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

Dygz

NiKr wrote: »

I feel like this would play a pretty big part in how much pvxness there is in the game.

Of course, that is meaningless to me because PvX for Ashes is truly just a hype term for what is actually a PVP-centric MMORPG.

I expect specific bosses (and mobs) to drop mats that have some of their attributes.

Heathermas0n

End game raiding would be nice to fit into the game if it works. I know that it isn't the main focus of the game and I'm fine if instanced raids aren't a big thing BUT it could provide more end game content. (Example: you have to kill pvE raid boss for specific materials and items that have pvP benefits. And vice Versa)

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

That is not an acceptable argument.

Yes, it's not an acceptable argument for you, who're used to how EQ2 (and instanced games) did things.

To me it's an absolutely normal thing, because that's how it was in L2. I dunno how it was in AA. Maybe they had huge dungeons or didn't have any at all. But if it had "enough content for the entire server", then we'll just have to see which of his inspirations Steven will use for Ashes.

I know that you'll say it'd be dumb to not have content for all, just as Mag would say that it's dumb to not have some modern design in the game, and just as any WoWer would say that it's dumb to have pvp in the game.

I'll just sit here and see what we end up with, because I'm the special kind of dumb that's ok with things that everyone else is not. I would instead prefer them to be that dumb way, because that's what I like. But if the game just so happens to have hundreds of dungeon rooms - all the better for me, because I can sit in one place and grind my own mobs w/o a single person bothering me.

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

Yes, it's not an acceptable argument for you, who're used to how EQ2 (and instanced games) did things.

If Intrepids intention is to have servers with 10k concurrent players , but only provide content for 5k players, perhaps they should put that one on their marketing.

If something sounds as stupid as the above, it is stupid.

There are a multitude of ways to avoid the above situation. Instancing is one, making more content is one, dropping the concurrent player count is one, making the existing content more of a grind is one.

I'm here arguing for the second - make more content - I am not arguing for instanced content to plug this specific gap. Instanced content has a purpose in Ashes - this is not it. It should exist to guarantee access to "some" content at all tiers for players - not to make up the bulk of the content.

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

I'm here arguing for the second - make more content - I am not arguing for instanced content to plug this specific gap. Instanced content has a purpose in Ashes - this is not it. It should exist to guarantee access to "some" content at all tiers for players - not to make up the bulk of the content.

I definitely see you point, I just don't think that it'd be a good design for a game that wants to have an owpvp system that is in any way justified.

If everyone has their own piece of content at any and all times - there's no reason to fight over said content, because fighting only happens over a scarce thing. I'd imagine everyone having content also impacts economy (or at least completely changes its design), but that's an Azherae topic, so I might be wrong in that assumption.

If Intrepid plan on giving everyone content I see no point in having a corruption system. We already have full separation of majority of source of pvp from the corruption system and the system itself will supposedly have such hard penalties that barely anyone will be utilizing it (which in turn makes BH pointless). So if we, on top of that, have all the content at once - why even have corruption. It adds nothing to the game but senseless killing by career PKers and bullies.

I would find it nearing on dumbassery if we have that much content. Because I can already see people complaining (even more than we already get) about the PKers, cause PKing in a game that has no real reason to PK will be seen as highly illogical.

Iirc WoW either had a change to the honor points or smth like that, where killing lowbies didn't reward anything, but I think people still kept killing and it was obviously seen as the shittiest thing in the game (I thiiiink I'm remembering this correctly). Ashes having too much content would achieve the same situation imo.

We already have enough contradictions in the design as is. My feedback to Intrepid - don't add yet another one.

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

If everyone has their own piece of content at any and all times - there's no reason to fight over said content, because fighting only happens over a scarce thing.

Right.

I think you are starting to get it.

You make it so there is content. Plenty of content. Good content.

Then people will play your game. Many people. People from different gaming backgrounds.

Then you also have another tier of content on top of this (remember, I have been talking about these bosses as the smaller bosses this whole time), and you set that content up for people to fight over. You also have other content as well.

Then, rather than people having to fight all day every day just to have a game to play (most people won't do this), you instead give people a great game to play and then also give them some content to fight over.

People are generally happier with a good game to play than with no game to play, believe it or not. This is why BG3 was so much better recieved than Starfield - a good game to play with a lot of great content vs basically no game with basically no content to play, and what little was there being kind of shit.

Obviously there will still be fighting in and around the content we are talking about here - we will always have grudges whether personal, guild, alliance or node based. We will also have people that just like to be "that guy". Then we will have people attacking you on your way back from content in order to try and take a portion of what you have gained. We also have people that just want that piece of content you are on right now because they are too lazy to walk a few more steps to get to the same basic content that is unoccipied.

This is the internet. There won't be a lack of conflict. There will never be a lack of conflict. There is never a need to be concerned about there being a lack of conflict.

There is a reason to be concerned about too much conflict, however.

As to people complaining about being PK'ed, of course people will. The thing to keep in mind is the answer they will get when they do complain - which in all situations will simply be "the game allows them to attack you, so they can attack you - deal with it". it doesn't matter if there is corruption or not, this is the reaction anyone that gets attacked and complains about it will recieve.

It was the case on PvP servers in EQ2, it was the case in Rift, it was the case in Age of Conan, it was the case in Archeage, it was the case in BDO. Why would Ashes be any different?

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

This is the internet. There won't be a lack of conflict. There will never be a lack of conflict. There is never a need to be concerned about there being a lack of conflict.

The funny thing is, I know for sure that conflict goes away when there's enough content to go around, because I've played on L2 servers with low population, where there was always enough farming spots for the amount of people that went after it. And no one fought each other, because there was no point in doing so. It was always more beneficial to just sit in your spot and farm.

Grudges only appear when there's soft friction between people. PvP events might create some, but outside of said events one side will always be at the benefit of "why should I fight back? that dumbass will just get corrupted and fuck himself over". So those grudges will be addressed in the pvp events rather than in the open world.

What I "get" is that you simply want a different game. If you can persuade Steven to change his vision to that game - good for you. Right now I don't see that happening, which is the exact reason why I don't see your preferred design happening.

Steven's been saying "this game is not for everyone" for years now. Yet here you are trying to make me get that the game should be for everyone

Which makes it even funnier that Mag liked your post. Real funny times we're living in.

Mag7spy

I liked it because he is right with the statement people will fight and you can make content where people move around and will want to fight over content and not farm just the same rotation.

They are already designing the game to be like that and it has been shown...

Ludullu

Mag7spy wrote: »

I liked it because he is right with the statement people will fight and you can make content where people move around and will want to fight over content and not farm just the same rotation.

Why fight if there's always content though? What are you fighting for at that point? And why waste time on fighting when you can just farm to be stronger for more meaningful content.

Mag7spy

NiKr wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

I liked it because he is right with the statement people will fight and you can make content where people move around and will want to fight over content and not farm just the same rotation.

Why fight if there's always content though? What are you fighting for at that point? And why waste time on fighting when you can just farm to be stronger for more meaningful content.

Because not all content will be made equal, you will need to go to other areas to make certain pieces of gear and deal with other players challenging you or for you to contest spawns. Its not that the amount of content is lacking but soft friction between the goals you want. Which you will have multiple of them + the rest of your guild or friends. Sometimes you might lose a fight and do content else where.

All depends how the game though but literarily based on the crafting that is going to be expected. They have already talked about different bios and materials moving around and such with prices increasing if its a material you can't get around a certain area and was transported.

To the full extent I won't know till we get to play the game and even than we might not experience that on the highest lvl.

Ludullu

Mag7spy wrote: »

Because not all content will be made equal, you will need to go to other areas to make certain pieces of gear and deal with other players challenging you or for you to contest spawns. Its not that the amount of content is lacking but soft friction between the goals you want. Which you will have multiple of them + the rest of your guild or friends. Sometimes you might lose a fight and do content else where.

Then you disagree with Noaani. His point is that people will fight "just cause" and not for friction reasons, because there's gonna be no friction due to abundance of content.

And as for mats, we'll have to see to which extent the mat difference matter, especially when it comes to boss mob drops.

This does bring another question related to semi-specialized loot. @Noaani , would it matter if the bosses you farmed on your runs dropped better quality mats or do you care more about the sheer fact that you can farm bosses nearly non-stop?

You said that you'd want specialized mats to drop from higher tier of bosses and I can agree with that, but Mag brought up a good point. We'll supposedly have a range of mat tiers in loot tables, so I could definitely see people trying to fight for only the highest tier of mats. But then the question would be, how would those mats be distributed throughout the multiple locations that you plan on running between?

Cause as I see it, if my party plans to farm the best bones and those best bones only drop from mob/boss in a skeleton dungeon - anyone else who comes there after us would not have the content to farm, because we'd be clearing anything there is to clear (or let's say there's enough for 3 parties so the 4th doesn't have content).

Would you see this as bad design or smth normal?

Mag7spy

Just adding to this slightly with my own view, if there isnt enough content for players to do and the meaning is to pvp other players for it (the that percent being slow enough to cause high pvp you can judge whatever you feel is a high percent) We are talking more about a PvP mmorpg than a PvX mmorpg since the amount of conflict you will have is very constant and that is where a lot of mmorpg player base wouldn't be as into playing it not wanting to deal with constant pvp.

Yes there are guild node wars (we dont know how they work exactly), there is a heavy corruption system to prevent killing tons of people and reduce your power as well as be hunted, there is definitely a focus for pvp in this game with clear reason to. But the messaging I've felt is more along the lines of PvX where PvP won't be so overbearing and the PvE content but be all brain dead mobs korean grinder style mobs with bad dungeons and bad bosses.

So fighting over content is one thing but fighting over content because of complete lack of content isn't something I don't think they are fully going for but we will see.

Mag7spy

NiKr wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Because not all content will be made equal, you will need to go to other areas to make certain pieces of gear and deal with other players challenging you or for you to contest spawns. Its not that the amount of content is lacking but soft friction between the goals you want. Which you will have multiple of them + the rest of your guild or friends. Sometimes you might lose a fight and do content else where.

Then you disagree with Noaani. His point is that people will fight "just cause" and not for friction reasons, because there's gonna be no friction due to abundance of content.

And as for mats, we'll have to see to which extent the mat difference matter, especially when it comes to boss mob drops.

This does bring another question related to semi-specialized loot. @Noaani , would it matter if the bosses you farmed on your runs dropped better quality mats or do you care more about the sheer fact that you can farm bosses nearly non-stop?

You said that you'd want specialized mats to drop from higher tier of bosses and I can agree with that, but Mag brought up a good point. We'll supposedly have a range of mat tiers in loot tables, so I could definitely see people trying to fight for only the highest tier of mats. But then the question would be, how would those mats be distributed throughout the multiple locations that you plan on running between?

Cause as I see it, if my party plans to farm the best bones and those best bones only drop from mob/boss in a skeleton dungeon - anyone else who comes there after us would not have the content to farm, because we'd be clearing anything there is to clear (or let's say there's enough for 3 parties so the 4th doesn't have content).

Would you see this as bad design or smth normal?

He said give them some content to fight over, i agree with how i view his statement to be but we all have our own perception. His value and numbers most likely won't be the same as my own. Everyone should have multiple content to do and not solely stuck to one place or thing to do.

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

This is the internet. There won't be a lack of conflict. There will never be a lack of conflict. There is never a need to be concerned about there being a lack of conflict.

The funny thing is, I know for sure that conflict goes away when there's enough content to go around, because I've played on L2 servers with low population, where there was always enough farming spots for the amount of people that went after it. And no one fought each other, because there was no point in doing so. It was always more beneficial to just sit in your spot and farm.

And what about boss spawns? Assuming these servers had enough people to compete for weekly spawns, I would have to assume there was competition for them.

What you are talking here is how it should be. There should be no need to fight over content - until you are talking about rarer content. And no, not all content should be rare.

Grudges only appear when there's soft friction between people. PvP events might create some, but outside of said events one side will always be at the benefit of "why should I fight back? that dumbass will just get corrupted and fuck himself over". So those grudges will be addressed in the pvp events rather than in the open world.

This may have been true back in 2003 - though even then I doubt it.

As it is now though, with how much more communication players have with each other (in game chat, voice chat, Discord, forums, Reddit et al) you end up getting to know the player behind the character far more than used to be the case.

When that happens, sometimes you just don't like them.

This is where conflict comes from these days. It isn't about content - it is about the person.

I mean, if Mag and I saw each other in a dungeon, do you honestly think there wouldn't be a fight?

What I "get" is that you simply want a different game. If you can persuade Steven to change his vision to that game - good for you. Right now I don't see that happening, which is the exact reason why I don't see your preferred design happening.

Steven's been saying "this game is not for everyone" for years now. Yet here you are trying to make me get that the game should be for everyone

Which makes it even funnier that Mag liked your post. Real funny times we're living in.

There is a difference between "the game is not for everyone" and "the game will nosedive like Starfield".

What I have been talking about will still only appeal to a single digit of the MMO population (as in, less than 10% of MMO players will even look at the game). But that is better than less than 1% even looking at the game.

So, to be clear, my point is that a game like Ashes should have base leve quality content that is there for players to participate in, and then from there should have further content for players to fight over.

Your counter to this is that players shouldn't have quality content to participate in.

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

And what about boss spawns? Assuming these servers had enough people to compete for weekly spawns, I would have to assume there was competition for them.

I assumed we were talking about general population mobs (of which these small dungeon bosses would be). Of course weeklies had competition, because in L2 they were singular, so only one could be farmed per week.

And that was the "quality" content.

Noaani wrote: »

What you are talking here is how it should be. There should be no need to fight over content - until you are talking about rarer content. And no, not all content should be rare.

Because imo dungeons should be that rarer content. They should be the penultimate content in the game, with weeklies and the like being the ultimate one.

We'll still have overworld mobs, quests, artisanry, all the pvp events, etc.

But dungeons should be smth that people work towards. They should be the hardest non-big boss content in the game. And that kind of content should be rarer than overworld stuff.

Noaani wrote: »

I mean, if Mag and I saw each other in a dungeon, do you honestly think there wouldn't be a fight?

I'm too practical to see a reason for you two to fight each other. To me, a difference in opinions should never lead to a fight. Of course others are different and good for them, but I see no point in wasting my time on a fight w/o a benefit.

Noaani wrote: »

So, to be clear, my point is that a game like Ashes should have base leve quality content that is there for players to participate in, and then from there should have further content for players to fight over.

Your counter to this is that players shouldn't have quality content to participate in.

My main point from the start has been "pvx is the content". Removing the reason for why you can't access smth is part of the content you want to access, because it's a whole package rather than 2 separate packages.

You disagree with that and think that Steven will see the error of his ways and will change the game to the preference of the majority. Right now I doubt that.

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

And what about boss spawns? Assuming these servers had enough people to compete for weekly spawns, I would have to assume there was competition for them.

I assumed we were talking about general population mobs (of which these small dungeon bosses would be).

We are.

My point was that players shouldn't be fighting over it.

Your response was that in your experience, if players have enough of it, they won't fight over it.

That is why I asked you about the next tier up - the content people should be fighting over.

Because imo dungeons should be that rarer content. They should be the penultimate content in the game, with weeklies and the like being the ultimate one.

Dungeons should be large zones with much content and many players. There should be nothing rare about dungeons as a whole.

That isn't to say dungeons cant have aspects to them that are more rare, but dungeons as a whole aren't and shouldn’t be.

You disagree with that and think that Steven will see the error of his ways and will change the game to the preference of the majority. Right now I doubt that.

I've never been speaking of preferences of the majority. If that is what I wanted, I'd be saying the game needs all dungeons instanced - that is what the majority of MMO players want.

My position is still very much a minority one - it just happens to be large enough to perhaps sometimes seem like a majority position when viewed from your perspective

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

Dungeons should be large zones with much content and many players. There should be nothing rare about dungeons as a whole.

That isn't to say dungeons cant have aspects to them that are more rare, but dungeons as a whole aren't and shouldn’t be.

Which is the difference in our opinion and why we have a different outlook on their design. I expect that by sheer volume of space dungeons would be roughly 1/5 of the overworld. Yes, they'd still be big and all, but there's simply way more space for stuff outside of them. Which is why going into a dungeon should be the last thing you do at each step of your progress (be it lvls, gear, artisanry or whatever).

You seem to want them to be the same as overworld.

This is why I said that I'm simply gonna wait till Intrepid show what they want them to be. They've shown a few dungeons in the past, but I assume those were barely populated at the time, cause if that was the planned amount of mobs then the content would be even rarer than what I'd want.

In other words, I want the same thing as you. General population mobs/bosses to be abundant as hell, while quality stuff is rarer and peak content is singular. It's just that our views on the definition of those things seems to differ.

Jhoren

Going back to the OP, I am not a fan of the instance at the end of a dungeon approach. I think the entire dungeon should either be fully instanced or fully open. Not a mix. I think the overall design of the dungeon can be much better tailored if it's either OW or instanced, not both.

And by instanced I mean instanced to the party or raid, not an instance in the sense of having to portal into the boss room like I saw in the A1 videos, where the portal was open to anyone outside the raid too.

If they decide to include a few PvE instances (again, fully instanced dungeons IMO) I am ok with that, but it shouldn't be for the top tier gear. Perhaps it shouldn't even be for gear at all, but for some other reward, like a currency for a social organisation or religion, which are PvE constructs already, and where it makes sense that some PvE-only progression is possible. Make them dynamically harder like they talked about doing with bosses, and reward the best raid group with more currency/rep/status.

Mag7spy

@NiKr That is literarily not how things work, you don't need a "reason" to pvp someone. You are just different than most current pvpers... I've literarily pvped people for less just cause they were the same class as me.

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

In other words, I want the same thing as you. General population mobs/bosses to be abundant as hell, while quality stuff is rarer and peak content is singular. It's just that our views on the definition of those things seems to differ.

Yeah, you consider base population (trash mobs) to be content. I do not.

Again, it comes back to that whole thing where Intrepid should put it on their marketing. Come to Ashes, where you can do nothing for hours on end but kill the exact same copy/paste trash encounter - great way to convince people to leave the MMO they are playing now.

If you want a game that appeals to people (even if only a handful of people), you make a game that appeals to people. People like running dungeons, so why make that some exclusive thing that you hardly ever get to do? It doesn't make sense to restrict player enjoyment artificially.

Child Item