defeat other competitors at the same lvl.

Hell, I'd fucking want that for Ashes. Another piece of feedback for Vaknar

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

You know the meme, right? Is this... "PvX"?

To me - yes. Because people at the top of it all would be the strongest pvxers, who managed to kill all the bosses and then defeat other competitors at the same lvl.

Hell, I'd fucking want that for Ashes. Another piece of feedback for Vaknar

Great, I knew you would. So here's the really important part to frame the rest of the conversation.

What is a reasonable respawn time for the 3rd Floor Boss that gives the '4th Floor Challenger' status?

Noaani wrote: »

And if there isn't?

Again, are we talking about a group of people that kill everyone on site or about a found mechanic that physically prevents anyone from passing through?

Like, if some guild got a shitton of alts/members to just stand around in one place in several layers of people, not moving for a certain amount of time, and the amount of those layers prevents anyone from pushing through - imo that's a bannable action. Just as hardcore harassment will be one. The "certain time" part should be explicitly stated by Intrepid and known to all players.

Also, this is still pushthroughable, because other people can bring their own alts and PK through the crowd.

Noaani wrote: »

If it takes my guild 4 months of 100+ pulls three nights a week to get a world first kill, how long would it take to get that many pulls using this cage mechanic?

Developers tend to only develop reasonable content - or at least attempt to do so. They won't put something in the game that would take you years to kill - in an MMORPG that content should be obsolite by then anyway.

Thus, in order to make sure that an encounter that has a limited number of pulls available on it, and where those pulls need to be fought for, the encounter itself needs to be easier.

So I supposed right and it is all about time. You already know my position on progression pace, so it's gonna be up to Intrepid to decide how they wanna approach this.

Noaani wrote: »

Again, if PvP arenas exist, there is no argument in regards to Ashes being a PvX game that detracts from the existance of repeatable PvE instances.

Arenas don't give gear. PvPers won't be able to progress in pvp w/o pve.

Of course there's the money option, but then they would need to ally themselves with pvers who farmed that money (or gear directly), so that they can use it to pvp better.

PvErs can do the same, by paying pvpers for protection.

But outside of that point, I quite literally said that I agree that Ashes should have instances and that they should have the hardest pve in the game. I disagree with the whole "10 wipes per entrance" thing, but I also like to grind games (took me 270h to finish Starfield cause I grinded lvls through a super mundane action), so, as always, it's gonna be up to Intrepid to choose how they wanna design this.

If they allow us to endlessly wipe in an instance until we win - better for me. But I'm completely fine with reentering after each wipe.

Azherae wrote: »

What is a reasonable respawn time for the 3rd Floor Boss that gives the '4th Floor Challenger' status?

If we assume highest value for said boss at its stage of player progress, I'd say it depends on the size of the killing group.

If it's a group boss - twice a week. If it's a raid-size encounter - once. I'd probably prefer if there was a lockout on its farm for anyone who already has the status, but I feel like that might be a bit too much for a lot of people.

That preference is probably hypocritical in the context of this boss dropping mats that are valuable even for people on the 4th floor, so ideally the boss would be an entirely separate thing that's just required to flag up on the upper floor, w/o any loot. And with that change I'd be totally fine if it was the hardest boss on its floor.

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

What is a reasonable respawn time for the 3rd Floor Boss that gives the '4th Floor Challenger' status?

If we assume highest value for said boss at its stage of player progress, I'd say it depends on the size of the killing group.

If it's a group boss - twice a week. If it's a raid-size encounter - once. I'd probably prefer if there was a lockout on its farm for anyone who already has the status, but I feel like that might be a bit too much for a lot of people.

That preference is probably hypocritical in the context of this boss dropping mats that are valuable even for people on the 4th floor, so ideally the boss would be an entirely separate thing that's just required to flag up on the upper floor, w/o any loot. And with that change I'd be totally fine if it was the hardest boss on its floor.

Thanks, that's good framing. This says 'I am ok with the idea that players who want to flag up on the 4th floor of this dungeon can only do so once a week'.

It also says "I am ok with players that don't manage to be the ones to kill the boss that week, being unable to PvP on floor 4 at all for that week'.

It also sorta blends into 'I am ok with some group of players killing the boss themselves to guard the status so that no one else can initiate PvP on floor 4 that week'. Though you didn't directly say this, it would almost certainly be what would happen.

The 'strongest guild' would do their best to lock down the 3rd floor 'Title Giver', and anyone who wanted to PvP on Floor 4 (idk, maybe they care about challenging the strongest guild who has set up camp down there) just can never experience 'PvP content' in that dungeon.

I believe that you'd not only accept, but encourage all of these outcomes, just as you accept the various 'PvE open world only' outcomes. I'm just rambling to maybe illustrate, just in case you've ever maybe met some PvPMainly players who would leave a game because of this setup, and could therefore parallel their reactions or 'expected responses'.

Just the 'Gatekeeping of Content' situation, from the other side.

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

And if there isn't?

Again, are we talking about a group of people that kill everyone on site or about a found mechanic that physically prevents anyone from passing through?

I'm not talking about physical blocks, I am talking about preventing players from accessing content.

There are many and varied ways of doing this.

In Archeage, for example, you were able to push players out of the way, but you weren't able to push vehicles. People used this one fact to grind the economy on some servers to a literal halt. In EQ2 there were specific points you could stand that would prevent bosses spawning.

I have no doubt Ashes won't have either of these two, but I also have no doubt it will have something.

So I supposed right and it is all about time. You already know my position on progression pace, so it's gonna be up to Intrepid to decide how they wanna approach this.

If you say to a PvE player that the expectation is that they will be attempting to kill this same mob a year from now, they will leave.

Hell, if you told them they would be successfully killing a mob for a year they would leave. No one wants a game experience that is this repeatitive.

Remember, as far as these people are concerned, you are trying to compete with other PvE games and their content. Hell, you are competing with non-MMO games, you are competing with watching TV, with going to see a movie or with going bowling. Ashes is wanting to be a form of entertainment - it should be entertaining.

Arenas don't give gear. PvPers won't be able to progress in pvp w/o pve.

This is not strictly true.

Arenas don't give arena points that can be used to buy gear. However, they count towards PvP seasons, and they reward gear - or gear based progression at least.

I disagree with the whole "10 wipes per entrance" thing, but I also like to grind games (took me 270h to finish Starfield cause I grinded lvls through a super mundane action)

I have spent 11 hours in Starfield.

I gave up because there are more enjoyable games I could spend my time on.

The rapid dropoff in concurrent and daily players that Steam reported suggests I am in the majority here - if a game isn't good, people will just play a different game. I assume I don't need to point out how much worse this is for a subscription game over a game like Starfield.

Quite honestly, the fact that you put so much time in to Starfield when so many other people were leaving with under 20 hours played should tell you that your opinions here are very much the minority.

Azherae wrote: »

It also sorta blends into 'I am ok with some group of players killing the boss themselves to guard the status so that no one else can initiate PvP on floor 4 that week'. Though you didn't directly say this, it would almost certainly be what would happen.

Speaking as someone that would do this - it is more likely that the block would happen on the second floor.

Assuming each floor is more valuable than the previous, if my guild wants to keep people away from the 4th floor, we aren't doing it by blocking the third. We are blocking as far away from the 4th floor as we can get.

Azherae wrote: »

I believe that you'd not only accept, but encourage all of these outcomes, just as you accept the various 'PvE open world only' outcomes. I'm just rambling to maybe illustrate, just in case you've ever maybe met some PvPMainly players who would leave a game because of this setup, and could therefore parallel their reactions or 'expected responses'.

I think all those assumptions kinda fall through because, unless I missed it even on rereading your og comment - I thought this status was permanent and not temporary. This is why I mentioned the lockout for anyone who has it already.

So my thought process was "as long as you manage to kill this boss once - you can pvp on the upper floor in the future". And at that point - yes, I'd be fine if guilds from higher floors tried to fight people at lower floors, because that would be exactly same as people from F3 coming up to F4 to try and farm stuff there.

Azherae wrote: »

Iust the 'Gatekeeping of Content' situation, from the other side.

I think I'm the gatekeepiest person on this forum. I want player funnels and I want everyone to git fucking good, if they want any semblance of a reward.

My L2 bias simply reinforces that position. Only the strongest and most resilient people deserve the spot at the top. Everyone else should be fine with farming stuff at a stage below their progress or find ways to fight upwards with what they have (be it skill or numbers, or alternative methods of power acquisition).

And, as this thinking applies to both pvers and pvpers - I wouldn't care if those pvpers complained that they have to pve in a pvx game. Cause, once again, I'm used to grinding mobs for weeks just to get a slightly better piece of gear, so that I have a slightly better chance of winning pvp. If that grind came in the form of fighting the same boss over and over again - that's fine, cause I'm used to doing that against dull mobs. Hard bosses are at least fun (or so yall pvers say

).

I've also thought a bit more about the lockout related to the flagging status and I change my mind. Fuck the lockout. People who've already fought the boss can go fight it again, cause it's gonna be up to those who want to kill it for the first time to prevent the upper floor dudes from doing so.

That thinking might've led me to a better understanding of what yall are talking about. I initially thought about the lockout because I thought it'd be unfair to the lower floor people if dudes from a floor above (who already have the knowledge about the fight) could clear the boss again, cause the chances of pve success of these groups are uneven due to difference in experience.

And I assume this is what pvers find unfair in the premise of "you gotta pvp to pve", right? The difference in experience of default pvpers who'd be fighting these newbie pvpers. But, as I said above, my position is "git good". Fight amongst each other, find training partner parties (if you're not in a guild), fight weaker pvpers, etc.

So I think I finally understand where the pvers are coming from, but, just as I would say to a pvper who complains that pve is difficult

Well, primarily I just wanted you to understand that first part, yes.

Because what follows on from that first part, is the thing I was talking about before with the exclusivity. There does come a point where no amount of 'working harder' will get you what you want, in a competitive game, if the thing you want isn't directly competition.

And even when the thing you want is competition, if your opponent has a way to prevent you from ever becoming competitive, there is a meaningful set of people with the skills or dedication to do that.

So, at that point, that's what 'gatekeeping' is. Those who bend the knee are rewarded (until the top consider them a threat) and those who refuse are stagnated. The difference is that you will press on basically forever, and other people won't.

If Ashes were to implement this, I have no doubt that not only would you try every week without fail, if you were in 7th place and never really got to do anything, but you would accept when guild members give up, leave, betray you for the chance to get stuff from the top guild, etc.

You'd just keep pushing on forever, rebuilding your guild as many times as it took until it was literally not possible any more, or until it was full of likeminded people.

You also apparently have 5x more time in StarField than the average person, though.

NiKr wrote: »

So I think I finally understand where the pvers are coming from

I don't think you do.

It is inherent in the nature of a top end raiding guild to always want to be improving and progressing. That is just a part of the deal.

As such, that really isn't an issue at all.

The issue, as I have said many times, is access to content. It isn't that I am not happy getting better at PvP in order to fight you, it is that I refuse to have to fight you in order to have access to the content that is the reason I play the game.

If we are to fight, it happens after the fact.

Noaani wrote: »

I have no doubt Ashes won't have either of these two, but I also have no doubt it will have something.

And it's gonna be on Intrepid to fix that shit

Noaani wrote: »

Remember, as far as these people are concerned, you are trying to compete with other PvE games and their content. Hell, you are competing with non-MMO games, you are competing with watching TV, with going to see a movie or with going bowling. Ashes is wanting to be a form of entertainment - it should be entertaining.

Which is why it's a pvx game. I know you consider pvp repeatable too, so this particular point might be moot for you, but L2's grind was still fun because pvp would happen during it.

Noaani wrote: »

Arenas don't give arena points that can be used to buy gear. However, they count towards PvP seasons, and they reward gear - or gear based progression at least.

But you gotta win to get points. And only people in gear (and usually better gear) will win points. Iirc there's been no talk about equalized arenas, so it's not like someone can just power through with sheer skill.

Noaani wrote: »

Quite honestly, the fact that you put so much time in to Starfield when so many other people were leaving with under 20 hours played should tell you that your opinions here are very much the minority.

I know full well that my opinion is in the minority and relates to niche interests. Which aligns perfectly with Steven's knowledge that his ideal game is niche.

My L2 examples are based on years of playing with people who're same as me, who grinded mobs while pvping and who then kept playing grindy games too. Of course there's not as many of us as someone like WoW players, but I'd imagine that there's only not that many hardcore pvers who'd leave the game if they don't get the amount/quality of content you desire.

If anything, we currently have the biggest example of "majority's quality standards" in the form of Palworld. Obviously the game itself is fun (or so I've heard), but killing mobs can be fun as well, as long as the combat itself is fun. BDO exists, and afaik that shit is GRIIIIIINDY. But it retains people through combat and a shitton of sunk cost (be it time or money). So if Ashes manages to have fun combat - I'd imagine quite a lot of people won't really care that they're killing the same mobs day in day out, because the process itself is fun.

Fuck, EVE exists, and that shit is a spreadsheet with time dilation. But people directly create their own fun through all kinds of means.

So, if anything, I feel like your super high standards for this stuff is the thing that's in the minority.