Is the goal truly PvX?

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

Part of the problem with that thread, as I remember it, is that you literally don't believe that the things we tell you about the PvE we have experienced are possible.

Or you think they're bad design. So you kinda automatically disqualify all the content we consider interesting.

As for 'expressing it', I think that would be a bad idea here kind of. I want Ashes to succeed. Ashes is based on AA and L2 and might be losing any FFXI/EQ influence it has, as we move forward.

If the game system doesn't suit the type of encounters I am talking about, they should not make them. If it does, I am so confident that they are ALREADY making them, that the only reason I even try to explain anything to anyone else is because I am sad that y'all don't know 'what is coming'.

I'm sure you will adapt, it's not going to be some 'mind-blowing wake-up call' if you have to face the type of content I'm used to. It might be jarring at first to 'randomly die because you thought it was scripted' or you weren't prepared for something you've never seen the boss do before, but that's part of the fun.

So I don't really feel the need to express it. If Ashes doesn't intend to have this PvE type, they probably did extensive analysis on why their game won't work if they have it. If they DO intend to have it, then all I can do is help you understand that it exists so you can give feedback on how you feel about it.

All I hope is that either TL or Ashes has it, and given the other decisions on Ashes side, for my selfish perspective I have to hope it is TL. Ashes should do whatever Steven enjoys.

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

Then according to this, you've just done the same thing and defined all PvE as static because it relies on ANY form of computer code at all.

Except that it doesn't have to. I have a question then.

Is a Chess playing computer 'static' whereas a chess playing human is 'dynamic'?

And if EITHER the human is 'static' or the computer 'dynamic', is it the nature of Chess that causes this?

I don't want to get really philosophical on you, but you literally defined the answer in a way where you just make it tautological. I normally don't engage after that, but you're new (to me) so I would just like to make sure I cover all bases before I form any opinions of your thought process.

Also yes, you are wrong about the encounter. Again, for many reasons, really, which would take a long time to explain. The question is if you are willing to START believing that before I spend 10 posts on it, or if you're just likely to go 'well that sounds easy and a competent raider can do it' every time until we get back to 'well it's impossible for a Computer Controlled Opponent to be dynamic anyway'.

Gnoles have an ability "Call of the Moon" which grants them "Intimidate" which has the potential to make most actions taken against them fail for a time. The user is intimidated and does not perform the action. Thereby creating a situation where you could attempt to Stun it and just... fail.

Post Counter: 1.

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

I am willing to continue if you are. But as it stands, it seems that you have decided that 'anything that doesn't adapt is only variable'. And I don't want to presume, so please tell me. Is anything that can only adapt within a certain parameter space, because it has a limited number of abilities TOTAL, also not dynamic? Because I perceive player groups to also have this limited number of total abilities.

I want to continue this without insulting you, I will ask you to try to do the same. Therefore I also ask that despite this next line PROBABLY seeming like an intention to insult you, you try to look past that because tiptoeing around it takes SO long.

I find that many 'good Raiders' have this concept that 'just bring enough CC so that the boss can't do anything dangerous' is the correct design space to be in. People seem to enjoy 'well, it poses a danger we can't adapt to other than locking it down, so LOCK IT DOWN'.

But please understand that from my perspective 'Hard PvE' would involve things you can't just lock down. Things that GET to be Dynamic and adapt. Players just don't LIKE this because they have to keep up. I offer you two counterpoints to the ENCOUNTER part of this therefore.

1. Note that I said the METER does not go away. Some bosses are 'nice' and don't 'immediately retry'. Harder ones are NOT nice. You stun ability A, they can try it again almost instantly. At SOME point you must run out of stuns.

2. Just making ANY boss stun-immune would prevent this. Now, if your response is 'well that's not good design', we can definitely stop. I prefer games where I have to actually deal with the compound abilities and progressions of bosses. IF you don't appreciate that gameplay type, I can see why you hold the opinion you hold.

There ARE FFXI bosses and enemies that EXPLICITLY adapt to what players are doing, what the players have done, how many players are present, etc. But if 'adapting based on changing battle conditions' is not enough to be 'Dynamic', only 'Variable' (due to a limited number of abilities that can be used for the adaptation) then wouldn't PvP also be just 'variable'?

The only thing I know Bosses don't really do is 'take actions that could only result in them losing' on purpose. To me, this is the difference between humans and Bosses. Bosses don't usually have the ability to just FUCK UP SO ROYALLY that the opponents are left dazed and confused and then get sucker-punched (or not).

But even that, I have experienced, so...

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

If this is at me, I don't like to make those sorts of distinctions BUT.

If the PvE is garbage and just there to give people something to do when not fighting each other so that they can get gear, I would consider it a PvP game.

If the PvE is scripted to the point where you know what will happen if PvP happens during it, I also consider it a PvP game.

If anything, I'm arguing that Intrepid has said 'Ashes will not be a PvP game' using those definitions . They talk about a lot of things that I'm used to. What I consistently learn is that EITHER Intrepid doesn't know what hard PvE is either and lots of people will agree with what they make as a result OR a lot of people don't know what hard PvE is so the descriptions Intrepid gives, don't actually give them any understanding of the intention.

For example:

"Your really over thinking this. The raid boss can't change it's tactics in real time from fight to fight. It can't even change its tactics mid fight. It's not AI. Humans can. The humans are dynamic. If raid bosses were AI, you'd have a point."

This has multiple flaws.
1. Raid bosses can be AI, if they aren't, that's a choice someone made.
2. Dynamic AI is one of the EASIER things to code into game encounters because of HOW exactly AI actually works.
3. Bosses can change tactics in real time, and many can and do change tactics mid-fight.

The result, though, is someone possibly not understanding at all what Intrepid might be trying to make.

So it's PvP to me if that person is correct and I'm the one that's wrong about the way it will be implemented. But I choose to trust Steven's terms when viewed through the lens of having played games like this already. So it can still be a PvX game, if some VERY difficult and complex (for players, not developers) systems are used.

tl;dr getting into PvP while fighting a scripted boss doesn't count as PvX at the same LEVEL as 'getting into PvP separately but also being challenged by 'variable' bosses in PvE. The former puts all the content load on PvP, the latter does not, and therefore I think it is more accurately 'PvX'.

Hmm yeah never mind.

Having thought about it and carefully reread @Calibix responses, I guess I'll go with 'I'm unable to admit I'm wrong' or whatever.

Too many signs of 'just trying to pick at details instead of trying to understand the point being made', possible ignorance of how AI even works, and 'willing to consider PvP to be dynamic but PvE not, even if mobs have MORE abilities than any player' without even factoring the AI.

Just not worth it today...

Becoming less and less worth it lately in general.

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

What would be "done right" in your opinion? I love L2's mass pvp and consider it somewhat well-balanced, where lower amounts of highly skilled (or better geared) people can win out against bigger amounts of poorly skilled/geared ones.

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

Quite a lot. The best guilds usually had the best leaders. One of the biggest examples that I know is of a person who had a lvl40 character instead of a max lvl one, purely because he spent way more time controlling and directing stuff from behind rather than being directly on the front lines. And during sieges he'd usually be on a flying mount overlooking the battlefield.

And from my own experience as a GL and my guildmates' feedback to it, we had much bigger successes and the feedback was way more positive when I concentrated on my commands and tried to strategize correct movements on the battlefield rather than when I was just trying to lead everyone at the front of the pack.

And the same applies to each party too. A good PL can make a party of even mid-skill players much more effective than a shitty PL who's at conflict with his highly skilled partymates. Though on the party lvl it's usually even more about personal respect and skill lvl difference. You GL might be a shitty mechanical player or low lvl, but his strategical and tactical decisions win the battle, but if your PL is either of those things - all the egos would just clash against each other and the PL wouldn't be able to control anyone properly.

And if the GL somehow manages to both be the top lvl in the guild, the most level-headed person and also great at mass pvp control - you've got yourself a dude who'll be followed by hundreds of people w/o a question. I've only really heard about such GLs through second-hand experiences.

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

Gladly, you've pretty much described AoC's plans so we just gotta hope that they work out.