DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I'm just going to sneak in to say that, theoretically, the Nodes system should provide a decent distribution of challenge ratings for mobs - as Nodes rise and fall.
I would prefer combat vs mobs to last long enough that with mobs my level, I am analyzing strategies and tactics, rather than just quickly running through rote rotations.
With a 6 second ttk, you are slicing through the mobs even if you are debuffed.
True, but considering the amount of damage mobs deal (at least if we go by the showcases), you can't just make an AoE train unless you're going to absolutely blast it very fast, you'd get rekt by the mobs. Even taking on 2 mobs seemed dangerous.
6s seems way too fast to me. I enjoyed classic WoW's ttk - about 12-15 seconds-ish. It gives you a variety of rotation and spec options to kill things differently. It also means it becomes dangerous to pull more than a couple of mobs at a time, depending on your class.
Mainly I just really hope that solo grinding is most efficient when killing 1 or maybe 2 mobs at a time, and doesn't turn into an aoe-fest.
I think dificulty can be tempered by mob damage. Their ability to kill you or swarm you can be what measures risk, instead of long drawn out engagements.
With a 6 second ttk, you are slicing through the mobs even if you are debuffed.
True, but considering the amount of damage mobs deal (at least if we go by the showcases), you can't just make an AoE train unless you're going to absolutely blast it very fast, you'd get rekt by the mobs. Even taking on 2 mobs seemed dangerous.
Nah, it didn't look that dangerous.
It looked dangerous if you were attacked by another player, but that is about it.
It looked dangerous if you were attacked by another player, but that is about it.
More like if you were Steven who was looking at flowers and the sky while his party pulled 6 mobs onto themselves
Any semicoordinated group will obliterate the mobs we've seen so far w/o even getting a single bit of dmg. And that's not even considering buffs from bards.
It looked dangerous if you were attacked by another player, but that is about it.
More like if you were Steven who was looking at flowers and the sky while his party pulled 6 mobs onto themselves
Any semicoordinated group will obliterate the mobs we've seen so far w/o even getting a single bit of dmg. And that's not even considering buffs from bards.
Truthfully, I was trying to write that post in a way where I wasn't saying "Steven is a shit MMORPG player", as I feel I end up saying that after most livestreams (still true though).
Truthfully, I was trying to write that post in a way where I wasn't saying "Steven is a shit MMORPG player", as I feel I end up saying that after most livestreams (still true though).
I do think he's playing it up for the showcase, but his semi-joke of "my gameplay is representation of what a normal player will be like in Ashes" does have quite a bit of truth in it. Maybe that's also why they keep the game seeming easy, cause if they showed proper difficulty a ton of those normal players would get spooked.
I think dificulty can be tempered my mob damage. Their ability to kill you or swarm you can be what measures risk, instead of long drawn out engagements.
Mathematically, this almost can't happen.
At-level 'solo' mob vs 2 players.
Dies in 3-4s instead of 6. Does 33% less damage, rewards probably 50% of the exp to each player. Add any synergy, double the CC options.
Unless players are generally so 'incompetent' that 2 people have significant trouble standing in position together compared to one, this is how this goes basically every time.
Then take into account the fact that each of those two players now has the other to 'cover for their downtime' in terms of cooldowns.
The two types of game where this doesn't work are 'high mobility games where enemies have tactical cleave damage and don't flinch' and 'FFXI'.
Unless your answer is ofc 'just immediately buff how much damage they do because they are fighting two people instead of one'.
Truthfully, I was trying to write that post in a way where I wasn't saying "Steven is a shit MMORPG player", as I feel I end up saying that after most livestreams (still true though).
I do think he's playing it up for the showcase, but his semi-joke of "my gameplay is representation of what a normal player will be like in Ashes" does have quite a bit of truth in it. Maybe that's also why they keep the game seeming easy, cause if they showed proper difficulty a ton of those normal players would get spooked.
I don't doubt he is playing it up a bit - but he wasn't a good player on Archeage.
I think dificulty can be tempered my mob damage. Their ability to kill you or swarm you can be what measures risk, instead of long drawn out engagements.
Mathematically, this almost can't happen.
At-level 'solo' mob vs 2 players.
Dies in 3-4s instead of 6. Does 33% less damage, rewards probably 50% of the exp to each player. Add any synergy, double the CC options.
Unless players are generally so 'incompetent' that 2 people have significant trouble standing in position together compared to one, this is how this goes basically every time.
Then take into account the fact that each of those two players now has the other to 'cover for their downtime' in terms of cooldowns.
The two types of game where this doesn't work are 'high mobility games where enemies have tactical cleave damage and don't flinch' and 'FFXI'.
Unless your answer is ofc 'just immediately buff how much damage they do because they are fighting two people instead of one'.
But why are you assuming it's one mob at a time? It's rarely just one in any mmo. Its almost always packs.
If its packs of 4 to 6, with some doing heavy damage while others cc or whatever, if they are actually dangerous then you have to make decisions before you enguage. If it's almost never true with one then it's almost always true with 4 to 6.
I think dificulty can be tempered my mob damage. Their ability to kill you or swarm you can be what measures risk, instead of long drawn out engagements.
Mathematically, this almost can't happen.
At-level 'solo' mob vs 2 players.
Dies in 3-4s instead of 6. Does 33% less damage, rewards probably 50% of the exp to each player. Add any synergy, double the CC options.
Unless players are generally so 'incompetent' that 2 people have significant trouble standing in position together compared to one, this is how this goes basically every time.
Then take into account the fact that each of those two players now has the other to 'cover for their downtime' in terms of cooldowns.
The two types of game where this doesn't work are 'high mobility games where enemies have tactical cleave damage and don't flinch' and 'FFXI'.
Unless your answer is ofc 'just immediately buff how much damage they do because they are fighting two people instead of one'.
But why are you assuming it's one mob at a time? It's rarely just one in any mmo. Its almost always packs.
If its packs of 4 to 6, with some doing heavy damage while others cc or whatever, if they are actually dangerous then you have to make decisions before you enguage. If it's almost never true with one then it's almost always true with 4 to 6.
Time to kill is extremely important imo. The time to kill during the commission showcase seemed great to me for a solo. I also loved that manna maintenance was an issue. I love when each generic mob has to be respected and perceived as a threat similar to how the mob killed Steven with its whirlwind. Nothing needs to be Elden ring difficulty but a ttk a little too high is better than one too low. If you want players to group up like MMOs should encourage, you need high difficulty or at minimum high ttk. Content or adventuring that mayyybe the player could do solo , but the mob is difficult enough or has high enough ttk that it will be tedious without a companion.
For anyone who doesn't check for Steven "leaks" on discord, this one's an old one, cause I haven't checked in a while myself, but I don't think anyone on the forums mentioned this so far, so here it is
We've mostly seen "party mobs" in locations meant for "4+ sized parties", but even those mobs seemed to have died way quicker than in ~6s. And considering that they were mostly dying to aoe attacks, they seem to be even weaker than solos (unless all aoes are the same in power as solo target abilities).
We've had some discussions about how quick mobs seem to be falling in showcases before, but I don't remember if we've discussed soloable mobs (mostly cause the game is party-leaning, but still).
What yall's opinion on the current direction of pve speed and what would be your preferred speed (both party and solo)?
I personally want smth a bit slower, cause I want base mob population to still be somewhat dangerous. This would tie into the "world is dangerous and there are penalties for dying" design and would mean that people gotta pay attention to the game, rather than watching a show on the second screen while grinding easy mobs.
And that should apply to both solo and party pve, with the party side being prolonged by mob buffs and different player-ability-like effects that make mobs "play in groups" too. We saw a mob use a shield in the latest showcase, but unless I missed another interesting skill - that seems to be the only "harder" part of pve combat. Would definitely like to see more of that kind of stuff.
slower doesn't mean more dangerous...the mob could still have weak damage.
edit: I prefer 2-3 skills for solo mobs.
or a good 3-4 seconds of autos
1
Options
TryolMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
slower doesn't mean more dangerous...the mob could still have weak damage.
edit: I prefer 2-3 skills for solo mobs.
or a good 3-4 seconds of autos
Is is considerably harder to design a challenging encounter when the mob you're designing is restricted to a lifespan of 3-4, or even 6 seconds. They would need to give it very high damage and a really strong skillset to balance for low TTK. I don't think normal mobs should hit you for +10% of your hp each hit, that would be ridiculous.
Having them live longer would give us better balance between hp, damage and skills, leading to a more meaningful and tactical encounter.
slower doesn't mean more dangerous...the mob could still have weak damage.
edit: I prefer 2-3 skills for solo mobs.
or a good 3-4 seconds of autos
Is is considerably harder to design a challenging encounter when the mob you're designing is restricted to a lifespan of 3-4, or even 6 seconds. They would need to give it very high damage and a really strong skillset to balance for low TTK. I don't think normal mobs should hit you for +10% of your hp each hit, that would be ridiculous.
Having them live longer would give us better balance between hp, damage and skills, leading to a more meaningful and tactical encounter.
its not harder. there are mobs in l2 who can 1 shot you, and these are mobs that a mage can kill in 2 hits (2-3 seconds). these are regular, common mobs (not all mobs are like that).
you can have different areas with different mobs. not every single mob in the open needs to be challenging. mobs for party play should be more challenging.
more hp doesn't mean more meaningful encounter. some mobs require certain strategies, even if they die quickly.
also, longer fights mean less conflicts in PVP. why would you fight over a spot if you it takes you a long time to kill a mob, and by the time you finish, another one has already respawned. no reason to fight since everybody will always be busy with 1 mob and have another one there waiting. you would have to considerably reduce mob density then. there are lots of things to consider, not just the time it takes to kill a mob.
slower doesn't mean more dangerous...the mob could still have weak damage.
edit: I prefer 2-3 skills for solo mobs.
or a good 3-4 seconds of autos
Is is considerably harder to design a challenging encounter when the mob you're designing is restricted to a lifespan of 3-4, or even 6 seconds. They would need to give it very high damage and a really strong skillset to balance for low TTK. I don't think normal mobs should hit you for +10% of your hp each hit, that would be ridiculous.
Having them live longer would give us better balance between hp, damage and skills, leading to a more meaningful and tactical encounter.
We need to keep in context we are talking about normal trash mobs. Not elites, strong units, special ones, dungeon mobs.
Also id rather mobs hit harder than be sponges, so you are more mindful of using your defensive skills and active dodge / blocking
slower doesn't mean more dangerous...the mob could still have weak damage.
edit: I prefer 2-3 skills for solo mobs.
or a good 3-4 seconds of autos
Is is considerably harder to design a challenging encounter when the mob you're designing is restricted to a lifespan of 3-4, or even 6 seconds. They would need to give it very high damage and a really strong skillset to balance for low TTK. I don't think normal mobs should hit you for +10% of your hp each hit, that would be ridiculous.
Having them live longer would give us better balance between hp, damage and skills, leading to a more meaningful and tactical encounter.
More to the point, if mobs are created in a way where they take 6 or so seconds to die, but where they still deal enough damage to be a risk to an appropriately geared player, skill goes out the window and the outcome of the fight is almost entirely based on luck.
its not harder. there are mobs in l2 who can 1 shot you, and these are mobs that a mage can kill in 2 hits (2-3 seconds). these are regular, common mobs (not all mobs are like that).
When you talk about L2 in any regard other than it's PvP - try to keep in mind that the rest of the game was shit.
There is a reason Steven talks about wanting Ashes to be somewhat similar to L2 in terms of PvP - but doesn't really bring it up in any other context.
its not harder. there are mobs in l2 who can 1 shot you, and these are mobs that a mage can kill in 2 hits (2-3 seconds). these are regular, common mobs (not all mobs are like that).
When you talk about L2 in any regard other than it's PvP - try to keep in mind that the rest of the game was shit.
There is a reason Steven talks about wanting Ashes to be somewhat similar to L2 in terms of PvP - but doesn't really bring it up in any other context.
that was just an example. i mentioned l2 because ashes is most similar to it. i could have mentioned RO, but I was thinking about some specific mobs in l2 in valley of saints and ruins of despair
its not harder. there are mobs in l2 who can 1 shot you, and these are mobs that a mage can kill in 2 hits (2-3 seconds). these are regular, common mobs (not all mobs are like that).
When you talk about L2 in any regard other than it's PvP - try to keep in mind that the rest of the game was shit.
There is a reason Steven talks about wanting Ashes to be somewhat similar to L2 in terms of PvP - but doesn't really bring it up in any other context.
that was just an example.
Obviously.
The question is - why do we need an example of PvE from a game known to have bad PvE?
The only reason I can think of for it would be to say "Ashes shouldn't do this with PvE, because L2 did it, and L2's PvE was shit. Don't be like L2's PvE".
If that is what you're saying, I agree. If it isn't, I don't get why you are bringing up a point about PvE from a game with shit PvE that Ashes should be able to drunkenly stumble around and do better than.
its not harder. there are mobs in l2 who can 1 shot you, and these are mobs that a mage can kill in 2 hits (2-3 seconds). these are regular, common mobs (not all mobs are like that).
When you talk about L2 in any regard other than it's PvP - try to keep in mind that the rest of the game was shit.
There is a reason Steven talks about wanting Ashes to be somewhat similar to L2 in terms of PvP - but doesn't really bring it up in any other context.
that was just an example.
Obviously.
The question is - why do we need an example of PvE from a game known to have bad PvE?
The only reason I can think of for it would be to say "Ashes shouldn't do this with PvE, because L2 did it, and L2's PvE was shit. Don't be like L2's PvE".
If that is what you're saying, I agree. If it isn't, I don't get why you are bringing up a point about PvE from a game with shit PvE that Ashes should be able to drunkenly stumble around and do better than.
easy pve isn't bad pve. i cant give an eq example since I haven't really played it.
when I replied to tryol, I was making a point, I simply gave an example of the game ashes is most similar to of the point I was trying to make, a mob that dies fast can still have certain strategy to it, and having a low ttk for mobs doesn't make the game harder to design by default. wether the pve was good or not is irrelevant.
The question is - why do we need an example of PvE from a game known to have bad PvE?
Depraved does bring up an interesting point for this context. One of the locations he mentioned had mobs that could kill you in a few seconds with their dot, if you didn't have enough mdef/resistance. They themselves weren't all that beefy, but if you were running past them (even at a good distance), they'd aggro onto you and start casting their dot. And if your camera wasn't on them, you might've not noticed the mob and could die reaaal quick if you didn't have a healer with you.
This bring up a question. Did EQ have mobs that could wipe you really quickly if their attack type's power was way higher than your resistance to that type of attack?
I personally like these kinds of mobs, because you can still use methods to reduce their damage by a lot, but you gotta be prepared for them and you gotta spend money/time/socialization to do so.
And this then brings up an economy/design question for @Azherae . Does Elite have "fragile cargo" mechanics of any sort? And if not, what's your data on player reactions to such mechanics.
Say Ashes had a potion that gave you a super high fire resistance. But to craft that potion you needed a specific plant processed in a specific way. The plant grows only in a particular location and absolute majority of mobs that would need fire resistance live on the other side of the world. The plan itself is huge so you can only transfer a few at a time on your person, or you could pack them in big cargo boxes for caravans.
The "fragile cargo" point comes with the processing part. You gotta "squeeze the plant" and use the juice in the potion. The potion destabilizes quickly, so it becomes useless after, say, 10mins (its effect lasts 5-10m). And the juice from the plant is unstable and becomes useless if carried on a mount/mule or caravan (but can be stored for a very long time), so you need to craft the potion right before you need it.
So if someone wanted to make money on gathering the plant and/or selling the juice - they'd need to either use caravans or bring the juice by walking across the entire map (the amount of carriable juice would be roughly equal to one caravan full of plant boxes). Both ways take time, with caravans also being super risky, but if you manage to do this - you've got big potion money.
Does Elite (or maybe did FF11) have anything remotely similar to that kind of design structure and what was the player response to it, if yes. Or what do you think the response would be?
And for everyone else, would you be ok with that kind of mechanic? Both in terms of "this encounter needs a super expensive (hard to get) item" and the "fragile cargo" feature.
I thought about making a separate thread about this, but I dunno if there's much point.
This bring up a question. Did EQ have mobs that could wipe you really quickly if their attack type's power was way higher than your resistance to that type of attack?
As is often the case when someone from a PvP game asks if an aspect of a PvE game is similar, this isn't a straight forward answer - because EQ2's PvE content was based around fighting named and boss mobs, not trash mobs.
There were situations players could get themselves in to where they could be killed fighting solo content - obviously. However, since the games ttk was a LOT longer than 6 seconds (about 15 seconds for a normal solo mob of equal level - I say normal because EQ2 has I think 5 tiers of solo mobs by design), those sitautions were not the result of one trash mob.
That said, any mob of an equal level was dangerous if you weren't geared for it - that kind of thing should go without saying.
its not harder. there are mobs in l2 who can 1 shot you, and these are mobs that a mage can kill in 2 hits (2-3 seconds). these are regular, common mobs (not all mobs are like that).
When you talk about L2 in any regard other than it's PvP - try to keep in mind that the rest of the game was shit.
There is a reason Steven talks about wanting Ashes to be somewhat similar to L2 in terms of PvP - but doesn't really bring it up in any other context.
that was just an example.
Obviously.
The question is - why do we need an example of PvE from a game known to have bad PvE?
The only reason I can think of for it would be to say "Ashes shouldn't do this with PvE, because L2 did it, and L2's PvE was shit. Don't be like L2's PvE".
If that is what you're saying, I agree. If it isn't, I don't get why you are bringing up a point about PvE from a game with shit PvE that Ashes should be able to drunkenly stumble around and do better than.
easy pve isn't bad pve. i cant give an eq example since I haven't really played it.
when I replied to tryol, I was making a point, I simply gave an example of the game ashes is most similar to of the point I was trying to make, a mob that dies fast can still have certain strategy to it, and having a low ttk for mobs doesn't make the game harder to design by default. wether the pve was good or not is irrelevant.
Right, and all of this is factually incorrect. From the top;
Easy PvE isn't inherently bad PvE, but it can not be good PvE.
The game Ashes is most similar to is Archeage, not L2.
Mobs that die fast can not have a strategy to them, they have a method to them. Strategy is inherently a long term thing - nothing that lasts 6 seconds can have a strategy.
Mobs having a low ttk does indeed make PvE harder to design by default. If the idea is that mobs die that quickly, all such mobs can only be one dimensional.
Whether the PvE you were referring to was good or not absolutely is relavent. You don't point to something shit and say "see, it works", because you are pointing to it literally not working well enough.
Edit to add; you saying you can't give examples from EQ due to not having played it enough was a factually correct statement - the only one in your post above.
That said, any mob of an equal level was dangerous if you weren't geared for it - that kind of thing should go without saying.
Solo ttk and danger of equal-lvl mobs in L2 was pretty high as well, cause the game revolved around buffs and you could only get best buffs in a group.
The location in question was mostly a solo (or 2-3 people) spot, and these mage mobs kept you on your toes and your head on a swivel. The shorter ttk on these mobs is just a relative thing, when compared to low atk beefy bois or group mobs.
The point overall was just about the defense/resistance-based damages. In particular "low defense vs high power" interactions. I'd imagine there were bosses that required certain resistances boosted against them, right? So what was the difference between boss dmg to a person with a median value in that resistance and to a person with as full of a resistance as one could get through various means?
The point overall was just about the defense/resistance-based damages. In particular "low defense vs high power" interactions. I'd imagine there were bosses that required certain resistances boosted against them, right? So what was the difference between boss dmg to a person with a median value in that resistance and to a person with as full of a resistance as one could get through various means?
Was it 100 dmg vs 10? More? Less?
Again, not an easy question to answer.
If we are talking just resistance, all mitigations (resistance is just mitigation) caps at 75%. However, mitigation is just one portion of your defense, not the entierity of it.
Edit to add; it is also worth pointing out that where a game like L2 or Archeage has Mdef and Pdef as their primary defensive stats, EQ2 when I played it had mitigations against heat, cold, disease, poison, magic, divine, mental, slashing, crushing and piercing damage each as individual stats as primary defense. Even then, that wasn't all of your defenses, you still had block, dodge, parry, damage reduction, damage transfer, ward, temporary HP and a handful of other stats to take in to consideration in regards to defense.
Comments
I would prefer combat vs mobs to last long enough that with mobs my level, I am analyzing strategies and tactics, rather than just quickly running through rote rotations.
Absolutely perfect, that means if you're properly buffed, you'll slice through mobs.
I can see AoE trains, and a lot of PvP for those AoE train spots, which is obviously fantastic. More fun for everyone.
With a 6 second ttk, you are slicing through the mobs even if you are debuffed.
True, but considering the amount of damage mobs deal (at least if we go by the showcases), you can't just make an AoE train unless you're going to absolutely blast it very fast, you'd get rekt by the mobs. Even taking on 2 mobs seemed dangerous.
Mainly I just really hope that solo grinding is most efficient when killing 1 or maybe 2 mobs at a time, and doesn't turn into an aoe-fest.
It looked dangerous if you were attacked by another player, but that is about it.
Any semicoordinated group will obliterate the mobs we've seen so far w/o even getting a single bit of dmg. And that's not even considering buffs from bards.
Truthfully, I was trying to write that post in a way where I wasn't saying "Steven is a shit MMORPG player", as I feel I end up saying that after most livestreams (still true though).
Mathematically, this almost can't happen.
At-level 'solo' mob vs 2 players.
Dies in 3-4s instead of 6. Does 33% less damage, rewards probably 50% of the exp to each player. Add any synergy, double the CC options.
Unless players are generally so 'incompetent' that 2 people have significant trouble standing in position together compared to one, this is how this goes basically every time.
Then take into account the fact that each of those two players now has the other to 'cover for their downtime' in terms of cooldowns.
The two types of game where this doesn't work are 'high mobility games where enemies have tactical cleave damage and don't flinch' and 'FFXI'.
Unless your answer is ofc 'just immediately buff how much damage they do because they are fighting two people instead of one'.
I don't doubt he is playing it up a bit - but he wasn't a good player on Archeage.
But why are you assuming it's one mob at a time? It's rarely just one in any mmo. Its almost always packs.
If its packs of 4 to 6, with some doing heavy damage while others cc or whatever, if they are actually dangerous then you have to make decisions before you enguage. If it's almost never true with one then it's almost always true with 4 to 6.
Never mind.
slower doesn't mean more dangerous...the mob could still have weak damage.
edit: I prefer 2-3 skills for solo mobs.
or a good 3-4 seconds of autos
Is is considerably harder to design a challenging encounter when the mob you're designing is restricted to a lifespan of 3-4, or even 6 seconds. They would need to give it very high damage and a really strong skillset to balance for low TTK. I don't think normal mobs should hit you for +10% of your hp each hit, that would be ridiculous.
Having them live longer would give us better balance between hp, damage and skills, leading to a more meaningful and tactical encounter.
its not harder. there are mobs in l2 who can 1 shot you, and these are mobs that a mage can kill in 2 hits (2-3 seconds). these are regular, common mobs (not all mobs are like that).
you can have different areas with different mobs. not every single mob in the open needs to be challenging. mobs for party play should be more challenging.
more hp doesn't mean more meaningful encounter. some mobs require certain strategies, even if they die quickly.
also, longer fights mean less conflicts in PVP. why would you fight over a spot if you it takes you a long time to kill a mob, and by the time you finish, another one has already respawned. no reason to fight since everybody will always be busy with 1 mob and have another one there waiting. you would have to considerably reduce mob density then. there are lots of things to consider, not just the time it takes to kill a mob.
We need to keep in context we are talking about normal trash mobs. Not elites, strong units, special ones, dungeon mobs.
Also id rather mobs hit harder than be sponges, so you are more mindful of using your defensive skills and active dodge / blocking
There is a reason Steven talks about wanting Ashes to be somewhat similar to L2 in terms of PvP - but doesn't really bring it up in any other context.
that was just an example. i mentioned l2 because ashes is most similar to it. i could have mentioned RO, but I was thinking about some specific mobs in l2 in valley of saints and ruins of despair
The question is - why do we need an example of PvE from a game known to have bad PvE?
The only reason I can think of for it would be to say "Ashes shouldn't do this with PvE, because L2 did it, and L2's PvE was shit. Don't be like L2's PvE".
If that is what you're saying, I agree. If it isn't, I don't get why you are bringing up a point about PvE from a game with shit PvE that Ashes should be able to drunkenly stumble around and do better than.
easy pve isn't bad pve. i cant give an eq example since I haven't really played it.
when I replied to tryol, I was making a point, I simply gave an example of the game ashes is most similar to of the point I was trying to make, a mob that dies fast can still have certain strategy to it, and having a low ttk for mobs doesn't make the game harder to design by default. wether the pve was good or not is irrelevant.
This bring up a question. Did EQ have mobs that could wipe you really quickly if their attack type's power was way higher than your resistance to that type of attack?
I personally like these kinds of mobs, because you can still use methods to reduce their damage by a lot, but you gotta be prepared for them and you gotta spend money/time/socialization to do so.
And this then brings up an economy/design question for @Azherae . Does Elite have "fragile cargo" mechanics of any sort? And if not, what's your data on player reactions to such mechanics.
Say Ashes had a potion that gave you a super high fire resistance. But to craft that potion you needed a specific plant processed in a specific way. The plant grows only in a particular location and absolute majority of mobs that would need fire resistance live on the other side of the world. The plan itself is huge so you can only transfer a few at a time on your person, or you could pack them in big cargo boxes for caravans.
The "fragile cargo" point comes with the processing part. You gotta "squeeze the plant" and use the juice in the potion. The potion destabilizes quickly, so it becomes useless after, say, 10mins (its effect lasts 5-10m). And the juice from the plant is unstable and becomes useless if carried on a mount/mule or caravan (but can be stored for a very long time), so you need to craft the potion right before you need it.
So if someone wanted to make money on gathering the plant and/or selling the juice - they'd need to either use caravans or bring the juice by walking across the entire map (the amount of carriable juice would be roughly equal to one caravan full of plant boxes). Both ways take time, with caravans also being super risky, but if you manage to do this - you've got big potion money.
Does Elite (or maybe did FF11) have anything remotely similar to that kind of design structure and what was the player response to it, if yes. Or what do you think the response would be?
And for everyone else, would you be ok with that kind of mechanic? Both in terms of "this encounter needs a super expensive (hard to get) item" and the "fragile cargo" feature.
I thought about making a separate thread about this, but I dunno if there's much point.
There were situations players could get themselves in to where they could be killed fighting solo content - obviously. However, since the games ttk was a LOT longer than 6 seconds (about 15 seconds for a normal solo mob of equal level - I say normal because EQ2 has I think 5 tiers of solo mobs by design), those sitautions were not the result of one trash mob.
That said, any mob of an equal level was dangerous if you weren't geared for it - that kind of thing should go without saying.
Right, and all of this is factually incorrect. From the top;
Easy PvE isn't inherently bad PvE, but it can not be good PvE.
The game Ashes is most similar to is Archeage, not L2.
Mobs that die fast can not have a strategy to them, they have a method to them. Strategy is inherently a long term thing - nothing that lasts 6 seconds can have a strategy.
Mobs having a low ttk does indeed make PvE harder to design by default. If the idea is that mobs die that quickly, all such mobs can only be one dimensional.
Whether the PvE you were referring to was good or not absolutely is relavent. You don't point to something shit and say "see, it works", because you are pointing to it literally not working well enough.
Edit to add; you saying you can't give examples from EQ due to not having played it enough was a factually correct statement - the only one in your post above.
The location in question was mostly a solo (or 2-3 people) spot, and these mage mobs kept you on your toes and your head on a swivel. The shorter ttk on these mobs is just a relative thing, when compared to low atk beefy bois or group mobs.
The point overall was just about the defense/resistance-based damages. In particular "low defense vs high power" interactions. I'd imagine there were bosses that required certain resistances boosted against them, right? So what was the difference between boss dmg to a person with a median value in that resistance and to a person with as full of a resistance as one could get through various means?
Was it 100 dmg vs 10? More? Less?
Again, not an easy question to answer.
If we are talking just resistance, all mitigations (resistance is just mitigation) caps at 75%. However, mitigation is just one portion of your defense, not the entierity of it.
Edit to add; it is also worth pointing out that where a game like L2 or Archeage has Mdef and Pdef as their primary defensive stats, EQ2 when I played it had mitigations against heat, cold, disease, poison, magic, divine, mental, slashing, crushing and piercing damage each as individual stats as primary defense. Even then, that wasn't all of your defenses, you still had block, dodge, parry, damage reduction, damage transfer, ward, temporary HP and a handful of other stats to take in to consideration in regards to defense.