What is your MMO PvE experience like?

From another topic, I found myself wondering something.

I don't play a lot of MMOs, I have some I love, and others I swiftly ignore. But I keep coming across people for whom PvE seems to mean a relatively scripted encounter where you ONLY have to respond in unison at the right timing and maybe handle adds.

So I'm collecting data again. I may ask a lot of clarifying questions, so please bear with me, even if I come off as diminishing your experience, I only 'mean to' in the sense that I need a scale to work with.

I thought about it and realized that there's no good reason I'm aware of for an owPvP game to make scripted enemies. It doesn't teach you anything about the PvP aspect of the game, it doesn't carry over well to different groups, and it doesn't make the PvE itself more interesting (imo).

I therefore simply didn't expect to see that in Ashes at all (and so far from experiences with bosses in Ashes, I have not seen it, it works more like the games I am used to). I've never had any reason to expect this. If you do, what game caused it? Were most of the elite/top tier encounters like that? Is there anything about it that you explicitly like?

The only reason I'm fine with a more scripted pve, in the context of an owpvp game, is that I just want a backdrop to the pvp I'm waiting for while farming. If pve required constant highest concentration, any pvp attacker would just destroy me because even if I did notice him before time, the mob would keep hitting me while I'd try to pvp. L2's mobs hit you too, obviously, but their hits wouldn't just destroy you if you shifted your attention onto another player to pvp him for a few secs.

I'm very curious who top lvl ow pve will look like in Ashes, considering they gotta account for potential pvp around said pve. Designing top lvl pve for all the pve lovers, while also managing to not overtune it, in such a way that any pvp involvement immediately kills the pvers (or potentially making the attacker Red), will probably be very difficult to do.

NiKr wrote: »

The only reason I'm fine with a more scripted pve, in the context of an owpvp game, is that I just want a backdrop to the pvp I'm waiting for while farming. If pve required constant highest concentration, any pvp attacker would just destroy me because even if I did notice him before time, the mob would keep hitting me while I'd try to pvp. L2's mobs hit you too, obviously, but their hits wouldn't just destroy you if you shifted your attention onto another player to pvp him for a few secs.

I'm very curious who top lvl ow pve will look like in Ashes, considering they gotta account for potential pvp around said pve. Designing top lvl pve for all the pve lovers, while also managing to not overtune it, in such a way that any pvp involvement immediately kills the pvers (or potentially making the attacker Red), will probably be very difficult to do.

This is not difficult.

Intrepid already does it this way for larger bosses. If they implement something that I have already seen hints they originally intended, it becomes easier.

So I'll posit a scenario to you.

You and your group are fighting an ice dragon, it sends out waves of frost with its wings that hit and debuff everyone who is in the line, including anyone attempting to PvP you.

Its other more powerful attacks are triggered only by a gauge that builds up when your group damages it, so if you switch to PvP, the boss' dangerous attacks slow down massively and your Tank just has to worry about the basics (being chomped at, being clawed).

Would this be sufficient for you to generally assume that you would be able to enjoy the scenario, and if not, in which direction do you doubt their design (and my added implication)?

Azherae wrote: »

Would this be sufficient for you to generally assume that you would be able to enjoy the scenario, and if not, in which direction do you doubt their design (and my added implication)?

Would definitely be fine for me, but I'd like Noaani's input on this kind of design cause I feel like he's the biggest top lvl pve nerd around these parts. Cause to me that kind of mechanics feels a bit exploitable. What if your group sees that they might wipe in a few more boss hits, so they decide to stop attacking the boss and just take a few steps back. Now the healer only worries about the tank or maybe doesn't worry at all cause the tank saved up some "ultimate defense"-type skill that allows him to hold the boss for additional 20-30 secs while the group heals and buffs up. To me this feels like it'd make pve content waaay easier.

Yes, I'd love this kind of design because it allows me to play the game just as I like to play it, and seemingly how Intrepid promises it will be played, but I'm not sure how many people would appreciate it as much as I do. And judging by how rare my likes are appreciated or supported (design-wise), I'd assume, not that many people would want to have this kind of exploitable design.

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Would this be sufficient for you to generally assume that you would be able to enjoy the scenario, and if not, in which direction do you doubt their design (and my added implication)?

Would definitely be fine for me, but I'd like Noaani's input on this kind of design cause I feel like he's the biggest top lvl pve nerd around these parts. Cause to me that kind of mechanics feels a bit exploitable. What if your group sees that they might wipe in a few more boss hits, so they decide to stop attacking the boss and just take a few steps back. Now the healer only worries about the tank or maybe doesn't worry at all cause the tank saved up some "ultimate defense"-type skill that allows him to hold the boss for additional 20-30 secs while the group heals and buffs up. To me this feels like it'd make pve content waaay easier.

Yes, I'd love this kind of design because it allows me to play the game just as I like to play it, and seemingly how Intrepid promises it will be played, but I'm not sure how many people would appreciate it as much as I do. And judging by how rare my likes are appreciated or supported (design-wise), I'd assume, not that many people would want to have this kind of exploitable design.

Ah yes, that's my error. As noted, I am REALLY too used to this system, so I leave out parts.

The Gauge also rises when the boss hits anyone else (usually the Tank, of course).

Magic usage is not affected by this.

Azherae wrote: »

The Gauge also rises when the boss hits anyone else (usually the Tank, of course).

Magic usage is not affected by this.

Depending on how difficult the dodge mechanics are for most bosses/mobs, this could still be an exploitable problem of "take a break and heal up, while running around a bit instead of hitting the mob". Though I'm sure all of that can be figured out in testing.

This kind of mechanic does bring more fun into the pvp part of the pvx equation, where proper awareness and movement could allow the OG farmers to use the boss' attack against the newcomers. Would definitely love this if it's gonna be the case in Ashes.

We have not received permission from CROW3 to share the quoted post.

Nah, rock out.

It's precisely because I end up feeling like certain discussions use some PvE assumptions that I would have thought were literally doomed to fail, so I want all the data. Break it up into multiple posts if you think it's too much.

As an example, WoW PvE has always struck me as being almost entirely challenge-less if the enemy isn't some elite or raid boss. Tera PvE, I remember having to at least care, I had to move, I had to think, even if the regular mobs didn't really have abilities or much dynamic aspects. I stopped playing Tera only because the dynamism level wasn't my preference.

So yeah if anything let's limit it to definitely 'Enemy'. If environment factors in so MUCH (not to the status of the enemy but to the point where the environment is the threat and the enemy would not be a threat without the environment space) then probably not as interested but data is data.

We have not received permission from Dygz to share the quoted post.

Aside from required combat scenarios such as class unlocks/similar, is there any type of direct combat in groups or with mobs where you are inspired or interested in the combat aspect itself?

Not necessarily referring to striking the enemy in any way. Many Clerics and Bards, support characters in general, there are games in which these players could play the entire game and encounter PvE challenges without ever drawing their weapon or even targeting an enemy.

If you participate in this form of group Combat, is it enjoyable, and if you have done so, do you remember anything specific about how the game system handled the combat, or just your part thereof?

We have not received permission from George_Black to share the quoted post.

Do you prefer the 'challenge' and 'fear of death' aspects to be present in at-level (or at-group-level) combat most of the time? Have you generally found that the games you play actually provided this challenge from just the PvE alone (open world non-Raid enemies in particular)?

And secondly, if so, do you also prefer that there be a significant fear of death even during an Exp grind?

We have not received permission from JamesSunderland to share the quoted post.

Would that 'copypaste monsters of player classes' aspect be a negative to you? For example, if it was used at all times, would it, in turn, be a problem?

For clarity on why I ask, this is the design type I'm most familiar with. Every NPC enemy in Elite uses one of the same ships that players use, just with a different semirandom build (usually more specialized to make them more challenging).

A relatively large subset of enemies in Neverwinter Online function in a way similar to this, and you can see it in their movement. Others are started from the base of it and modified, but you can still notice.

Every Mob in FFXI, but particularly the stronger ones (in terms of how obvious it is), also has the same 'Jobs' and usually the associated Traits, as players. I have played games that don't use this approach, but in general those games have had less of a focus on their PvE, so it's a matter of 'they don't stand out relative to when this method is used'.

We have not received permission from JamesSunderland to share the quoted post.

Would this be as interesting if the AI was not pure RNG in this case, just reactive or dynamic?

We have not received permission from Noaani to share the quoted post.

You usually wouldn't have pvp during the fight itself iirc. The door to the boss would close so the pvp would be before the farm. As I said multiple times before, epic bosses (not all) in L2 had semi-instances. The fight itself would usually be just against the boss. The pvp would be before the boss and sometimes after. Or, if you failed your farm attempt, there'd be pvp while waiting for the door to reset and open up again.

Valakas' hp pool was just so damn huge that you needed that many people to overpower him. And this is why I've always said that L2's pve isn't as complex/difficult as other games', because while, yes, you needed to properly control over 100 people and they all would have to be at peak character progress, mechanically it was nowhere near the stuff like ff14/wow raid/party bosses.

We have not received permission from CROW3 to share the quoted post.

Have you been able to avoid grinding in games then?

I notice you didn't really mention much of it. Was it that the games you played, the standard open-world enemy is insignificant? I know that there are games where you can level almost entirely by just questing and doing main story battles, I have been taught in the past that the reason for this, is that the Devs don't add significant challenge to most open world enemies in any way, so people avoid the grind as much as they can.

As part of your exploration, do you engage in combat if you find a new interesting enemy or an Elite in a far off area, by yourself, or do you inform another group you know/your guild and then either wait for them to join them for any encounter, or leave it to them?

@CROW3 @Dygz

Data is thrown into the cruncher! Thank you. I have additional questions along the same line but it requires a short description which I will put in the Spoiler below. The question itself is about 'Novelty' vs 'Dynamism' and which part of the experience drives your exploration/movement.

In Elite Dangerous there is a game mechanic called the Unidentified Signal Source. While you are flying around in Faster Than Light mode, you can scan 'signal indicators of other ships that have 'returned to normal space' within the last 40m or so' (this is an interpretation of a game mechanic, the Sources spawn randomly weighted by statuses in the Star System).

If you see one that says, for example, "Weapons Threat 5", it implies that there was some combat or that a heavily armed ship/group is present. If you see "Encoded Emissions" it implies that a ship was destroyed or had a technical fault (usually both) and there is some information to gather from the debris. This too, depends on the status of the star System and RNG, but the Status has the stronger effect.

If you were to see such a prompt, knowing that it is being controlled by a Micro-Lore system similar to what Ashes is proposing, would you end up having an interest in it to the point of investigation of it, even if you have seen this status before? Do you find that you need visuals to prevent you from making assumptions? I.e. if given the same 'prompt' are you the type that 'engages 10 times in case you just didn't hit the 1d10 on the interesting thing', or do you tend to 'assume lack of dynamism' after about 3-4x of the same result until someone tells you.

And for Dygz specifically, if you did 'interact with the prompt' and find that the thing turned out to be a threat, will you 'allow an aggressive hostile enemy to attack you if it will buy time for someone who will deal with that threat to arrive', or is this of no interest to you, resulting in immediate disengage (escape tools).

tl;dr does Dynamism pull you back to old haunts or does the wish for Novelty push you out to new vistas, on AVERAGE, which wins out? (or if you can give a ratio, please do).

We have not received permission from CROW3 to share the quoted post.

And separately, is it generally that in your experience, open world mobs (that reward reasonable exp) do not pose a significant risk of death to a group in the games you play?

Obviously this is an odd question because you can always choose to 'go as far as your group can safely go', but there does come a point where the game does not 'allow' for this, based on respawn timers.

i.e. if the area is populated enough for you to get aggro/links and the enemies respawn every 3 minutes, you are probably expected to kill a single enemy in 90 seconds if your group is taking on one at a time. Anything more than this and you may be overrun.

So assuming that enemies respawn every 4m, and your group therefore chooses 'the enemy they can defeat in 2:15' (these numbers are related to Ashes cooldowns in my mind, in a long explanation which I'll skip) based solely on prior experiences, would you expect that enemy to pose a meaningful threat of at least one party member falling if one player loses connection or is suddenly called afk?