Supporting PvE Raiders in Ashes

For starters, this isn't the main focus of AoC. This is a PvX game and I want the open world to stay relevant, becoming the main character. What I'm suggesting below is only something sprinkled in. Only a portion of the 20% instanced content. It will take development time, but is not the core of the game like some others.

I've seen quotes that suggest this may be on their mind. I've also seen some more recent counterarguments. This is just something I want to express that I'd like to see in the game. If this is old news, great. If not, please consider it.

Background:

I main ESO right now. The end-game raids in these games are a ton of fun to me. The harder difficulties, then achievement hunting, it feels very rewarding to complete them. 12 of my friends work together for months to optimize our group and perfect the mechanics. I hear WoW raids are legendary. Many others like Final Fantasy, etc.

The common thing here is an instanced PvE arena. For the instancing part, Steven has said himself that this instancing allows for more advanced mechanics. I believe that as well. The PvE part is more complicated though. I would like to see ideas to mix in PvP. I can think of some interesting ones but nothing concrete atm. The main concern I want to eliminate is mechanics being "dumbed down" because of the threat of PvP. I know in the raids we do, one goofball could run in the middle of everything and kill everyone. That's the nature of having those advanced mechanics.

Content Suggestion:

- Put the final boss at the end of an open-world dungeon in an instanced arena.
- Look at making 3+ of these boss arenas for release.
- Have the number available to the server based on node setup.
- Fight lengths will be long (10-15+ mins), have multiple stages/waves and possibly separate rooms to change up the arena.
- Content needs to take time to learn and complete. Nothing you can walk into and master in a couple of days.
- Look to current games that are focused on PvE Raiding.
- Only allow one party in the instance at a time. It's not required from a PvP aspect, see paragraph above, I do think it could help eliminate people zerging your fine-tuned mechanics.
- Consider allowing only one instance at a time. This has a lot of implications. Especially around watching the door for PvE and PvP. Just something to consider.
- Consider reduced death penalties in this "event". I'm not positive about this, but I tend to think tough content will require wiping and plenty of it.
- Include achievements like speed, no-death and other fun unique ones.

Reward Suggestion:

- Do not drop exclusive materials, but valuable ones.
- Small chance to drop a unique gear recipe (that can be sold).
- Small chance to drop a low-quality version of that gear.
- Very small chance to drop skins/cosmetic items.
- Miniscule chance to drop a flying mount.
- Performance metrics drive drop rates.
- Completing achievements awards small cosmetics or titles.

It is important to remember that your group will have to fight through an open-world dungeon to get there and to bring the loot home.

Thank you for reading.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Azherae

I don't think they're a dying breed at all personally, but I come from that sort of background too.

The topic however, is about PvE Raiders, moreso than PvX Raiders, so I just wanted to do what I could to help you understand why 'PvE Raiders' might not have much stamina for this game.

And, to help you understand the imbalance somewhat. If the lockout was a thing, I would consider it 'equal PvX', if they also made sure Arenas had no rewards or only rewarded with bits of progression, like instances (maybe for your Social Org, but people would cheese it if it wasn't something that players explicitly needed to compete over).

Similarly, if more instances become a thing (probably BCNM style, where you just occasionally get to unlock an instance of your choice after enough time doing open world things) there are forms in which I'd consider that 'equal' PvX.

And I wouldn't expect PvPMains to play for long, or PvEMains to play for long.

But I will also say that if you wanted to ease either group into it, then 'Hierarchical Content' and making sure they have nothing like the 'Lockout Title', would be best.

I can hope, but I'm not expecting it. TL doesn't require you to do anything to fight Guild Bosses, you just have a weekly limit. Not much related flows there.

I'd take BCNM/KSNM in Ashes anytime, even if it took twice as long as it generally takes in FFXI to gather enough Seals to get access to an instance that no one can keep you (and your chosen comrades) out of. Note, I mean this as 'I think this is a good support system for PvEMain players'. I don't personally care about it, as I don't think I can define myself as PvPMain or PvEMain.

Other people define that for me by being stronger than I am, in games, because those are the types of game I play. When the strong say 'you are not allowed to play this part of the game', I play the other. When both halves are cut off, I eventually probably play something else.

Dygz

Everyone who says Ashes is a PvP MMORPG or a PvP-centric MMORPG will continue to do so - regardless of what Steven claims.
Similar to how everyone who says there are only 8 Classes will continue to say there are only 8 Classes despite Steven calling them Primary Archetypes and that, for Ashes, Class refers to the combo of Primary Archetype and Secondary Archetype.

The label is mostly irrelevant.
It's semantics. And the people who say that Ashes is a PvP MMORPG are going to ignore the PvX label.
(Rightfully so. It's the equivalent of playing on a PvP or PvP-Optional server in an MMORPG that has separate PvP and PvE-Only servers.)

Liniker

Noaani wrote: »

There is something of a contradiction here.

No, I'm OK with arenas in general, both PvP and PvE, even tho I prefer open-world content, no contradiction there, as long as they don't reward you with gear/tokens/mats they do not interfere with the design or make the game worse. I personally use PvP arenas to practice, test things, and be ready for the "real" PvP which is OW.

Noaani wrote: »

You say they should have PvP arenas but not PvE ones (instanced PvE encounters) because PvP arenas are easier to implement.

I simply said I want the game to follow the original Scope, that's it, PvP arenas were in, PvE arenas weren't, and since both are not core features I don't want them to add a non-core feature to a game that was supposed to launch before 2020, besides those that were originally promised.

If they do add PVE arenas in the future, post-launch, I'd be ok with that. I know theres people that would like some form of repeatable instanced PvE content, as I said boss arenas or tower with multiple difficulty levels would be fine (post-launch) as long as it follows the same reward rules as PvP arenas.

Mag7spy

NiKr wrote: »

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.

I get that wit the pvping as you are pveing and it being enjoying and exciting. People looking for pure pve won't understand that.

The PvE has always been bad in those types of games though, basic and not challenging. It is one of the reasons I'm looking forward to AoC because the idea of actual good pve being in-game with work put into it. From basic mobs, to bosses to raiding of course.

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

This is why I keep saying that it's up to them to ultimately decide what they'll do.

Of course it is.

Again, that is why I have been pointing out what is needed to get more PvE oriented players to look at this game - it isnt gir Intrepids benefit or anything. It is so people wanting things like "access to content" know that if this is not in the game, it is simply because Steven doesn't want them playing his game.

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

This is why I keep saying that it's up to them to ultimately decide what they'll do.

Of course it is.

Again, that is why I have been pointing out what is needed to get more PvE oriented players to look at this game - it isnt gir Intrepids benefit or anything. It is so people wanting things like "access to content" know that if this is not in the game, it is simply because Steven doesn't want them playing his game.

As usual this is my issue, disingenuous and manipulative take in order to try to use others to push what he personally wants.

A game being designed in a certain way isn't someone say you don't want them playing your game. You are literarily trying to use this as a disingenuous point to try to paint someone in a bad light to stroke flames.

Using this same argument palworld doesn't have pvp so pvpers aren't interested in the game, Devil may cry is a action adventure game so developers don't want roleplayers playing their game. Its a point that makes 0 sense besides to throw passive aggressive comments.

There is no quote out there saying for people not to play the game, that doesn't mean things aren't going to be designed a certain way based on the type of game. Not everyone enjoys everything but it doesn't mean dev's are saying don't play my game.

You are taking your personal issue and projecting.

oOKingOo

I think the concern with PvE players is that PvP becomes too important to the point where PvP alliances can gatekeep certain dungeons. While it should definitely be possible to gatekeep a dungeon from your enemy guild for a while for strategic reasons, I definitely agree it shouldn't be to the point where it really damages the PvE player's experience if abused.

The good thing about it is it ties together PvE and PvP players because if a dungeon is being kept by a guild, you can ask another PvP guild to help you beat it in return for some of the loot from the dungeon. I think this creates nice and immersive interactions between the player base.

To combat griefers, you could double or triple the death penalties for red players inside the dungeon. Alternatively, make a red player's gear drop inside a dungeon when killed. This way, griefing is possible, but you're going to be the prime target for every PvP guild in the area.

oOKingOo

Chonkers wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Liniker wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

In other words, you want your PvE to be determined by PvP.

That's what AoC is, if you are looking for instanced PvE content theres other games for that, the so called 20% should and most likely will be reserved to non repeatable narrative dungeons and that's it

I mean, thatis the point I was making.

If you want a game where you can PvP, Ashes may have you sorted, as far as MMO's gl. If you want a game where you can PvE and PvE, all good. If you want to just be able to PvE by itself though, people like you will post comments like this above and tell you that you just arent allowed to do that in this game.

And then no doubt you'll wonder why people refer to this game as a PvP MMO, not a PvX MMO.

In other words if you want PvE (like 80%+ of the MMO population do) this isnt a game worth looking at.

If you want just PvP this mmo is not for u either.
Therefore PvX

I think it's going to be fun for players who want to PvP, for players who want to do PvE, for players who want to gather and craft, for players who want to trade, and for players who just want to explore the lore and story. I'm a PvP player myself, and I don't see myself sitting in a corner in some dungeon waiting for PvE players to grief. I'm going to try to help PvE players, gatherers, crafters, and traders because that's what's going to help me get the materials and gear I need to be the most effective in PvP, and I think that's how most PvP players and guilds are going to approach it.

If you make the different player groups dependent on each other, then I don't see any big problems with griefing because if you do, you fall behind. If you fall behind and nobody likes you, it's not going to be fun. Sure, there are going to be griefers locally in some less inhabited places, but I think that's actually kind of cool, like real bandits. However, the places where the big dungeons are will be high-level nodes with many inhabitants that are going to keep griefers away.

Mag7spy

oOLu_BuOo wrote: »

I think the concern with PvE players is that PvP becomes too important to the point where PvP alliances can gatekeep certain dungeons. While it should definitely be possible to gatekeep a dungeon from your enemy guild for a while for strategic reasons, I definitely agree it shouldn't be to the point where it really damages the PvE player's experience if abused.

The good thing about it is it ties together PvE and PvP players because if a dungeon is being kept by a guild, you can ask another PvP guild to help you beat it in return for some of the loot from the dungeon. I think this creates nice and immersive interactions between the player base.

To combat griefers, you could double or triple the death penalties for red players inside the dungeon. Alternatively, make a red player's gear drop inside a dungeon when killed. This way, griefing is possible, but you're going to be the prime target for every PvP guild in the area.

When you are red it doesn't matter where you are there is a chance to drop gear. Though the idea of this being 100% in a dungeon would be very strange if that is what you are indicating (which doesn't really match what AoC is going for in pve safe havens).

I have not seen indicating that you will be able top stop people just from pvping to the point it fully gatekeeps the content. We don't really knw the rule lets on OWpvp with node / guild decs. Which would be great questions that would help us better understand what extent player interaction can have.

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

Using this same argument palworld doesn't have pvp so pvpers aren't interested in the game, l

Did the developers ever say PvP players would be interested in it?

No, no they didn't.

Steven has said that while PvP isn't avoidable in Ashes, people wanting good PvE will find it in Ashes.

If this is the case, then what I have talked about is what is expected.

If what I have talked about above isn't in the game, Steven shouldn't tell people wanting good PvE that Ashes will have it.

This isn't disingenuous or manipulative, it is simply stating the basic framework that is needed for good PvE to exist from the perspective of someone that is primarily PvE focused, and following that with the logical statement that without that framework, Ashes won't have good PvE.

Manipulative behavior would be someone that knows they are not PvE focused attempting to influence that discussion.

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Using this same argument palworld doesn't have pvp so pvpers aren't interested in the game, l

Did the developers ever say PvP players would be interested in it?

No, no they didn't.

Steven has said that while PvP isn't avoidable in Ashes, people wanting good PvE will find it in Ashes.

If this is the case, then what I have talked about is what is expected.

If what I have talked about above isn't in the game, Steven shouldn't tell people wanting good PvE that Ashes will have it.

This isn't disingenuous or manipulative, it is simply stating the basic framework that is needed for good PvE to exist from the perspective of someone that is primarily PvE focused, and following that with the logical statement that without that framework, Ashes won't have good PvE.

Manipulative behavior would be someone that knows they are not PvE focused attempting to influence that discussion.

Your judgement for what is "good pve" and general players judgement is not the same thing. You are trying to make an argument of not good pve based around one element being end game raiding with access to content. There you are missing the alternative systems in place that still provide engaging and enjoyable PvE experiences for players.

You can not make a generalized statement about the entirely of PvE in AoC off one element. Not to mention that is how you view it without knowing how things will actually work in the game leading to to no instance = bad pve.

This makes 0 sense since your argument should only be boiling down to fear of "not enough content". As the level, fun, difficulty of the PvE we have yet to see which is a separate argument. Not enough content stretches out not just to be based on the amount of players int he world doing content, but the effect of PvP and conflict to get towards things and amount it happens.

You making a point about refusing to pvp people to get towards content shows you are clearly missing the mark of AoC being a PvX game. While also taking it to the extreme as if you will have to be fighting non stop.

Making the statement you will find good PvE is perfectly justified within the realm that you are playing a PvX game and the element of conflict that will bring. I have not seen a quote saying you can do all big bosses without being contested for good loot within dungeons be it getting towards it, or within the dungeon. Which that challenge does not mean the PvE is bad.

To judge the quality of the content we need to see it and compare it.

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Using this same argument palworld doesn't have pvp so pvpers aren't interested in the game, l

Did the developers ever say PvP players would be interested in it?

No, no they didn't.

Steven has said that while PvP isn't avoidable in Ashes, people wanting good PvE will find it in Ashes.

If this is the case, then what I have talked about is what is expected.

If what I have talked about above isn't in the game, Steven shouldn't tell people wanting good PvE that Ashes will have it.

This isn't disingenuous or manipulative, it is simply stating the basic framework that is needed for good PvE to exist from the perspective of someone that is primarily PvE focused, and following that with the logical statement that without that framework, Ashes won't have good PvE.

Manipulative behavior would be someone that knows they are not PvE focused attempting to influence that discussion.

Your judgement for what is "good pve" and general players judgement is not the same thing.

My judgement is off...

The core of what I am saying here is that people that play MMO's primarily for PvE will not play a game that doesn't provide them access to PvE.

Is that a statement you agree with, or disagree with?

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Using this same argument palworld doesn't have pvp so pvpers aren't interested in the game, l

Did the developers ever say PvP players would be interested in it?

No, no they didn't.

Steven has said that while PvP isn't avoidable in Ashes, people wanting good PvE will find it in Ashes.

If this is the case, then what I have talked about is what is expected.

If what I have talked about above isn't in the game, Steven shouldn't tell people wanting good PvE that Ashes will have it.

This isn't disingenuous or manipulative, it is simply stating the basic framework that is needed for good PvE to exist from the perspective of someone that is primarily PvE focused, and following that with the logical statement that without that framework, Ashes won't have good PvE.

Manipulative behavior would be someone that knows they are not PvE focused attempting to influence that discussion.

Your judgement for what is "good pve" and general players judgement is not the same thing.

My judgement is off...

The core of what I am saying here is that people that play MMO's primarily for PvE will not play a game that doesn't provide them access to PvE.

Is that a statement you agree with, or disagree with?

First thing so we are moving away from good / bad and your main complaint is the amount of content players have access to not being enough as I said before those are two different issues.

Until we see and play the game I can't judge the level amount of content in AoC for PvE players * the amount of conflict they will encounter.

I also feel there is no indication they will want a lack of content in the game with extreme scarcity that won't provide enough PvE access for players to enjoy and risk them getting bored. There should be plenty of content for PvE players to enjoy, search and find in all elements of the game.

If by chance there isn't enough content I'd imagine the devs would adjust things to ensure it is more bountiful with whatever solutions they feel are needed including server shards, increased rates at which things spawn, limiting daily reward caps, etc.

Noooow

If you are talking about PvE only focused players that hate pvp and don't want to do it that is a whole other topic in itself. And frankly has nothing to do with "bad" pve. Not really going to get into all that here but though they talk about friction there is no indication they are going for extreme pvp and have systems in place to protect people and limit it.

There are plenty of solution and rule sets you can add in place based on the pvp systems in the game to have things lean any direction (pvp or pve)

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

First thing so we are moving away from good / bad and your main complaint is the amount of content players have access to not being enough as I said before those are two different issues.

This thread has primarily been about access to content, not about quality of content.

I agree with you that these are different things, but it doesn't matter how good the content is if people don't have reasonable access to it.

Thus, this thread has been mostly about access to content.

Noooow

If you are talking about PvE only focused players that hate pvp and don't want to do it that is a whole other topic in itself.

The only time I ever talk about such players on these forums is to state that Ashes is not the game for them.

Every time I talk about PvE players - as I pointed out earlier in this thread - it is players that accept and enjoy PvP, but prefer PvE.

And so my point stands, if someone prefers PvE, and the game doesn't offer them access to PvE, then Ashes isn't the game for them.

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

First thing so we are moving away from good / bad and your main complaint is the amount of content players have access to not being enough as I said before those are two different issues.

This thread has primarily been about access to content, not about quality of content.

I agree with you that these are different things, but it doesn't matter how good the content is if people don't have reasonable access to it.

Thus, this thread has been mostly about access to content.

Noooow

If you are talking about PvE only focused players that hate pvp and don't want to do it that is a whole other topic in itself.

The only time I ever talk about such players on these forums is to state that Ashes is not the game for them.

Every time I talk about PvE players - as I pointed out earlier in this thread - it is players that accept and enjoy PvP, but prefer PvE.

And so my point stands, if someone prefers PvE, and the game doesn't offer them access to PvE, then Ashes isn't the game for them.

Everyone has access to content, and there should be plenty of content. But with it being one server and im unsure the level of amount of content I can see why there might be some challenges / concerns. But it is development and things they can adjust / test.

If the pve is good and fun that is a main challenge they won't have to worry about. If both are a issue than it is a much bigger task.

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

First thing so we are moving away from good / bad and your main complaint is the amount of content players have access to not being enough as I said before those are two different issues.

This thread has primarily been about access to content, not about quality of content.

I agree with you that these are different things, but it doesn't matter how good the content is if people don't have reasonable access to it.

Thus, this thread has been mostly about access to content.

Noooow

If you are talking about PvE only focused players that hate pvp and don't want to do it that is a whole other topic in itself.

The only time I ever talk about such players on these forums is to state that Ashes is not the game for them.

Every time I talk about PvE players - as I pointed out earlier in this thread - it is players that accept and enjoy PvP, but prefer PvE.

And so my point stands, if someone prefers PvE, and the game doesn't offer them access to PvE, then Ashes isn't the game for them.

Everyone has access to content, and there should be plenty of content. But with it being one server and im unsure the level of amount of content I can see why there might be some challenges / concerns. But it is development and things they can adjust / test.

If the pve is good and fun that is a main challenge they won't have to worry about. If both are a issue than it is a much bigger task.

No, with everything we know of the game to date, access to content is indeed an issue in Ashes.

Open world games can not provide enough content for 10k players in a way where access to content isn't going to be an issue.

Keep in mind, to the people we are talking about in this thread, being able to fight in order to gain access to content is not in itself access to content. It may be to you, and that's great - but it isn't to the people we are talking about here.

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

First thing so we are moving away from good / bad and your main complaint is the amount of content players have access to not being enough as I said before those are two different issues.

This thread has primarily been about access to content, not about quality of content.

I agree with you that these are different things, but it doesn't matter how good the content is if people don't have reasonable access to it.

Thus, this thread has been mostly about access to content.

Noooow

If you are talking about PvE only focused players that hate pvp and don't want to do it that is a whole other topic in itself.

The only time I ever talk about such players on these forums is to state that Ashes is not the game for them.

Every time I talk about PvE players - as I pointed out earlier in this thread - it is players that accept and enjoy PvP, but prefer PvE.

And so my point stands, if someone prefers PvE, and the game doesn't offer them access to PvE, then Ashes isn't the game for them.

Everyone has access to content, and there should be plenty of content. But with it being one server and im unsure the level of amount of content I can see why there might be some challenges / concerns. But it is development and things they can adjust / test.

If the pve is good and fun that is a main challenge they won't have to worry about. If both are a issue than it is a much bigger task.

No, with everything we know of the game to date, access to content is indeed an issue in Ashes.

Open world games can not provide enough content for 10k players in a way where access to content isn't going to be an issue.

Keep in mind, to the people we are talking about in this thread, being able to fight in order to gain access to content is not in itself access to content. It may be to you, and that's great - but it isn't to the people we are talking about here.

I get the 10k thing and that is why i say i hardly would see their intention to allow people to be struggling for content. It is active development I'm sure as they test and see thing they will come up with ways to ensure there is enough content for people. Else we will see in real time alpha 2 people complaining.

These are basic issues though and we don't know all the details, this is something I'm sure they are very aware of.

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

These are basic issues though

Indeed they are - they are issues that MMO's solved almost exactly 20 years ago.

oOKingOo

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

First thing so we are moving away from good / bad and your main complaint is the amount of content players have access to not being enough as I said before those are two different issues.

This thread has primarily been about access to content, not about quality of content.

I agree with you that these are different things, but it doesn't matter how good the content is if people don't have reasonable access to it.

Thus, this thread has been mostly about access to content.

Noooow

If you are talking about PvE only focused players that hate pvp and don't want to do it that is a whole other topic in itself.

The only time I ever talk about such players on these forums is to state that Ashes is not the game for them.

Every time I talk about PvE players - as I pointed out earlier in this thread - it is players that accept and enjoy PvP, but prefer PvE.

And so my point stands, if someone prefers PvE, and the game doesn't offer them access to PvE, then Ashes isn't the game for them.

Everyone has access to content, and there should be plenty of content. But with it being one server and im unsure the level of amount of content I can see why there might be some challenges / concerns. But it is development and things they can adjust / test.

If the pve is good and fun that is a main challenge they won't have to worry about. If both are a issue than it is a much bigger task.

No, with everything we know of the game to date, access to content is indeed an issue in Ashes.

Open world games can not provide enough content for 10k players in a way where access to content isn't going to be an issue.

Keep in mind, to the people we are talking about in this thread, being able to fight in order to gain access to content is not in itself access to content. It may be to you, and that's great - but it isn't to the people we are talking about here.

Most ppl will be around high level nodes so you can always find some place where less ppl or more friendly ppl are. Also having a guild will help you gain access to content.

Arya_Yeshe

Depraved wrote: »

i prefer something like baium, anthars or valakas and with no player limit. you have to fight outside the boss lair for the right to get in, then whoever can get in when the boss spawns gets in and tries to kill it.

That's how I think: if there's a dispute among contenders in the dungeon, they should settle it first. Then, one group gets to enter the final boss room and hang out with the boss for 10-15 minutes. If they can't take down the boss, a second group could bust in, bash the final door and PvP kicks off in the boss room

I mentioned this idea in the gated dungeons thread. I like the idea of people duking it out, then shutting the door behind them and having some alone time. But if you want to claim the room just for yourself, you shouldn't be able to stay there forever without being contested. Others should be able to challenge your right to be in that room and take you out

Child Item