Supporting PvE Raiders in Ashes

oOLu_BuOo wrote: »

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.

Since we are talking about getting people that are playing PvE oriented games to instead come and play Ashes, how excited do you think they will be if you told them that the content they have reasonable access to is the dregs around the perimeter that no one else wants?

You put that offer in, and everyone will happily stay in the game they are in, thanks.

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

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

While this is a great way to do some content, it doesn't answer the issue of players having access to content.

If there are 10 raids that want to take on a specific target for the evening, and only one can at a time, that is 9 raids - 360 people - that are not getting the gaming experience they wanted for the evening.

A far better way to do it is to have those encounters, but also have some encounters elsewhere in that same dungeon that are instanced. Then guilds will make plans to fight down in the open dungeon to those instanced encounters, kill them, everyone will be satisfied that they have accomplished something valuable for the day, and THEN you have that encounter that everyone can fight over.

One method leads to player retention, one method leads to player atrophy.

Noaani wrote: »

A far better way to do it is to have those encounters, but also have some encounters elsewhere in that same dungeon that are instanced. Then guilds will make plans to fight down in the open dungeon to those instanced encounters, kill them, everyone will be satisfied that they have accomplished something valuable for the day, and THEN you have that encounter that everyone can fight over.

Btw, how do you foresee your caravan idea working with this kind of setup? There's a high chance that several raids will happen at the same time, and a relatively high chance that they'll end at the same time as well, so how would those post-pve caravans would be happening? Just a ton of caravans running out of the depth of the dungeon?

Cause that kinda sounds like a big mess.

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

A far better way to do it is to have those encounters, but also have some encounters elsewhere in that same dungeon that are instanced. Then guilds will make plans to fight down in the open dungeon to those instanced encounters, kill them, everyone will be satisfied that they have accomplished something valuable for the day, and THEN you have that encounter that everyone can fight over.

Btw, how do you foresee your caravan idea working with this kind of setup? There's a high chance that several raids will happen at the same time, and a relatively high chance that they'll end at the same time as well, so how would those post-pve caravans would be happening? Just a ton of caravans running out of the depth of the dungeon?

Cause that kinda sounds like a big mess.

That idea is - in my mind - for the absolute top end encounters in terms of difficulty. The kind of encounters that two or three guilds on a server are able to kill, and no one else can.

If those two or three guilds want to work together to kill the encounter at about the same time, then they can have at it - if they think that gives them some sort of advantage in getting the caravan to safety.

The kind of encounter where you could have 10+ guilds killing it a night would primarily drop crafting components that are subject to potentially dropping via open world PvP - so utilizing the corruption/open world PvP system to add an increased risk post encounter (you do still need to fight your way back out of the dungeon), rather than the caravan system.

Noaani wrote: »

The kind of encounter where you could have 10+ guilds killing it a night would primarily drop crafting components that are subject to potentially dropping via open world PvP - so utilizing the corruption/open world PvP system to add an increased risk post encounter (you do still need to fight your way back out of the dungeon), rather than the caravan system.

Got it, so it's a double protection for the pvers.

Guild wars will supposedly have no loot, cause it's an "event". I'd assume node wars will be the same. So only corrupted attacks would apply.

So any even quarter-smart guild would simply put all their loot on a random (obviously trusted) player and the enemy would have to PK literally the entire damn guild to have a real chance at the loot.

And even then, we don't know what the drop value will even be, so the chances are - barely any mats will even drop. And even if the value is high - smarter guilds will have a designated PKer alt who pretty much "TPs" the loot carrier outside of the dungeon with all the remaining loot.

In other words, instances will simply let guilds farm everything they can get out of said instances for absolutely free.

So we're back to the "repeatable instances give "gear", while repeatable arenas don't".

This simply doesn't work with what Steven is trying to build. I'm fine if those instances give enhancement stones or smth, though I'd still prefer if they were way harder than any other boss in the game (outside of the top ones of course), cause overabundance of enhancement is also a problem.

NiKr wrote: »

Guild wars will supposedly have no loot, cause it's an "event". I'd assume node wars will be the same. So only corrupted attacks would apply.

Guild wars have guild fortresses has a reward. Not all rewards need to be gear that you equip - sieges don't have such rewards either.

Node wars have rewards in the form of the ability to destroy services within a node. Having a node war against a rival, destroying their forge (or what ever) then declaring a siege is probably a really good way to go about things.

In other words, instances will simply let guilds farm everything they can get out of said instances for absolutely free.

If guilds in the above scenario have an free path out of their instance, I would blame the PvP guilds on their server.

If you are in a PvP guild and you know there will be many raids running back our of a dungeon from an instance, with materials in hand that are of reasonable value, go and kill them. Don't complain that they have it easy, take that shit off of them.

So we're back to the "repeatable instances give "gear", while repeatable arenas don't"

I mean, you need to look over the differences here.

PvP arenas are repeatable ad infinitum. PvE instances are able to be run once a week (if done properly). Who is able to spend all day hiding in an instance again?

Arenas also do have rewards.

Noaani wrote: »

]If guilds in the above scenario have an free path out of their instance, I would blame the PvP guilds on their server.

Corrupting your entire guild just to have a tiny chance to get a small piece of the boss loot is literally never worth it (especially considering that we're now talking about the weaker bosses who wouldn't be dropping super valuable stuff).

And my mention of n/g wars was in the context of "if you declare war against the guild that's farming the boss - your kills won't reward you, because loot doesn't drop during wars".

Noaani wrote: »

PvP arenas are repeatable ad infinitum. PvE instances are able to be run once a week (if done properly). Who is able to spend all day hiding in an instance again?

Again though, you gotta win against potentially way stronger opponents to get anything out of those arenas. Also, don't think we've heard whether we can run arenas at all times. The game is built on prime time, so I wouldn't be surprised if arenas were too (once again an L2 thing).

Noaani wrote: »

Arenas also do have rewards.

Yes, the biggest example of that has been "enhancements" and whatever the fuck "buying power" means.

And I've already said that I'm ok with instanced pve rewarding enhancements, but at a slow pace (same as I'd want arenas to be).

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

]If guilds in the above scenario have an free path out of their instance, I would blame the PvP guilds on their server.

Corrupting your entire guild just to have a tiny chance to get a small piece of the boss loot is literally never worth it.

This is a reasonable point.

I'm down for making raids flagged as combatants while in the dungeon after killing an instanced encounter. Problem solved, imo.

And my mention of n/g wars was in the context of "if you declare war against the guild that's farming the boss - your kills won't reward you, because loot doesn't drop during wars".

Not what node and guild wars in Ashes are about.

They aren't supposed to be a means to escape corruption in open world PvP - they each serve a purpose in the same way sieges serve a purpose.

Noaani wrote: »

I'm down for making raids flagged as combatants while in the dungeon after killing an instanced encounter. Problem solved, imo.

Except now it's even less loot

Yes, probably dying one extra time will be an inconvenience to people (though, once again, that's a free TP out of the dungeon), but it has pretty much no impact on the redistribution of loot.

Your caravan idea achieved that goal, though I still believe that you previously didn't point out that part of your idea was that only a fraction of the loot would be in the caravan, so even that could potentially just be seen as "a sunk cost that's worth it, because instance was completely for free".

Noaani wrote: »

Not what node and guild wars in Ashes are about.

Here we come to that "planning doesn't survive conflict" or whatever. Depending on the cost of wardeccing (and if it is a forced one, rather than a "requires acceptance from the victim to go through") - I guarantee that guilds will use wars as a means of blocking content. Mainly because wars provide free pvp anywhere, against your enemy.

Like, if anything, my strat works much better against your suggestion than what I'd prefer, because guilds would just block out the instance entrance by simply killing the guild.

Obviously in my preferred design that would also happen, but at least then the enemy guild would be ready for it, because they'd be pvxers (or at the very least hire pvpers for it). And I understand that your group's point is the existence of the instance itself, because it allows parallel farming, but majority of people care more about being simply flagged upon (let alone killed). Today's twitch chat seems to have confirmed that point once again. People were whining about CARAVANS (like, the most pvpiest non-siege part of the game).

This is why I said that there's no real way to attract pvers into the game. This is simply not a game like that. You can have good pve, to attract anyone who's willing to pvx, but then they'd also be competitive and would want to secure their farm, rather than share it.

Mag7spy

That is exactly how I see war decing working. You don't gain corruption but you don't get drops so it is kind of a balance.

This idea that you decs are only around sieges (once in awhile) while corruption has harsh penalties to ensure corruption pvp is very limited (as they have said). Almost indicated a desire to remove actual pvp elements out of the game which pulls away from PvX to just a pve game with limited and serve consequence pvp.

Most people are expecting to actually do pvp that want PvX and not have such a restrictive element where it is almost like pvp doesn't exist.

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I'm down for making raids flagged as combatants while in the dungeon after killing an instanced encounter. Problem solved, imo.

Except now it's even less loot Yes, probably dying one extra time will be an inconvenience to people (though, once again, that's a free TP out of the dungeon), but it has pretty much no impact on the redistribution of loot.

Your caravan idea achieved that goal, though I still believe that you previously didn't point out that part of your idea was that only a fraction of the loot would be in the caravan, so even that could potentially just be seen as "a sunk cost that's worth it, because instance was completely for free".

It is very unlikely that a guild in the above situation wouldn't flag up if attacked, so it really isn't less loot.

The main point of this flag would be to encourage PvP oriented players to attack.

Noaani wrote: »

Not what node and guild wars in Ashes are about.

Here we come to that "planning doesn't survive conflict" or whatever. Depending on the cost of wardeccing (and if it is a forced one, rather than a "requires acceptance from the victim to go through") - I guarantee that guilds will use wars as a means of blocking content. Mainly because wars provide free pvp anywhere, against your enemy.

Like, if anything, my strat works much better against your suggestion than what I'd prefer, because guilds would just block out the instance entrance by simply killing the guild.

It isn't about the cost of declaring war, it is about the consequences.

If you declare war on my guild, you hand us a whole pile of objectives based on your guilds assets and activities. Also, the way guild wars are described so far, it seems they will last days rather than hours.

Point is, while guild wars in other games may have been able to be used to block content, it seems quite unlikely that Intrepid have this plan for them in Ashes.

Thing is, one if the objectives of a guild war could be to steal the drop from a raid mob, if the guild in question recently killed it. So, if you want to use guild wars against my guild in the context of raid encounters, you are best served by leaving us with access to that encounter and then trying to take the rewards afterwards via that war objective.

Obviously in my preferred design that would also happen, but at least then the enemy guild would be ready for it, because they'd be pvxers (or at the very least hire pvpers for it). And I understand that your group's point is the existence of the instance itself, because it allows parallel farming, but majority of people care more about being simply flagged upon (let alone killed). Today's twitch chat seems to have confirmed that point once again. People were whining about CARAVANS (like, the most pvpiest non-siege part of the game).

This is why I said that there's no real way to attract pvers into the game. This is simply not a game like that. You can have good pve, to attract anyone who's willing to pvx, but then they'd also be competitive and would want to secure their farm, rather than share it.

If by PvEers you mean people not willing or able to PvP, then I agree, and I am not trying to get them to play this game. They don't belong here.

However, the way you attract PvE players that are willing and able to PvP is to get rid of the notion of there being a "farm", or at least of there having to be one. It is such poor game design.

Give most players the choice between the optimum way to play a game being to sit in the same few rooms for an hour (or several) killing the same mobs over and over again, or running around the entire game world killing many different kinds of mobs, each offering up unique combat, and I would wager that most players would say they would rather the second be made optimal - probably stating that the first sounds horrid.

The notion of "farms" just needs to die. It's great to give the few that want it the option - but it should not be the optimal way to play.

Noaani wrote: »

It is very unlikely that a guild in the above situation wouldn't flag up if attacked, so it really isn't less loot.

In the scenario of "only one dude picks up/gets all the loot from the boss", your entire guild flagging up doesn't matter. Because the loot is on one person. And they'll flag up just to decrease the amount of loot that drops. So the amount the attackers would get would be even smaller than if they were to PK this looter.

Also, I hope you're not implying that boss would give every raider a piece of their own personal loot and I hope you're not implying that the "valuable" loot would be whatever the raiders took with them to the raid, cause both of those things are unrealistic to me.

Noaani wrote: »

Thing is, one if the objectives of a guild war could be to steal the drop from a raid mob, if the guild in question recently killed it. So, if you want to use guild wars against my guild in the context of raid encounters, you are best served by leaving us with access to that encounter and then trying to take the rewards afterwards via that war objective.

This works against your own desire for instances though. I guild wars do have this mechanic, then it's way more convenient for the pvp guild to let the pvers farm the boss (even in the cage design) and then not only kill them for fun afterwards, but also get their entire loot through the war.

I know that AoC's war is more goal-based, but Steven said that pvp will be free throughout the entire war, so to me it's super obvious that he still wants us to fight our enemies at all times. Of course your guild can go for the deccer's goals, but the deccers would've already accounted for that, because that's part of the risk/reward equation in this situation. And if they still decced you - they're sure they can handle you.

Noaani wrote: »

Give most players the choice between the optimum way to play a game being to sit in the same few rooms for an hour (or several) killing the same mobs over and over again, or running around the entire game world killing many different kinds of mobs, each offering up unique combat, and I would wager that most players would say they would rather the second be made optimal - probably stating that the first sounds horrid.

And to me "running" being the biggest part of my gameplay is horrid. I want gameplay to come to me, while I'm constantly busy with the other part of gameplay.

Which is why I proposed the growing difficulty rooms idea, combined with "this spot is for this gear mats, so whoever wants them gotta fight for them".

Steven seems to be closer to my preference, so we'll see whether the other devs you keep talking about can convince him that his preference is ass.

I think Steven is closer to having players exploring the world, rather than farming one Dungeon.
Which is why the focus of PvP options is really on Caravans, Castle Sieges, Node Sieges and The Open Seas.
And why those PvP modes have no Corruption.

Dygz wrote: »

I think Steven is closer to having players exploring the world, rather than farming one Dungeon.
Which is why the focus of PvP options is really on Caravans, Castle Sieges, Node Sieges and The Open Seas.
And why those PvP modes have no Corruption.

I'm sure that's part of it, but unless all gear/mats can be dropped from all mobs in the game - people will be farming the same source of their mats or simply the most money-valuable location in the game.

Doesn't really mean that same "source" will always be stuck in the same, relatively small location.
But, really...

I think this part of the debate is supposed to be about a Dungeon with comparatively few rooms vs a Tower with many floors/stories that each have many rooms.
Rather than about a Dungeon vs the entire open world map.

And I think most people would prefer a Tower over one instanced room in a Dungeon.

Obviously, Steven is going to prefer a ton of "Risk of PvP" even during a "PvE Raid" and a minimum of instanced rooms.
Ashes is a dynamic game rather than a static game, so the design intent is for the Dungeon to not have the exact same content and challenges when you return to the same Dungeon.

Dygz wrote: »

And I think most people would prefer a Tower over one instanced room in a Dungeon.

Again though, I'd expect tower floors to have different mat drops or money value per kill. And even if they get reshuffled every day - you're still grinding the same spot for that day, which is my point.

Unless every damn mob respawn changes their loot/money, but then I don't really know who'd like that kind of design, cause it's unstable as fuck.

And if the entire tower provides the same loot - I guess that's fine, but then we have econ issues of "there's several hundreds people filling the market with these items", so we'd either need suuuuper low drop rates or suuuuper high mat requirements in crafting. And I'm sure people would hate either approach.

"There will be some open dungeons that have bosses at the end of the dungeons. There will be some open dungeons that just have a multitude of dungeon bosses, not necessarily world raids or something; and there will be lots of different rooms and they'll be progressive in the sense that in the earlier parts of the dungeon they'll be lower level and then at the later parts of the dungeons deeper down they'll be higher level and more difficult; and that creates again I think an ecosystem of where players across a multitude of levels have an opportunity to coexist within certain areas of the world; and that's good from a social dynamic. It's good from a recruitment dynamic. It's good from just a liveliness and relevance of particular areas. So that you don't end up with these locations that once you pass a certain level like it's empty."
---Steven
BCG 100 Episodes Sep 29, 2021

Dygz wrote: »

BCG 100 Episodes Sep 29, 2021

Yes, this is literally L2 approach to dungeon design. One of the reasons I got interested in the game in the first place

But you do realize that this means that rooms won't be as dynamic as you want. So my assumption that high lvl players will be grinding the same room or two deep in the dungeon still stands (again, unless drops change every spawn or at least hour).

As always... I'm really sharing the stated design; not necessarily what I want.

One of the design elements that we're implementing into our raids is that the raid will not be exactly the same every single time. You're going to have variables that can't necessarily be pre-planned out for. You can pre-plan out for a lot of the raid like how many DPS do you need and healers and support; where the key position and all that stuff; but I think the compelling aspect of Ashes raiding will be the difficulty in achieving this content and having that content change from session to session as well. We want there to be variables that get manifested by what type of node got developed elsewhere. Is he going to have acolytes or cultists? What will the acolytes have skills [available] to them? What kit is the boss gonna have? What available skill repertoire will the boss be able to [wield]? ... A lot of those systems are influenced obviously by world development. So the raid takes into account at what stage has the world developed: Are there two metropolises now available in the world? Okay well let's activate this skill in this skill. Now you have five metropolises, well now all these skills have been activated. Are there are they all economic nodes? Are they all military nodes? That we can change things based on that stuff. And it really is a threat assessment from the environment against the players.
---Steven
Ashes of Creation Livestream, Nov 17, 2017