Since this thread is still going I guess I'll jump back in. There is a developer interview transcript up at tentonhammer now that I thought had some information that is pertinent to this discussion.
Here's something that is slightly off the main topic but I thought it was interesting. Remember the idea about soul corruption sending casters to hell? That was actually one of the cooler ideas the devs had. It was something that even had a certain roleplay/immerssion feel to it which you don't see very often these days. Well they took it out. And guess why? Because it was inconvenient for raiders.
Here is the quote:
"Q: Sending yourself to hell? Is that still in the works?
Gaute: That was one of the things we saw people not responding to favorably to - when they got put to hell during a raid."
I just thought that was interesting. The raiders didn't like it so out it goes. Who are they making this game for again? To be fair I'm sure there would be plenty of non-raiders who wouldn't like it either. But it says something about the devs that the reason they took it out was to please the raiding crowd.
It also says something about raiders. They are always spouting about "challenge" and how they like for things to be difficult. But THEY are the ones who drive the dumbing down of games more than any other group (my opinion of course).
In regards to raid loot distribution they had this to say:
"In terms of the raid, it's the raid leader that can distribute. So there isn't any "token" system in place for handling raid achievements."
If the reader doesn't see the significance of this I'm not going to spend a lot of time explaining it but basically a token system is a way to ensure that part-time raiders (people who can only raid occasionally) will get something for their trouble). Not having a system of that sort is simply bowing to the ultra-hardcore raiders.
Here is a quote regarding the amount of raid content at launch in case there was some doubt about how much of their time has been going into developing raid content:
"We will have twenty plus raid targets at launch."
For people who wondered about the item-centricity question and the need to "gear up" this one should help to clear things up:
"We are planning to have an item-based raid leveling system which gears you towards taking the next level of raids in place."
-------------------------------------------------
And this one:
"Evan: Yes. Currently there's tiers of raids and raid loot planned of increasing strength that will basically allow you to start working on the next tier."
And in the interest of honest reporting I need to add this one:
"They have a very interesting and creative solution going on with the way that raid drops versus non-raid drops works and from I've seen the balance of that and how it impacts PvE non-raiding versus raiding is actually very solid."
Raiding itself is a great idea to encourage group achievements and adventure. When raiding becomes a necessity, then you are hindering those who cannot raid on a 24/7 basis. I take me for example. I work 50 hours a week, make great money, am 31 yrs old. I have a wife, 1yr old son, and alot of responsibilities. But i do try to work in some game time late night...usually from about 10 to midnight. In WoW, this was a major disadvantage for me. My friends and guildies, who i have known for over 6 yrs now, most had the ability to raid a dungeon 3x a week. Not including a pick up group or 2 on the weekends. They were all decked out in the best gear.
I would be able to maybe stay for 1 whole raid, spending 3-4 hours on the computer is a near impossibility for me, but i like to compete and enjoy a game. So while raiding itself is a fantastic idea, the implimentation and gear achieved through it are virtually unaccessible for me. If they manage to balance this so that raiders do not have the top of the line items, then great! But there should be some sort of recognition for these same people who have the ability to do a raid, whether it be a trophy, badge, title, etc....or even a decorative armor attachment or something. But to make the best gear for pve or pvp drop from said dungeons, severely limits us who don't have the ability to make the game a 2nd job.
Since this thread is still going I guess I'll jump back in. There is a developer interview transcript up at tentonhammer now that I thought had some information that is pertinent to this discussion. Here's something that is slightly off the main topic but I thought it was interesting. Remember the idea about soul corruption sending casters to hell? That was actually one of the cooler ideas the devs had. It was something that even had a certain roleplay/immerssion feel to it which you don't see very often these days. Well they took it out. And guess why? Because it was inconvenient for raiders. Here is the quote: "Q: Sending yourself to hell? Is that still in the works?
Gaute: That was one of the things we saw people not responding to favorably to - when they got put to hell during a raid." ----------------------------------------------------------------- I just thought that was interesting. The raiders didn't like it so out it goes. Who are they making this game for again? To be fair I'm sure there would be plenty of non-raiders who wouldn't like it either. But it says something about the devs that the reason they took it out was to please the raiding crowd. It also says something about raiders. They are always spouting about "challenge" and how they like for things to be difficult. But THEY are the ones who drive the dumbing down of games more than any other group (my opinion of course).
In regards to raid loot distribution they had this to say: "In terms of the raid, it's the raid leader that can distribute. So there isn't any "token" system in place for handling raid achievements." ----------------------------------------------------------- If the reader doesn't see the significance of this I'm not going to spend a lot of time explaining it but basically a token system is a way to ensure that part-time raiders (people who can only raid occasionally) will get something for their trouble). Not having a system of that sort is simply bowing to the ultra-hardcore raiders.
Here is a quote regarding the amount of raid content at launch in case there was some doubt about how much of their time has been going into developing raid content: "We will have twenty plus raid targets at launch." -------------------------------------------------------- For people who wondered about the item-centricity question and the need to "gear up" this one should help to clear things up: "We are planning to have an item-based raid leveling system which gears you towards taking the next level of raids in place." ------------------------------------------------- And this one: "Evan: Yes. Currently there's tiers of raids and raid loot planned of increasing strength that will basically allow you to start working on the next tier." ------------------------------------------------------------
And in the interest of honest reporting I need to add this one: "They have a very interesting and creative solution going on with the way that raid drops versus non-raid drops works and from I've seen the balance of that and how it impacts PvE non-raiding versus raiding is actually very solid." -------------------------------------------------------- That last one sounds encouraging but they don't bother to explain it at all. What does it mean? Nothing really, not without some clarifacation.
To be fair, it seems that there is still very much up in the air about alot of the high end content... including raid loot. There was noone from the high end department at the Q&A you read. Im not even certain if it was the whole transcript, as it was nearly a 2 hour question-fest.
Having the video on my computer right now, I followed along with your quotes and reasoning. All I can say, is: Maybe you should watch the video. It lends a different light on a few of your quotes. Having heard them in context it makes all the difference.
I would be more worried about the game being finished and polished 1-20, than a raid and loot system they dont even have set up yet.
I had a long post,but i figured why bother to intellects who can't grasp a simple topic?
i'll spell it out for you so it's easier to grasp>>>you do NOT,i repeat do NOT need raiding to enjoy any reason or aspect for playing a MMORPG.Raiding is EXACTLY the same as normal grouping to wich in most good games you can also form alliances and achieve the exact same thing.
Raid bosses are no different than normal mobs ,except they have more hitpoints and defense,WOW isn't that ingenuitive? lol.
raiding takes more time and alienates in alot of cases friends/family and OTHER guildmates who cannot make it.Soon to be followed up with promises of helping those who missed,with follow ups of excuses why they all of a sudden can't.
IN nornal grouping ,if you are fighting a VERY hard mob and lose a healer ,your group is dead.In a raid you can have in reality 90% of your raid die and still get credit for the drop or quest/mission whatever the reason was for killing it.So if anything raiding has been stereotyped as being elite,when in reality it's more a noobish setup that any noob can tag along and get credit.
In closing let me repeat,for those who already forgot because they are set on arguing something i have said>>> YOU DO NOT need a raid to enjoy a game.There is NOTHING a raid offers that can't be done in a normal alliance or a normal group of friends or family.Nothing!
item list[raiding]
1 enter instance[maybe]
2 kill mobs along the way to boss[again maybe]
3 possibility of death [maybe]
4 find boss/mob/s
5 BUFF up and attack mob/s.[again possible death,most likely ]
6 recieve elite drop[maybe]or get quest/mission credit[maybe]
umm let me see if anything on check list isn't already done in any normal situation? nope notta nothing.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
IN nornal grouping ,if you are fighting a VERY hard mob and lose a healer ,your group is dead.In a raid you can have in reality 90% of your raid die and still get credit for the drop or quest/mission whatever the reason was for killing it.So if anything raiding has been stereotyped as being elite,when in reality it's more a noobish setup that any noob can tag along and get credit.
"More noobish setup"... heh...
You've never really raided anything difficult then. 72 man EQ1 raids against bosses that have never been beaten on any server? Nothing "noob" about that. Takes far more skill than joe group of 6 just swinging away one mob at a time.
I'm no longer a raider, but I keep seeing this "raiding is easier than grouping" logic, and well, that isn't true.
The biggest limiting factor regarding raiding is coordination, in and out of the game. That's the most difficult part about it, provided people have a pretty good grasp of what they're supposed to do with their avatar in-game.
And Wizardry, the exact same arguments you expressed when comparing grouping vs raiding can be equally valid when comparing soloing vs grouping. Does that mean that soloing is the way to go? Maybe, maybe not.
I still believe that in an ideal situation it would be best if the option is there, than lacking the option altogether. Provided of course that the option is well thought and well implemented (which is another discussion altogether).
Once again, why is it unbearable hell to raid? It's not unbearable to raid but is to raid grind to get your guild geared.
How do you get these ideas? Do you dislike talking to other people over Vent?Yes Especially when 80% of the conversations are Arnold/Chuck noris comments (along with all the other crap that is in VoIP doing nothing but slowing down the info people need for the next encounter.
Perhaps you hate it when you accomplish something new in the game? Not at all but the key word is to acomplish "something" Not spend 4 hours raiding for the leader to say Oh we will save the boss for tomorrow cause x,y,z has to get going. I been waiting 4 hours to see the main boss then you stop the raid WTF
Is it really so bad to have to coordinate with others, listen to them, and follow orders,Umm kindof this is a game not the military or my office I listen Follow orders all day and my job title is Actually an HTML Coordinator. So no I don't want to be forced to do what I do all day at work in my entertainment. Not to mention that trying to coordinate anything with a prepubesant 12 yrs old afflicted by a.d.d that cant stand still for more then 2 mins keeps whiping the group cause he doesn't pay attention sucks ass.
instead of doing your own thing no matter what? In essance once a fight starts I do do my own thing its called nuking(mage here) and staying alive I don't need someone telling me to move my toon away from a fire breathing dragon every 5 seconds and screaming about it if I lag up or have something else I'm paying attention to distract me.
What part of raiding is this unbearable hell? All of the above and the fact that I wait 30 min for some yahhoo to go piss every 5 mins.
To the above statements this is only my opinion and I don't know if this is how others feel. I did read most of this tread and am on the fence about the subject myself.
But the items I mentioned above are the things I find lame as hell while raiding.
"The most important thing is to have the design support the players in setting their own goals in both cooperative and competitive interaction with one another." - Ironore -
"They have a very interesting and creative solution going on with the way that raid drops versus non-raid drops works and from I've seen the balance of that and how it impacts PvE non-raiding versus raiding is actually very solid." -------------------------------------------------------- That last one sounds encouraging but they don't bother to explain it at all. What does it mean? Nothing really, not without some clarifacation.
Aww.. Neanderthal.. you are growing old. You missed one little sentence
He said also something like: We also have two lower level raid zones, but we probably respec them to 80 before launch.
yepp, this all is a huge tribute to "hardcore raiders".
And yes, there is hope for others. It might be quite some fun to build your own build with feats, crafted, quested and group drop items. It depends a bit on how gems will be. I am doing it in EQ2 while waiting for AoC. I left mainstream, try out mixtures of differents sets and try out items that arent form my class. I try to balance them with my feats. That way you can build nice hybrids who are real fun to play. The good thing in AoC is that almost all classes are hybrid. Its fun to collect items for either side of your hybrid. Depending on your role in group you can switch items and become more DPS or more heal for example. Yes, i still have hope.
That's true. But there is a huge crop of young mmorpg gamers who are starting to hit adulthood so even if I succumb to alzhiemers I have no doubt that there will be plenty of people to carry the torch of liberty from raid-centricity.
Now...where did I put that cat...? Let's see, I was microwaving my dentures when I let him in.....I remember that he was wet and cold from the snow and I wanted to warm him up....hmm. Oh well, I'll find him eventually.
So, anyway...there was another thing I was wanting to clear up but with my encroaching senility I can't remember where I read about it. I'll mention it anyway and see if anyone wants to challenge it. This goes back to the subject of PvP equipment.
People keep saying that items have separate PvP and PvE stats. That is not correct. PvE and PvP stats on items are additive. Not separate.
It works like this:
Sword A has 100 damage (PvE) and 10 damage (PvP). It does 100 damage in PvE. But the damage it does in PvP is the PvE damage + the PvP damage. So in PvP it does 110 damage.
Follow me so far? (PvE stat) + (PvP stat) = (total PvP stats)
Now, given the "item based" raid progression I wonder if I have to spell out what this means for PvP. I suppose I should just in case.
Ok, let's say that before any raid loot starts contaminating a server there are two best generally available breastplates for PvP.
Breastplate A: aquired through PvE. It has 70 AC (PvE) and 30 AC (PvP) for a total of 100 AC in PvP.
Breastplate B: aquired through the as yet undisclosed method of PvP rewards. It has 30 AC (PvE) and 70 AC (PvP) for a total of 100 AC in PvP.
Ok, but now raid loots starts coming into the picture. Let's say that the first tier raid drop breastplate has no PvP stats at all. But it has 150 AC (PvE). It will still have 150 AC in PvP because of the way this works.
And raid loot is progressive, just as you would expect, so these numbers are going to keep getting bigger and bigger and BIGGER.
Still with me there guys? Do you see what this means? Anyone who still wants to argue about item-centricity might as well give up. Even assuming that they do have some way of upgrading PvP equipment by doing PvP (probably some tacky, half assed arena crap if there is anything at all) there will still have to be some sort of ridiculous grind involved to "keep up with the Jones". Because the numbers on raid equipment WILL translate directly into PvP. And the numbers will keep getting bigger and bigger.
Now I'm going to have to see if anyone wants to challenge this. Don't make me get my quotes guys! I'll do it, I swear I'll do it!
Interesting hypothetical post. You based your whole, hard to challenge *cough* post on numbers that you got from where exactly? My best guess, pure speculation. So in the same manner that you're speculating that things will work this way, others are entitled to speculate that they work differently.
Lets go back to WoW and see how they did manage to separate PvP from PvE gear. I suppose they could make a system where gear could carry both stats, but that's a technicality and a developer choice. You see, the reason why PvP gear are superior to PvE gear in a PvP situation is because when you get hit by the same weapon, different damage is applied. So a tier2 PvP guy will always, always be superior to a tier2 PvE guy in a PvP situation, if we just take into account the gear involved.
You can argue that it took Blizzard 3-4 years to balance and separate PvE from PvP end game and I would agree that it will be harder for a fresh MMO to pull it through from the very start. I do however expect them to keep their eyes open on what others are doing and adjust and improve on what's working out there.
That's true. But there is a huge crop of young mmorpg gamers who are starting to hit adulthood so even if I succumb to alzhiemers I have no doubt that there will be plenty of people to carry the torch of liberty from raid-centricity.
Now...where did I put that cat...? Let's see, I was microwaving my dentures when I let him in.....I remember that he was wet and cold from the snow and I wanted to warm him up....hmm. Oh well, I'll find him eventually.
So, anyway...there was another thing I was wanting to clear up but with my encroaching senility I can't remember where I read about it. I'll mention it anyway and see if anyone wants to challenge it. This goes back to the subject of PvP equipment.
People keep saying that items have separate PvP and PvE stats. That is not correct. PvE and PvP stats on items are additive. Not separate.
It works like this:
Sword A has 100 damage (PvE) and 10 damage (PvP). It does 100 damage in PvE. But the damage it does in PvP is the PvE damage + the PvP damage. So in PvP it does 110 damage.
Follow me so far? (PvE stat) + (PvP stat) = (total PvP stats)
Now, given the "item based" raid progression I wonder if I have to spell out what this means for PvP. I suppose I should just in case.
Ok, let's say that before any raid loot starts contaminating a server there are two best generally available breastplates for PvP.
Breastplate A: aquired through PvE. It has 70 AC (PvE) and 30 AC (PvP) for a total of 100 AC in PvP.
Breastplate B: aquired through the as yet undisclosed method of PvP rewards. It has 30 AC (PvE) and 70 AC (PvP) for a total of 100 AC in PvP.
Ok, but now raid loots starts coming into the picture. Let's say that the first tier raid drop breastplate has no PvP stats at all. But it has 150 AC (PvE). It will still have 150 AC in PvP because of the way this works.
And raid loot is progressive, just as you would expect, so these numbers are going to keep getting bigger and bigger and BIGGER.
Still with me there guys? Do you see what this means? Anyone who still wants to argue about item-centricity might as well give up. Even assuming that they do have some way of upgrading PvP equipment by doing PvP (probably some tacky, half assed arena crap if there is anything at all) there will still have to be some sort of ridiculous grind involved to "keep up with the Jones". Because the numbers on raid equipment WILL translate directly into PvP. And the numbers will keep getting bigger and bigger.
Now I'm going to have to see if anyone wants to challenge this. Don't make me get my quotes guys! I'll do it, I swear I'll do it!
I would really love to know where you got this information from. Really. Yes, I am forcing you to bring out the quotes. I want to know where you got the examples and where you got the proof that AoC will handle Raid-Loot and PvP-Loot (and not to forget Crafted Items) in this particular way. Sorry, but without proof of your quotes, I'm gonna say the same thing as the poster before me. Pure speculation.
Gahhh...you people. Make an old man do your research for you. Ok fine. Here is a snippet that I found, strangely enough on this very board in the thread that Baikal linked earlier.
From Athelan:
"...we decided to have combat be a two layer system with PvP combat stats that are additive ontop of PvE stats."
If you don't trust it because of the way I quoted it go read through the thread yourself. I know there's more because that isn't the thing I remembered but that's a start. I'll try to find some more on this tomorrow although you people COULD do a little research of your own you know.
would there be -pvp stats for endgame pve gear just to even out the pvp playing-field? seems that the main thing about this pvp vs pve argument is that during pvp, top end-game guilds will have superior gear, and thus making it unfair to the average pvper. if super 250ACpve breastplate from the end-game boss has -130ACpvp, then during pvp that armor would have a 120AC rating. making it on par with the average joe, and thus being fair. makes sense to me rather than adding pvp stats to top tier pve gear. maybe thats how they r doing it.
Once again, why is it unbearable hell to raid? It's not unbearable to raid but is to raid grind to get your guild geared. Which may or may not be necessary in AoC. It is in WoW, because you need items for so many slots, it requires random drops to get the items, and there are few/no crafted alternatives that could allow you to power-gear new members for the raiding. I see no complaint with raiding here, just raiding IN A SPECIFIC GAME.
How do you get these ideas? Do you dislike talking to other people over Vent?Yes Especially when 80% of the conversations are Arnold/Chuck noris comments (along with all the other crap that is in VoIP doing nothing but slowing down the info people need for the next encounter. Then play a different game. Many guilds don't have that problem. Stop playing with 12 year olds.
Perhaps you hate it when you accomplish something new in the game? Not at all but the key word is to acomplish "something" Not spend 4 hours raiding for the leader to say Oh we will save the boss for tomorrow cause x,y,z has to get going. I been waiting 4 hours to see the main boss then you stop the raid WTF If the raid is scheduled for a specific time, why are you surprised it stops at that time? Many people have jobs, or other real life responsibilities. If you want raiding for the entire night until the boss is down, find a guild that supports it. Otherwise, you are complaining about your specific experiences, not raiding.
Is it really so bad to have to coordinate with others, listen to them, and follow orders,Umm kindof this is a game not the military or my office I listen Follow orders all day and my job title is Actually an HTML Coordinator. So no I don't want to be forced to do what I do all day at work in my entertainment. Not to mention that trying to coordinate anything with a prepubesant 12 yrs old afflicted by a.d.d that cant stand still for more then 2 mins keeps whiping the group cause he doesn't pay attention sucks ass. So... stop raiding with 12 year olds. Many guilds have none. As for following orders and coordinating, many people find that enjoyable. See, Counterstrike, TF2, almost any serious team FPS game, etc. So even outside of raiding, many people play in that style. If you prefer soloing, or small group play because you absolutely CANNOT listen to someone else and work with others, you are the minority. Deal.
instead of doing your own thing no matter what? In essance once a fight starts I do do my own thing its called nuking(mage here) and staying alive I don't need someone telling me to move my toon away from a fire breathing dragon every 5 seconds and screaming about it if I lag up or have something else I'm paying attention to distract me. So... you screw up. Then you expect others not to tell you you're screwing up. What the hell? Do you actually want to get better? Or are you so certain you're the best that you think you can't get better? Trust me, everyone screws up. A good player listens to others, learns from his mistakes, and stops screwing up. A bad one whines about people telling him not to stand in the fire breathing dragon's sight path. Yeah, that's smart.
What part of raiding is this unbearable hell? All of the above and the fact that I wait 30 min for some yahhoo to go piss every 5 mins.
Um, most guilds have scheduled breaks after bosses for about 5 minutes to take care of business. If your guild doesn't, stop raiding with 12 year olds.
To the above statements this is only my opinion and I don't know if this is how others feel. I did read most of this tread and am on the fence about the subject myself.
But the items I mentioned above are the things I find lame as hell while raiding.
So? Just find a good raiding guild, and they're not problems. Really.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
Originally posted by singsofdeath I would really love to know where you got this information from. Really. Yes, I am forcing you to bring out the quotes. I want to know where you got the examples and where you got the proof that AoC will handle Raid-Loot and PvP-Loot (and not to forget Crafted Items) in this particular way. Sorry, but without proof of your quotes, I'm gonna say the same thing as the poster before me. Pure speculation.
Actually, the information he does have is quite valid, in fact its a variation on something I quoted to him. The problem is partially one of hard statistics, which we don't have for comparison, and partially interpretation.
Ok, some the following is an absurd simplification, but bear with me.
Any item is going to have two scores, a basic set of stats, and additional modifiers that come into play depending on the enemy. For the sake of this example, stats will follow the template of [A (B)] Where A equals the base statistics, AKA what is present regardless, and B equals the modifier granted for PvP.
Let us say we have three roughly equivalent Weapons, one aquired through top tier small group PvE/crafting, the second through top tier raiding, and the last through PvP. Let us also say that the ratings are as follows:
100 (-5)
100 (-10)
85 (15)
From this example, we see that the first item has a rating of 100 in PvE, and 95 in PvP, the second is also 100 PvE, but slightly lower with 90 PvP. The third only has 85 PvE, but trumps the others in PvP with a 100 rating.
The above is based on the information I have and how I have interpreted it. I personally believe that the above is also a fairly accurate representation of how things are set up. The problem with the above example is that it is not only an approximation, but is a guess. Based on the information they've given so far, it is entirely possible that Neanderthal's example is more accurate, although it would require FC to have twisted the truth into pretzels.
Note, by rating, I mean an approximation of its usefulness in the situation at hand, it can combine a variety of considerations from DPS, to PROCs, to buffs.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
Originally posted by singsofdeath I would really love to know where you got this information from. Really. Yes, I am forcing you to bring out the quotes. I want to know where you got the examples and where you got the proof that AoC will handle Raid-Loot and PvP-Loot (and not to forget Crafted Items) in this particular way. Sorry, but without proof of your quotes, I'm gonna say the same thing as the poster before me. Pure speculation.
Actually, the information he does have is quite valid, in fact its a variation on something I quoted to him. The problem is partially one of hard statistics, which we don't have for comparison, and partially interpretation.
Ok, some the following is an absurd simplification, but bear with me.
Any item is going to have two scores, a basic set of stats, and additional modifiers that come into play depending on the enemy. For the sake of this example, stats will follow the template of [A (B) (C)] Where A equals the base statistics, AKA what is present regardless, B equals the modifier granted when facing PvE targets, and C for PvP.
Let us say we have three roughly equivalent Weapons, one aquired through top tier small group PvE/crafting, the second through top tier raiding, and the last through PvP. Let us also say that the ratings are as follows:
85 (15) (10)
90 (10) (0)
85 (0) (15)
From this example, we see that the first item has a rating of 100 in PvE, and 95 in PvP, the second is also 100 PvE, but slightly lower with 90 PvP. The third only has 85 PvE, but trumps the others in PvP with a 100 rating.
The above is based on the information I have and how I have interpreted it. I personally believe that the above is also a fairly accurate representation of how things are set up. The problem with the above example is that it is not only an approximation, but is a guess. Based on the information they've given so far, it is entirely possible that Neanderthal's example is more accurate, although it would require FC to have twisted the truth into pretzels
Well, thanks to both you and Neanderthal for providing the quotes and the examples then. I've done some browsing myself after the first example and must say, I am a little puzzled by the way they describe it, so I guess I will have to wait for more concrete answers from FC themselves or wait till I see the game actually in work.
Anyway, of course, being someone who wants to play the game, I am hoping for the example of Aelfinn to be the right one, and judging from what I've heard from the devs when they describe the whole concept, I am in good spirits it will be the case, however, granted Neanderthal's theory could be true as well, so I will withhold judgement until the game is actually released and we really know what's going on.
Well, technically, you still get to call his (and mine for that matter) post speculation.
P.S. Unless I've read him badly, Neanderthal is likely also hoping I'm correct or at least close, but has learned to expect the worst.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
IN nornal grouping ,if you are fighting a VERY hard mob and lose a healer ,your group is dead.In a raid you can have in reality 90% of your raid die and still get credit for the drop or quest/mission whatever the reason was for killing it.So if anything raiding has been stereotyped as being elite,when in reality it's more a noobish setup that any noob can tag along and get credit.
"More noobish setup"... heh...
You've never really raided anything difficult then. 72 man EQ1 raids against bosses that have never been beaten on any server? Nothing "noob" about that. Takes far more skill than joe group of 6 just swinging away one mob at a time.
I'm no longer a raider, but I keep seeing this "raiding is easier than grouping" logic, and well, that isn't true.
Who says because you have 72 players its skillfull?who says because a mob hasn't been beaten it's more skill full?you missed two valid points 1 the mob was designed that way with high hitpoints,high defense and a high regen.There is nothing on a raid boss that isn't or can't be done on any mob,just the stats are changed.BTW that takes no skill by any dev to design a boss to be hard to kill,any noob designer could make a boss unbeatable.It's all in the stats.
2 I am sure since you sound like you have been playing for a long time?that you are aware a normal XP party sometimes can take up to an hour to get to your camp add in hours just getting ready.So when your group dies and have to respawn back in home town it's usually called a night,your done.In a raid you have SEVERAL rezzers therefore dying is easy to handle and can easily prolong your fight,i might also add you have several tanks as well.ONe scenario is death game over the other is prolonged after death,you tell me wich is harder?i might also add that it's still the same thing as a normal party only more players ,who really cares?I know many like to think they are special with there large egos ,but RAIDING is nothing at all.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Originally posted by singsofdeath I would really love to know where you got this information from. Really. Yes, I am forcing you to bring out the quotes. I want to know where you got the examples and where you got the proof that AoC will handle Raid-Loot and PvP-Loot (and not to forget Crafted Items) in this particular way. Sorry, but without proof of your quotes, I'm gonna say the same thing as the poster before me. Pure speculation.
Actually, the information he does have is quite valid, in fact its a variation on something I quoted to him. The problem is partially one of hard statistics, which we don't have for comparison, and partially interpretation.
Ok, some the following is an absurd simplification, but bear with me.
Any item is going to have two scores, a basic set of stats, and additional modifiers that come into play depending on the enemy. For the sake of this example, stats will follow the template of [A (B)] Where A equals the base statistics, AKA what is present regardless, and B equals the modifier granted for PvP.
Let us say we have three roughly equivalent Weapons, one aquired through top tier small group PvE/crafting, the second through top tier raiding, and the last through PvP. Let us also say that the ratings are as follows:
100 (-5)
100 (-10)
85 (15)
From this example, we see that the first item has a rating of 100 in PvE, and 95 in PvP, the second is also 100 PvE, but slightly lower with 90 PvP. The third only has 85 PvE, but trumps the others in PvP with a 100 rating.
The above is based on the information I have and how I have interpreted it. I personally believe that the above is also a fairly accurate representation of how things are set up. The problem with the above example is that it is not only an approximation, but is a guess. Based on the information they've given so far, it is entirely possible that Neanderthal's example is more accurate, although it would require FC to have twisted the truth into pretzels.
Note, by rating, I mean an approximation of its usefulness in the situation at hand, it can combine a variety of considerations from DPS, to PROCs, to buffs.
Also note that your version requires no more coding than Neandrethal's version, is more consistent with what Funcom has promised, and is more palitable to the solo/groupers and PvPers, and not very objectionable with the raiders.
So basically, for what neandrathal posted to be true, the following would have to happen:
Funcom would have to repeatedly lie, blatantly, in order to:
- Save no time at all in coding
- Ruin their reputation, once people saw that they blatently lied ( Funcom has a decent reputation with customer service, at least by MMORPG standards)
- Annoy soloers and small group players
- Really piss of PvPers, to the point that they would quit the game
- Break a promise in such a way to make blogs and video game reviewers everywhere take note, thus really hurting their word of mouth
- Make a few raiders who also like to totally dominate at PvP happy
Yeeaaaah.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
Who says because you have 72 players its skillfull?who says because a mob hasn't been beaten it's more skill full?you missed two valid points 1 the mob was designed that way with high hitpoints,high defense and a high regen.There is nothing on a raid boss that isn't or can't be done on any mob,just the stats are changed.BTW that takes no skill by any dev to design a boss to be hard to kill,any noob designer could make a boss unbeatable.It's all in the stats.
2 I am sure since you sound like you have been playing for a long time?that you are aware a normal XP party sometimes can take up to an hour to get to your camp add in hours just getting ready.So when your group dies and have to respawn back in home town it's usually called a night,your done.In a raid you have SEVERAL rezzers therefore dying is easy to handle and can easily prolong your fight,i might also add you have several tanks as well.ONe scenario is death game over the other is prolonged after death,you tell me wich is harder?i might also add that it's still the same thing as a normal party only more players ,who really cares?I know many like to think they are special with there large egos ,but RAIDING is nothing at all.
Well, its obvious you've never been on a big raid before. They don't just increase hp and regen and stuff. Often they don't even touch the regen of the boss or the AC. They're easy enough to hit, but might have a lot of hp. Or they might have insane AC, but normal hp... OR all the other things you've apparently never seen. Like AE DOT's that do massive damage, or they call up groups of "adds" every 3 minutes that can wipe out your healers in a flash, or there's a slow mana drain AE that you can't avoid, or the boss is invulnerable except to "bane" weapons, or there's 9 bosses at once, and you have to kill them in a certain order, and if you mess up, you lose.
Someday, you might see a raid like that if you get into a higher end guild where teamwork and leadership skills are required.
Let us say we have three roughly equivalent Weapons, one aquired through top tier small group PvE/crafting, the second through top tier raiding, and the last through PvP. Let us also say that the ratings are as follows:
100 (-5)
100 (-10)
85 (15) From this example, we see that the first item has a rating of 100 in PvE, and 95 in PvP, the second is also 100 PvE, but slightly lower with 90 PvP. The third only has 85 PvE, but trumps the others in PvP with a 100 rating.
I am curious why all this silly math. A sword is a sword and does x damage. It does x damage in PvP, PvE and PvE-Raid. Sure, a raid mob is more solid, but thats why there are 24 people.
However, what is with a tier 3 raid weapon ? Its, according to your example, 150(-60). It still is at 90 damage in PvP. Okey.. but it still hits for 150 in PvE. It hits for 150 when soloing, in small groups and full groups of six players. This wont necessarily be a problem at release but it will be a problem when they release an expansion that raises the level cap. Raiders will be, PVE-wise, one or even two tiers ahead. Even while level 80 is cap a group of six tier 3 raiders will be able to farm any group dungeon in no time without any real risc.
Raid Mages probably wont have higher damage, but maybe goodly mitigation in PvE.
TBH, i dont get all that math. Why ? To justify a dual-core CPU ? My math would be easier.
solo mob = 95-105% of a player
group mob = solo mob multiplied by 6
raid mob is a group mob multiplied by 4
named bosses, solo, group or raid, are trash multiplied by 1.2 - 1.8
period. No specialized itemization. Neither for PvP, or PvE nor for raid.
Let us say we have three roughly equivalent Weapons, one aquired through top tier small group PvE/crafting, the second through top tier raiding, and the last through PvP. Let us also say that the ratings are as follows:
100 (-5)
100 (-10)
85 (15) From this example, we see that the first item has a rating of 100 in PvE, and 95 in PvP, the second is also 100 PvE, but slightly lower with 90 PvP. The third only has 85 PvE, but trumps the others in PvP with a 100 rating.
I am curious why all this silly math. A sword is a sword and does x damage. It does x damage in PvP, PvE and PvE-Raid. Sure, a raid mob is more solid, but thats why there are 24 people.
However, what is with a tier 3 raid weapon ? Its, according to your example, 150(-60). It still is at 90 damage in PvP. Okey.. but it still hits for 150 in PvE. It hits for 150 when soloing, in small groups and full groups of six players. This wont necessarily be a problem at release but it will be a problem when they release an expansion that raises the level cap. Raiders will be, PVE-wise, one or even two tiers ahead. Even while level 80 is cap a group of six tier 3 raiders will be able to farm any group dungeon in no time without any real risc.
Raid Mages probably wont have higher damage, but maybe goodly mitigation in PvE.
TBH, i dont get all that math. Why ? To justify a dual-core CPU ? My math would be easier.
solo mob = 95-105% of a player
group mob = solo mob multiplied by 6
raid mob is a group mob multiplied by 4
named bosses, solo, group or raid, are trash multiplied by 1.2 - 1.8
period. No specialized itemization. Neither for PvP, or PvE nor for raid.
I believe the point here is, that it is not necessary for PvPers to do raids to be good in PvP. Since the Tier3 Raid weapon will still not be better in PvP than what you can get in PvP. It's to allow the player to chose what he wants to do without having disadvantages to a player who does more of something else. So a PvPer with high end PvP gear won't be able to outdo Raid-Gear and vice-versa.
Let us say we have three roughly equivalent Weapons, one aquired through top tier small group PvE/crafting, the second through top tier raiding, and the last through PvP. Let us also say that the ratings are as follows:
100 (-5)
100 (-10)
85 (15) From this example, we see that the first item has a rating of 100 in PvE, and 95 in PvP, the second is also 100 PvE, but slightly lower with 90 PvP. The third only has 85 PvE, but trumps the others in PvP with a 100 rating.
I am curious why all this silly math. A sword is a sword and does x damage. It does x damage in PvP, PvE and PvE-Raid. Sure, a raid mob is more solid, but thats why there are 24 people.
However, what is with a tier 3 raid weapon ? Its, according to your example, 150(-60). It still is at 90 damage in PvP. Okey.. but it still hits for 150 in PvE. It hits for 150 when soloing, in small groups and full groups of six players. This wont necessarily be a problem at release but it will be a problem when they release an expansion that raises the level cap. Raiders will be, PVE-wise, one or even two tiers ahead. Even while level 80 is cap a group of six tier 3 raiders will be able to farm any group dungeon in no time without any real risc.
Raid Mages probably wont have higher damage, but maybe goodly mitigation in PvE.
TBH, i dont get all that math. Why ? To justify a dual-core CPU ? My math would be easier.
solo mob = 95-105% of a player
group mob = solo mob multiplied by 6
raid mob is a group mob multiplied by 4
named bosses, solo, group or raid, are trash multiplied by 1.2 - 1.8
period. No specialized itemization. Neither for PvP, or PvE nor for raid.
No offense, but I'm glad you aren't dev.
The reason why PVE and PVP functionality needs to be different is, that the opposition in PVE and PVP is completely different. In PVP you are up against thinking oppnonents that use their abilities to the best of their ability and are continually re-evaluating their strategy. While fighting NPCs, mobs or whatever you want to call them, you are more or less hitting a dummy that just keeps doing what its programmed to do. This is the reason why people are able to solo monsters with ridiculous amounts of hitpoints, they use their abilities wisely to outlast the mob. In many cases this is made extremely easy as well.
The reason for the higher damage in PVE then, is to not make killing a single monster a two-hour, extremely boring ordeal.
I don't think that eugam has participated in both high end activities at the same time (end game raiding and top server PvP). It is very time consuming and I only had time to do it in a very specific time in my life but I've experienced and thus understand the concerns of the people on this thread.
High end raiding PvE gear can invalidate PvP if they are not toned down to what people can find outside the PvE raiding. If not, then you're forcing people who dislike raiding to do so just so as to remain competitive in PvP. Which as you can understand is bad game design.
On the other end, if you can get PvP gear that are equally or better suited for PvE, then you're in reverse invalidating one of the reasons behind raiding. Then you're forcing the raiders to PvP in order to be competitive in PvE. Again, bad game design.
Lets say that I want to PvP a lot and occasionally slay a monster or two. PvP gear tailored for PvP will do the job and also cover me adequately for my rare PvE needs. If my PvE needs raise, I can look into the crafted gear, especially if I hate raiding or never bothered to make ties with a raiding guild in the first place. The opposite for PvE is true again.
Bottom line, you need two sets of gear. A monster will generally have multiple times the hit points of a player, so as to give a challenge to the team (of five or six) that goes after it. The monster will generally live no more than 30 secs. If you take that concentrated firepower and target it directly on another player, he won't live more than 5 secs, less if you consider the lag involved. So, unless we want our PvP to become an assist *train/kill*, *first to target/ first to kill* affair, gear need to adjust accordingly when they are considered for PvP and PvE respectively.
There is a third thing to consider, with affects only PvE. The sole reason to have better than grouping gear given to raiders is because tackling the raiding content will require them on some degree. Gear (weapon and armor) are means to the ends we enjoy to participate. If we never bother with raiding monsters, why care about raid quality gear? They invalidate the normal grouping content (that I expect raiders have completed) and thus making things less challenging for the rest of the people.
On the same line, I thing tiered raid instances via key quests or similar bottleneck system is a mistake. One year and X instances down the line, it becomes a pain for people to return to old instances to key fresh recruits, that may or may not fit to the guild, may or may not like end game raiding. Or worse, the more progressing guilds are constantly draining/ poaching recruits from less progressed guilds, thus keeping those guilds on the lower end. But that's another story for another thread. I'll refrain from speculating any further.
Comments
Since this thread is still going I guess I'll jump back in. There is a developer interview transcript up at tentonhammer now that I thought had some information that is pertinent to this discussion.
Here's something that is slightly off the main topic but I thought it was interesting. Remember the idea about soul corruption sending casters to hell? That was actually one of the cooler ideas the devs had. It was something that even had a certain roleplay/immerssion feel to it which you don't see very often these days. Well they took it out. And guess why? Because it was inconvenient for raiders.
Here is the quote:
"Q: Sending yourself to hell? Is that still in the works?
Gaute: That was one of the things we saw people not responding to favorably to - when they got put to hell during a raid."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I just thought that was interesting. The raiders didn't like it so out it goes. Who are they making this game for again? To be fair I'm sure there would be plenty of non-raiders who wouldn't like it either. But it says something about the devs that the reason they took it out was to please the raiding crowd.
It also says something about raiders. They are always spouting about "challenge" and how they like for things to be difficult. But THEY are the ones who drive the dumbing down of games more than any other group (my opinion of course).
In regards to raid loot distribution they had this to say:
"In terms of the raid, it's the raid leader that can distribute. So there isn't any "token" system in place for handling raid achievements."
-----------------------------------------------------------
If the reader doesn't see the significance of this I'm not going to spend a lot of time explaining it but basically a token system is a way to ensure that part-time raiders (people who can only raid occasionally) will get something for their trouble). Not having a system of that sort is simply bowing to the ultra-hardcore raiders.
Here is a quote regarding the amount of raid content at launch in case there was some doubt about how much of their time has been going into developing raid content:
"We will have twenty plus raid targets at launch."
--------------------------------------------------------
For people who wondered about the item-centricity question and the need to "gear up" this one should help to clear things up:
"We are planning to have an item-based raid leveling system which gears you towards taking the next level of raids in place."
-------------------------------------------------
And this one:
"Evan: Yes. Currently there's tiers of raids and raid loot planned of increasing strength that will basically allow you to start working on the next tier."
------------------------------------------------------------
And in the interest of honest reporting I need to add this one:
"They have a very interesting and creative solution going on with the way that raid drops versus non-raid drops works and from I've seen the balance of that and how it impacts PvE non-raiding versus raiding is actually very solid."
--------------------------------------------------------
That last one sounds encouraging but they don't bother to explain it at all. What does it mean? Nothing really, not without some clarifacation.
Raiding itself is a great idea to encourage group achievements and adventure. When raiding becomes a necessity, then you are hindering those who cannot raid on a 24/7 basis. I take me for example. I work 50 hours a week, make great money, am 31 yrs old. I have a wife, 1yr old son, and alot of responsibilities. But i do try to work in some game time late night...usually from about 10 to midnight. In WoW, this was a major disadvantage for me. My friends and guildies, who i have known for over 6 yrs now, most had the ability to raid a dungeon 3x a week. Not including a pick up group or 2 on the weekends. They were all decked out in the best gear.
I would be able to maybe stay for 1 whole raid, spending 3-4 hours on the computer is a near impossibility for me, but i like to compete and enjoy a game. So while raiding itself is a fantastic idea, the implimentation and gear achieved through it are virtually unaccessible for me. If they manage to balance this so that raiders do not have the top of the line items, then great! But there should be some sort of recognition for these same people who have the ability to do a raid, whether it be a trophy, badge, title, etc....or even a decorative armor attachment or something. But to make the best gear for pve or pvp drop from said dungeons, severely limits us who don't have the ability to make the game a 2nd job.
To be fair, it seems that there is still very much up in the air about alot of the high end content... including raid loot. There was noone from the high end department at the Q&A you read. Im not even certain if it was the whole transcript, as it was nearly a 2 hour question-fest.
Having the video on my computer right now, I followed along with your quotes and reasoning. All I can say, is: Maybe you should watch the video. It lends a different light on a few of your quotes. Having heard them in context it makes all the difference.
I would be more worried about the game being finished and polished 1-20, than a raid and loot system they dont even have set up yet.
Ill try to post the link for the Q&A I DL'd.
EDIT*
Here is part one of the Q&A. Give it a glance.
http://community.ageofconan.com/wsp/conan/frontend.cgi?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss&utm_content=front_page_news&func=publish.show&template=content&func_id=2201&table=CONTENT
_____________________________
*This thread contains enough compressed stupidity to erase all science as far back as the middle ages.
I had a long post,but i figured why bother to intellects who can't grasp a simple topic?
i'll spell it out for you so it's easier to grasp>>>you do NOT,i repeat do NOT need raiding to enjoy any reason or aspect for playing a MMORPG.Raiding is EXACTLY the same as normal grouping to wich in most good games you can also form alliances and achieve the exact same thing.
Raid bosses are no different than normal mobs ,except they have more hitpoints and defense,WOW isn't that ingenuitive? lol.
raiding takes more time and alienates in alot of cases friends/family and OTHER guildmates who cannot make it.Soon to be followed up with promises of helping those who missed,with follow ups of excuses why they all of a sudden can't.
IN nornal grouping ,if you are fighting a VERY hard mob and lose a healer ,your group is dead.In a raid you can have in reality 90% of your raid die and still get credit for the drop or quest/mission whatever the reason was for killing it.So if anything raiding has been stereotyped as being elite,when in reality it's more a noobish setup that any noob can tag along and get credit.
In closing let me repeat,for those who already forgot because they are set on arguing something i have said>>> YOU DO NOT need a raid to enjoy a game.There is NOTHING a raid offers that can't be done in a normal alliance or a normal group of friends or family.Nothing!
item list[raiding]
1 enter instance[maybe]
2 kill mobs along the way to boss[again maybe]
3 possibility of death [maybe]
4 find boss/mob/s
5 BUFF up and attack mob/s.[again possible death,most likely ]
6 recieve elite drop[maybe]or get quest/mission credit[maybe]
umm let me see if anything on check list isn't already done in any normal situation? nope notta nothing.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
You've never really raided anything difficult then. 72 man EQ1 raids against bosses that have never been beaten on any server? Nothing "noob" about that. Takes far more skill than joe group of 6 just swinging away one mob at a time.
I'm no longer a raider, but I keep seeing this "raiding is easier than grouping" logic, and well, that isn't true.
The biggest limiting factor regarding raiding is coordination, in and out of the game. That's the most difficult part about it, provided people have a pretty good grasp of what they're supposed to do with their avatar in-game.
And Wizardry, the exact same arguments you expressed when comparing grouping vs raiding can be equally valid when comparing soloing vs grouping. Does that mean that soloing is the way to go? Maybe, maybe not.
I still believe that in an ideal situation it would be best if the option is there, than lacking the option altogether. Provided of course that the option is well thought and well implemented (which is another discussion altogether).
But the items I mentioned above are the things I find lame as hell while raiding.
"The most important thing is to have the design support the players in setting their own goals in both cooperative and competitive interaction with one another." - Ironore -
He said also something like: We also have two lower level raid zones, but we probably respec them to 80 before launch.
yepp, this all is a huge tribute to "hardcore raiders".
And yes, there is hope for others. It might be quite some fun to build your own build with feats, crafted, quested and group drop items. It depends a bit on how gems will be. I am doing it in EQ2 while waiting for AoC. I left mainstream, try out mixtures of differents sets and try out items that arent form my class. I try to balance them with my feats. That way you can build nice hybrids who are real fun to play. The good thing in AoC is that almost all classes are hybrid. Its fun to collect items for either side of your hybrid. Depending on your role in group you can switch items and become more DPS or more heal for example. Yes, i still have hope.
That's true. But there is a huge crop of young mmorpg gamers who are starting to hit adulthood so even if I succumb to alzhiemers I have no doubt that there will be plenty of people to carry the torch of liberty from raid-centricity.
Now...where did I put that cat...? Let's see, I was microwaving my dentures when I let him in.....I remember that he was wet and cold from the snow and I wanted to warm him up....hmm. Oh well, I'll find him eventually.
So, anyway...there was another thing I was wanting to clear up but with my encroaching senility I can't remember where I read about it. I'll mention it anyway and see if anyone wants to challenge it. This goes back to the subject of PvP equipment.
People keep saying that items have separate PvP and PvE stats. That is not correct. PvE and PvP stats on items are additive. Not separate.
It works like this:
Sword A has 100 damage (PvE) and 10 damage (PvP). It does 100 damage in PvE. But the damage it does in PvP is the PvE damage + the PvP damage. So in PvP it does 110 damage.
Follow me so far? (PvE stat) + (PvP stat) = (total PvP stats)
Now, given the "item based" raid progression I wonder if I have to spell out what this means for PvP. I suppose I should just in case.
Ok, let's say that before any raid loot starts contaminating a server there are two best generally available breastplates for PvP.
Breastplate A: aquired through PvE. It has 70 AC (PvE) and 30 AC (PvP) for a total of 100 AC in PvP.
Breastplate B: aquired through the as yet undisclosed method of PvP rewards. It has 30 AC (PvE) and 70 AC (PvP) for a total of 100 AC in PvP.
Ok, but now raid loots starts coming into the picture. Let's say that the first tier raid drop breastplate has no PvP stats at all. But it has 150 AC (PvE). It will still have 150 AC in PvP because of the way this works.
And raid loot is progressive, just as you would expect, so these numbers are going to keep getting bigger and bigger and BIGGER.
Still with me there guys? Do you see what this means? Anyone who still wants to argue about item-centricity might as well give up. Even assuming that they do have some way of upgrading PvP equipment by doing PvP (probably some tacky, half assed arena crap if there is anything at all) there will still have to be some sort of ridiculous grind involved to "keep up with the Jones". Because the numbers on raid equipment WILL translate directly into PvP. And the numbers will keep getting bigger and bigger.
Now I'm going to have to see if anyone wants to challenge this. Don't make me get my quotes guys! I'll do it, I swear I'll do it!
Interesting hypothetical post. You based your whole, hard to challenge *cough* post on numbers that you got from where exactly? My best guess, pure speculation. So in the same manner that you're speculating that things will work this way, others are entitled to speculate that they work differently.
Lets go back to WoW and see how they did manage to separate PvP from PvE gear. I suppose they could make a system where gear could carry both stats, but that's a technicality and a developer choice. You see, the reason why PvP gear are superior to PvE gear in a PvP situation is because when you get hit by the same weapon, different damage is applied. So a tier2 PvP guy will always, always be superior to a tier2 PvE guy in a PvP situation, if we just take into account the gear involved.
You can argue that it took Blizzard 3-4 years to balance and separate PvE from PvP end game and I would agree that it will be harder for a fresh MMO to pull it through from the very start. I do however expect them to keep their eyes open on what others are doing and adjust and improve on what's working out there.
That's true. But there is a huge crop of young mmorpg gamers who are starting to hit adulthood so even if I succumb to alzhiemers I have no doubt that there will be plenty of people to carry the torch of liberty from raid-centricity.
Now...where did I put that cat...? Let's see, I was microwaving my dentures when I let him in.....I remember that he was wet and cold from the snow and I wanted to warm him up....hmm. Oh well, I'll find him eventually.
So, anyway...there was another thing I was wanting to clear up but with my encroaching senility I can't remember where I read about it. I'll mention it anyway and see if anyone wants to challenge it. This goes back to the subject of PvP equipment.
People keep saying that items have separate PvP and PvE stats. That is not correct. PvE and PvP stats on items are additive. Not separate.
It works like this:
Sword A has 100 damage (PvE) and 10 damage (PvP). It does 100 damage in PvE. But the damage it does in PvP is the PvE damage + the PvP damage. So in PvP it does 110 damage.
Follow me so far? (PvE stat) + (PvP stat) = (total PvP stats)
Now, given the "item based" raid progression I wonder if I have to spell out what this means for PvP. I suppose I should just in case.
Ok, let's say that before any raid loot starts contaminating a server there are two best generally available breastplates for PvP.
Breastplate A: aquired through PvE. It has 70 AC (PvE) and 30 AC (PvP) for a total of 100 AC in PvP.
Breastplate B: aquired through the as yet undisclosed method of PvP rewards. It has 30 AC (PvE) and 70 AC (PvP) for a total of 100 AC in PvP.
Ok, but now raid loots starts coming into the picture. Let's say that the first tier raid drop breastplate has no PvP stats at all. But it has 150 AC (PvE). It will still have 150 AC in PvP because of the way this works.
And raid loot is progressive, just as you would expect, so these numbers are going to keep getting bigger and bigger and BIGGER.
Still with me there guys? Do you see what this means? Anyone who still wants to argue about item-centricity might as well give up. Even assuming that they do have some way of upgrading PvP equipment by doing PvP (probably some tacky, half assed arena crap if there is anything at all) there will still have to be some sort of ridiculous grind involved to "keep up with the Jones". Because the numbers on raid equipment WILL translate directly into PvP. And the numbers will keep getting bigger and bigger.
Now I'm going to have to see if anyone wants to challenge this. Don't make me get my quotes guys! I'll do it, I swear I'll do it!
I would really love to know where you got this information from. Really. Yes, I am forcing you to bring out the quotes. I want to know where you got the examples and where you got the proof that AoC will handle Raid-Loot and PvP-Loot (and not to forget Crafted Items) in this particular way. Sorry, but without proof of your quotes, I'm gonna say the same thing as the poster before me. Pure speculation.
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
Gahhh...you people. Make an old man do your research for you. Ok fine. Here is a snippet that I found, strangely enough on this very board in the thread that Baikal linked earlier.
From Athelan:
"...we decided to have combat be a two layer system with PvP combat stats that are additive ontop of PvE stats."
If you don't trust it because of the way I quoted it go read through the thread yourself. I know there's more because that isn't the thing I remembered but that's a start. I'll try to find some more on this tomorrow although you people COULD do a little research of your own you know.
would there be -pvp stats for endgame pve gear just to even out the pvp playing-field? seems that the main thing about this pvp vs pve argument is that during pvp, top end-game guilds will have superior gear, and thus making it unfair to the average pvper. if super 250ACpve breastplate from the end-game boss has -130ACpvp, then during pvp that armor would have a 120AC rating. making it on par with the average joe, and thus being fair. makes sense to me rather than adding pvp stats to top tier pve gear. maybe thats how they r doing it.
But the items I mentioned above are the things I find lame as hell while raiding.
So? Just find a good raiding guild, and they're not problems. Really.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
Actually, the information he does have is quite valid, in fact its a variation on something I quoted to him. The problem is partially one of hard statistics, which we don't have for comparison, and partially interpretation.
Ok, some the following is an absurd simplification, but bear with me.
Any item is going to have two scores, a basic set of stats, and additional modifiers that come into play depending on the enemy. For the sake of this example, stats will follow the template of [A (B)] Where A equals the base statistics, AKA what is present regardless, and B equals the modifier granted for PvP.
Let us say we have three roughly equivalent Weapons, one aquired through top tier small group PvE/crafting, the second through top tier raiding, and the last through PvP. Let us also say that the ratings are as follows:
100 (-5)
100 (-10)
85 (15)
From this example, we see that the first item has a rating of 100 in PvE, and 95 in PvP, the second is also 100 PvE, but slightly lower with 90 PvP. The third only has 85 PvE, but trumps the others in PvP with a 100 rating.
The above is based on the information I have and how I have interpreted it. I personally believe that the above is also a fairly accurate representation of how things are set up. The problem with the above example is that it is not only an approximation, but is a guess. Based on the information they've given so far, it is entirely possible that Neanderthal's example is more accurate, although it would require FC to have twisted the truth into pretzels.
Note, by rating, I mean an approximation of its usefulness in the situation at hand, it can combine a variety of considerations from DPS, to PROCs, to buffs.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
Actually, the information he does have is quite valid, in fact its a variation on something I quoted to him. The problem is partially one of hard statistics, which we don't have for comparison, and partially interpretation.
Ok, some the following is an absurd simplification, but bear with me.
Any item is going to have two scores, a basic set of stats, and additional modifiers that come into play depending on the enemy. For the sake of this example, stats will follow the template of [A (B) (C)] Where A equals the base statistics, AKA what is present regardless, B equals the modifier granted when facing PvE targets, and C for PvP.
Let us say we have three roughly equivalent Weapons, one aquired through top tier small group PvE/crafting, the second through top tier raiding, and the last through PvP. Let us also say that the ratings are as follows:
85 (15) (10)
90 (10) (0)
85 (0) (15)
From this example, we see that the first item has a rating of 100 in PvE, and 95 in PvP, the second is also 100 PvE, but slightly lower with 90 PvP. The third only has 85 PvE, but trumps the others in PvP with a 100 rating.
The above is based on the information I have and how I have interpreted it. I personally believe that the above is also a fairly accurate representation of how things are set up. The problem with the above example is that it is not only an approximation, but is a guess. Based on the information they've given so far, it is entirely possible that Neanderthal's example is more accurate, although it would require FC to have twisted the truth into pretzels
Well, thanks to both you and Neanderthal for providing the quotes and the examples then. I've done some browsing myself after the first example and must say, I am a little puzzled by the way they describe it, so I guess I will have to wait for more concrete answers from FC themselves or wait till I see the game actually in work.
Anyway, of course, being someone who wants to play the game, I am hoping for the example of Aelfinn to be the right one, and judging from what I've heard from the devs when they describe the whole concept, I am in good spirits it will be the case, however, granted Neanderthal's theory could be true as well, so I will withhold judgement until the game is actually released and we really know what's going on.
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
Well, technically, you still get to call his (and mine for that matter) post speculation.
P.S. Unless I've read him badly, Neanderthal is likely also hoping I'm correct or at least close, but has learned to expect the worst.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
i really hope this will be the system funcom uses. seems pretty fair to me!
You've never really raided anything difficult then. 72 man EQ1 raids against bosses that have never been beaten on any server? Nothing "noob" about that. Takes far more skill than joe group of 6 just swinging away one mob at a time.
I'm no longer a raider, but I keep seeing this "raiding is easier than grouping" logic, and well, that isn't true.
Who says because you have 72 players its skillfull?who says because a mob hasn't been beaten it's more skill full?you missed two valid points 1 the mob was designed that way with high hitpoints,high defense and a high regen.There is nothing on a raid boss that isn't or can't be done on any mob,just the stats are changed.BTW that takes no skill by any dev to design a boss to be hard to kill,any noob designer could make a boss unbeatable.It's all in the stats.2 I am sure since you sound like you have been playing for a long time?that you are aware a normal XP party sometimes can take up to an hour to get to your camp add in hours just getting ready.So when your group dies and have to respawn back in home town it's usually called a night,your done.In a raid you have SEVERAL rezzers therefore dying is easy to handle and can easily prolong your fight,i might also add you have several tanks as well.ONe scenario is death game over the other is prolonged after death,you tell me wich is harder?i might also add that it's still the same thing as a normal party only more players ,who really cares?I know many like to think they are special with there large egos ,but RAIDING is nothing at all.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Actually, the information he does have is quite valid, in fact its a variation on something I quoted to him. The problem is partially one of hard statistics, which we don't have for comparison, and partially interpretation.
Ok, some the following is an absurd simplification, but bear with me.
Any item is going to have two scores, a basic set of stats, and additional modifiers that come into play depending on the enemy. For the sake of this example, stats will follow the template of [A (B)] Where A equals the base statistics, AKA what is present regardless, and B equals the modifier granted for PvP.
Let us say we have three roughly equivalent Weapons, one aquired through top tier small group PvE/crafting, the second through top tier raiding, and the last through PvP. Let us also say that the ratings are as follows:
100 (-5)
100 (-10)
85 (15)
From this example, we see that the first item has a rating of 100 in PvE, and 95 in PvP, the second is also 100 PvE, but slightly lower with 90 PvP. The third only has 85 PvE, but trumps the others in PvP with a 100 rating.
The above is based on the information I have and how I have interpreted it. I personally believe that the above is also a fairly accurate representation of how things are set up. The problem with the above example is that it is not only an approximation, but is a guess. Based on the information they've given so far, it is entirely possible that Neanderthal's example is more accurate, although it would require FC to have twisted the truth into pretzels.
Note, by rating, I mean an approximation of its usefulness in the situation at hand, it can combine a variety of considerations from DPS, to PROCs, to buffs.
Also note that your version requires no more coding than Neandrethal's version, is more consistent with what Funcom has promised, and is more palitable to the solo/groupers and PvPers, and not very objectionable with the raiders.
So basically, for what neandrathal posted to be true, the following would have to happen:
Funcom would have to repeatedly lie, blatantly, in order to:
- Save no time at all in coding
- Ruin their reputation, once people saw that they blatently lied ( Funcom has a decent reputation with customer service, at least by MMORPG standards)
- Annoy soloers and small group players
- Really piss of PvPers, to the point that they would quit the game
- Break a promise in such a way to make blogs and video game reviewers everywhere take note, thus really hurting their word of mouth
- Make a few raiders who also like to totally dominate at PvP happy
Yeeaaaah.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
Well, its obvious you've never been on a big raid before. They don't just increase hp and regen and stuff. Often they don't even touch the regen of the boss or the AC. They're easy enough to hit, but might have a lot of hp. Or they might have insane AC, but normal hp... OR all the other things you've apparently never seen. Like AE DOT's that do massive damage, or they call up groups of "adds" every 3 minutes that can wipe out your healers in a flash, or there's a slow mana drain AE that you can't avoid, or the boss is invulnerable except to "bane" weapons, or there's 9 bosses at once, and you have to kill them in a certain order, and if you mess up, you lose.
Someday, you might see a raid like that if you get into a higher end guild where teamwork and leadership skills are required.
However, what is with a tier 3 raid weapon ? Its, according to your example, 150(-60). It still is at 90 damage in PvP. Okey.. but it still hits for 150 in PvE. It hits for 150 when soloing, in small groups and full groups of six players. This wont necessarily be a problem at release but it will be a problem when they release an expansion that raises the level cap. Raiders will be, PVE-wise, one or even two tiers ahead. Even while level 80 is cap a group of six tier 3 raiders will be able to farm any group dungeon in no time without any real risc.
Raid Mages probably wont have higher damage, but maybe goodly mitigation in PvE.
TBH, i dont get all that math. Why ? To justify a dual-core CPU ? My math would be easier.
solo mob = 95-105% of a player
group mob = solo mob multiplied by 6
raid mob is a group mob multiplied by 4
named bosses, solo, group or raid, are trash multiplied by 1.2 - 1.8
period. No specialized itemization. Neither for PvP, or PvE nor for raid.
However, what is with a tier 3 raid weapon ? Its, according to your example, 150(-60). It still is at 90 damage in PvP. Okey.. but it still hits for 150 in PvE. It hits for 150 when soloing, in small groups and full groups of six players. This wont necessarily be a problem at release but it will be a problem when they release an expansion that raises the level cap. Raiders will be, PVE-wise, one or even two tiers ahead. Even while level 80 is cap a group of six tier 3 raiders will be able to farm any group dungeon in no time without any real risc.
Raid Mages probably wont have higher damage, but maybe goodly mitigation in PvE.
TBH, i dont get all that math. Why ? To justify a dual-core CPU ? My math would be easier.
solo mob = 95-105% of a player
group mob = solo mob multiplied by 6
raid mob is a group mob multiplied by 4
named bosses, solo, group or raid, are trash multiplied by 1.2 - 1.8
period. No specialized itemization. Neither for PvP, or PvE nor for raid.
I believe the point here is, that it is not necessary for PvPers to do raids to be good in PvP. Since the Tier3 Raid weapon will still not be better in PvP than what you can get in PvP. It's to allow the player to chose what he wants to do without having disadvantages to a player who does more of something else. So a PvPer with high end PvP gear won't be able to outdo Raid-Gear and vice-versa.
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
However, what is with a tier 3 raid weapon ? Its, according to your example, 150(-60). It still is at 90 damage in PvP. Okey.. but it still hits for 150 in PvE. It hits for 150 when soloing, in small groups and full groups of six players. This wont necessarily be a problem at release but it will be a problem when they release an expansion that raises the level cap. Raiders will be, PVE-wise, one or even two tiers ahead. Even while level 80 is cap a group of six tier 3 raiders will be able to farm any group dungeon in no time without any real risc.
Raid Mages probably wont have higher damage, but maybe goodly mitigation in PvE.
TBH, i dont get all that math. Why ? To justify a dual-core CPU ? My math would be easier.
solo mob = 95-105% of a player
group mob = solo mob multiplied by 6
raid mob is a group mob multiplied by 4
named bosses, solo, group or raid, are trash multiplied by 1.2 - 1.8
period. No specialized itemization. Neither for PvP, or PvE nor for raid.
No offense, but I'm glad you aren't dev.The reason why PVE and PVP functionality needs to be different is, that the opposition in PVE and PVP is completely different. In PVP you are up against thinking oppnonents that use their abilities to the best of their ability and are continually re-evaluating their strategy. While fighting NPCs, mobs or whatever you want to call them, you are more or less hitting a dummy that just keeps doing what its programmed to do. This is the reason why people are able to solo monsters with ridiculous amounts of hitpoints, they use their abilities wisely to outlast the mob. In many cases this is made extremely easy as well.
The reason for the higher damage in PVE then, is to not make killing a single monster a two-hour, extremely boring ordeal.
I don't think that eugam has participated in both high end activities at the same time (end game raiding and top server PvP). It is very time consuming and I only had time to do it in a very specific time in my life but I've experienced and thus understand the concerns of the people on this thread.
High end raiding PvE gear can invalidate PvP if they are not toned down to what people can find outside the PvE raiding. If not, then you're forcing people who dislike raiding to do so just so as to remain competitive in PvP. Which as you can understand is bad game design.
On the other end, if you can get PvP gear that are equally or better suited for PvE, then you're in reverse invalidating one of the reasons behind raiding. Then you're forcing the raiders to PvP in order to be competitive in PvE. Again, bad game design.
Lets say that I want to PvP a lot and occasionally slay a monster or two. PvP gear tailored for PvP will do the job and also cover me adequately for my rare PvE needs. If my PvE needs raise, I can look into the crafted gear, especially if I hate raiding or never bothered to make ties with a raiding guild in the first place. The opposite for PvE is true again.
Bottom line, you need two sets of gear. A monster will generally have multiple times the hit points of a player, so as to give a challenge to the team (of five or six) that goes after it. The monster will generally live no more than 30 secs. If you take that concentrated firepower and target it directly on another player, he won't live more than 5 secs, less if you consider the lag involved. So, unless we want our PvP to become an assist *train/kill*, *first to target/ first to kill* affair, gear need to adjust accordingly when they are considered for PvP and PvE respectively.
There is a third thing to consider, with affects only PvE. The sole reason to have better than grouping gear given to raiders is because tackling the raiding content will require them on some degree. Gear (weapon and armor) are means to the ends we enjoy to participate. If we never bother with raiding monsters, why care about raid quality gear? They invalidate the normal grouping content (that I expect raiders have completed) and thus making things less challenging for the rest of the people.
On the same line, I thing tiered raid instances via key quests or similar bottleneck system is a mistake. One year and X instances down the line, it becomes a pain for people to return to old instances to key fresh recruits, that may or may not fit to the guild, may or may not like end game raiding. Or worse, the more progressing guilds are constantly draining/ poaching recruits from less progressed guilds, thus keeping those guilds on the lower end. But that's another story for another thread. I'll refrain from speculating any further.