My Eureka Concept

[Wintersandman]

You mention this concept of unpredictable, but yet my concept was literally the epitome of unpredictable pve content and you have nothing positive to say about it?

It's probably due to my hatred for 8 mans. Which is why I said make it light party.

[KaldeaSahaline]

It's probably due to my hatred for 8 mans. Which is why I said make it light party.

To which I asked you to identify ways to make 4 man content engaging, you have yet to engage in this topic repeatedly.

[Wintersandman]

To which I asked you to identify ways to make 4 man content engaging, you have yet to engage in this topic repeatedly.

Not a content designer. You posted here for feedback and I am providing it and why I dislike it.

But you could always make it Light Party and like Diadem/RW have multiple groups and have the content scaled based upon how many people in the instance. Or make it an open zone where anyone could participate solo, light party, full party and those different groups could engage in various objectives in the zone which would eliminate people getting locked out and also people being forced into a full party or a group for that matter.

Fates have a bad rep but you can make fates meaningful like the chains that are all over the world. Breaching the Hive and Clearing the Hive are perfect examples. You could have a fate like event going on where you are breaching or storming a keep and could use a combination of cannons, mechs, magitek, etc that the full party could engage or several solo people could use the cannons to enable the full party that is charging through. Or have various things going on that tailor to Alliances, full parties, light parties, solo.

And before you say you detest fates lets compare a fate to a dungeon. A FATE is a open world time based event with an objective to complete. An dungeon, trial or raid is an instanced time based event with an objective or multiple objectives to complete. FATE chains are the equivalent to a the multiple objective aspect. You don't have to have a FATE chain that takes you all over the map as can be seen by chains in Coerthas and South Shroud.

[Zojha]

To which I asked you to identify ways to make 4 man content engaging, you have yet to engage in this topic repeatedly.

The same way you make 8 and 24 man content "engaging", except with less wiping because one in X people didn't jump the rope in time?

You put in mechanics, aka the FFXIV variant of "Simon says". You can even make solo content like that, just replace every group interaction mechanic with "stand right here right now", because that's what they end up boiling down to anyway - You're coordinating your strat with your team in advance and assign positions for where to stand when what mechanic happens. And then you go to your position and pray that your teammate isn't a dummy because what he does is out of your hands. What happens if you scratch the teammates and leave the positional mechanic? You only scratch the part where you pray your teammates aren't dummies, you still go to your position - now assigned by the encounter instead of the static leader or Xenos guide.

Let's take a ride through A11S solo edition. Or non-trinity edition, whatever you prefer. I'm using this example because I did the fight so often, it's still rather clear in my head and because it's one of the more challenging and likely engaging fights.

Phase 1:
You start by pulling Cruise Chaser and he starts by throwing right and left laser swords and spin crushers instead of autoattacks at random people. Optical sights work entirely the same, except a random clock position is called out when a clock position is demanded. Whirlwind becomes a gaze attack. No add, but the pauldron spawns on Cruise Chaser himself and needs to be killed in time. Cue limit cut and 1-8, which will slowly count down from 1 to 6 and alternately drop chaser images and corresponding target markers, the latter only if you face the most recent chaser image to emulate the current gameplay. An image without target marker will cause a wipe. It works the same again in P3. Counting to 6 instead of 8 because you may not overlap target markers and there are only 3 safe placings between the turrets in Phase 3. Then the ATE begins and you transition to phase 2.

Phase 2:
You start off with the lazuli that need to be killed in time while dodging the boss' attacks. The bomb balls need to be placed by the usual rules, i.e. no overlap. Lasor X becomes an attack you need to face, so keep that focus target on him while hitting the orbs. Eternal darkness follows and you continue with the next phase as by the previous mechanics, except that now Photon happens and takes on the rules of Acceleration bomb, i.e. you may not move or attack for a brief moment when it happens. The add will spawn as usual, without autoattacks but with its lance attack and enrage. First attack hits low but puts a brief vuln up on you that forces you to dodge the other attacks as you'd have to if you'd tank it regularly. Soon after, Phase 3.

Phase 3: Same as now with the adjusted moveset. GA-100 works the same as now, except only dealing damage to the towers and non-targeted players getting too close if you're doing it in a group. Propeller wind works the same as now, lasers work the same as now, towers work as usual. Every mechanic in the whole thing only deals damage to you if you fail it and the HP of adds, shields etc are simply lowered to be beat-able by (Insert desired group comp here).

That's no bit less engaging than the original, only more so if anything. It's definitely a bit more challenging from the perspective of a DPS, because they only get more stuff to deal with here. Main differences in this version are healer and tank specific mechanics, because those are self-contained, i.e. the other party members don't really interact with them. DPS can't heal, DPS can't mitigate, so all mechanics pertaining either are irrelevant to their gameplay and engagement - If coupled with a different mechanic (such as prey), they only need the portion that pertains them, i.e. the "don't stack" part for their gameplay, which can be translated into "Stand at position X" for solo. For a healer version, you'd simply tune HP values lower and allow the boss to autoattack or something.

You can translate just about any trinity and group content into similarly engaging non-trinity or solo content. There is but one limitation: You cannot translate uncoordinated groups without a plan, nor dummies that wipe the raid by failing their part very well. Human error is hard to emulate mechanically. But those tend to be frustrating more than engaging.

[Sandpark]

Yeah a mechanic can be just as interesting whether you have 60 people or 1 person.

Stack:
1 Person- Run to specific spot
4 man- Four people stack
24 man- 24 People stack

Gaze:
1 person- Turn away
4 man- 4 people turn away
24 man- 24 people turn away

Proximity run:
1 person- Run away from blast point
4 man- 4 people run away from blast point
24 man- 24 ppl run away from blast point

The only thing more people change for most mechanics is the margin of error is smaller because even if you do 100% perfect, those 4 peeps or 24 peeps have to as well. We all know how people respond to emergency situations or end of the world mechanics.

They go crazy and it's an every man for himself mentality.

[Shurrikhan]

snip

While I'd agree that there's certainly nothing to necessarily make a given fight any more complex when scaling to higher player counts, the lack of such indicates wasted opportunity, imo.

Consider the difference in complexity from 1 to 6 players in Overwatch, for instance.

Each added player creates additional factors, by-fight and in macro, of interaction or by which to leverage a win. Rather than redundancies, they end up being mechanically augmentative.

[Sandpark]

The one dynamic that can't be done specifically to enhance multiplayer in a 1-2 person group setting is the old fashioned rock, paper, scissor.

Rock= Tank
Paper- Healer
Scissor- DPS

If one person can do all three, the multiplayer aspect is diminished.

Or group synergy combos

Rock- Skill A
Paper- Skill B
Scissor- Skill C

If one person can do all three, the multiplayer aspect is diminished.

Dodge mechanics, limit breaks, and self combos with non group synergy all lead to a feeling of my personal performance is more important than my groups performance in a moment.

I couldn't disagree more. So long as a person cannot do all three simultaneously, the complexity is merely seen through different windows. In most cases it's even increased. Who takes care of what when? What are the internal synergies or alignments that puts someone in an optimal position for this or that? How do you adjust what you're doing around the others? When each has only one task or a heavily specialized output, the questions all boil down to one -- who most deserves to live, when fatal damage will be inevitable? And it's not even a unique question; cross-kits face that question, too, in addition to everything else.

The multiplayer aspect is heightened exponentially when toolkits aren't so definitively specialized or restricted. Rather than having fewer things to worry about, you deal with all of them. Rather being wedged into a particular role, and working with other "roles" in turn, you work with people, personalities with their own fields of view and schemata that will influence coordinated play.

Permanent specializations, especially as they lend themselves to permanent or near-permanent allotment of duties or factors of play, detract from the sense of being among other capable players, of being in a multiplayer game. The idea that trinity systems increase complexity is both a oversimplification (as to there only be trinity or non-trinity) and a myth that owes more to cherry-picked executions of either concept than to the concepts themselves.

Not arguing complexity. I was saying that the only aspect that multiplayer has which single player does not, is synergistic group aspects on a moment to moment basis. I sense that you are someone who believes the trinity to be a bad thing and probably have 100 explanations that the alternative is so much more deep.

But every mmo I have tried which is about 12 ish. Any rpg combat without the trinity always amounts to the everyone can be everything. Any mmo without multiplayer moment to moment synergy in skills either relies on dodging meta or super solo rotations.

Oversimplification? You could argue that to both ends of trinity vs non trinity.

But it non trinity tends to be designed towards simplified most of the time I all games I have seen it in.

[Shurrikhan]

The one dynamic that can't be done specifically to enhance multiplayer in a 1-2 person group setting is the old fashioned rock, paper, scissor.

Rock= Tank
Paper- Healer
Scissor- DPS

If one person can do all three, the multiplayer aspect is diminished.

Or group synergy combos

Rock- Skill A
Paper- Skill B
Scissor- Skill C

If one person can do all three, the multiplayer aspect is diminished.

Dodge mechanics, limit breaks, and self combos with non group synergy all lead to a feeling of my personal performance is more important than my groups performance in a moment.

I couldn't disagree more. So long as a person cannot do all three simultaneously, the complexity is merely seen through different windows. In most cases it's even increased. Who takes care of what when? What are the internal synergies or alignments that puts someone in an optimal position for this or that? How do you adjust what you're doing around the others? When each has only one task or a heavily specialized output, the questions all boil down to one -- who most deserves to live, when fatal damage will be inevitable? And it's not even a unique question; cross-kits face that question, too, in addition to everything else.

The multiplayer aspect is heightened exponentially when toolkits aren't so definitively specialized or restricted. Rather than having fewer things to worry about, you deal with all of them. Rather being wedged into a particular role, and working with other "roles" in turn, you work with people, personalities with their own fields of view and schemata that will influence coordinated play.

Permanent specializations, especially as they lend themselves to permanent or near-permanent allotment of duties or factors of play, detract from the sense of being among other capable players, of being in a multiplayer game. The idea that trinity systems increase complexity is both a oversimplification (as to there only be trinity or non-trinity) and a myth that owes more to cherry-picked executions of either concept than to the concepts themselves.

[KaldeaSahaline]

Not a content designer. You posted here for feedback and I am providing it and why I dislike it.

Nor am I. I still managed to put some ideas down and construct a completely new gameform.

But you could always make it Light Party and like Diadem/RW have multiple groups and have the content scaled based upon how many people in the instance. Or make it an open zone where anyone could participate solo, light party, full party and those different groups could engage in various objectives in the zone which would eliminate people getting locked out and also people being forced into a full party or a group for that matter.

What are some good examples of these objectives for all playertypes (solo/LP/FP) that would be FUN to engage in?

Fates have a bad rep but you can make fates meaningful like the chains that are all over the world. Breaching the Hive and Clearing the Hive are perfect examples. You could have a fate like event going on where you are breaching or storming a keep and could use a combination of cannons, mechs, magitek, etc that the full party could engage or several solo people could use the cannons to enable the full party that is charging through. Or have various things going on that tailor to Alliances, full parties, light parties, solo.

FATE chains are not engaging and regular FATEs are by and far the most horrifically boring gameform I've ever played in an MMO. They're incredibly boring zerg content IMO. That is why nothing of the sort exists in my paradigm. At best, they're trivial AFK content while the group simply spams AOE attacks til completion and at worst they're incredibly tedious if you're soloing.

That said your example is good on paper (very similar to a PVE version of Rival Wings). I would VERY much be open to adding the concept of "interactive" FATE objectives in Eureka. The challenge would be making multiple different "types" and resolutions so that it wasn't just a binary do X @ Y type of obstacle.

In context of your example could be 'sneaking' past a patrolled area while managing trash packs to infiltrate a subset of the Eureka zone. Maybe later in the week you encounter the same "infiltration" subset, but, you have cannons to break the front door down allowing a different path/route, but would end up pulling additional enemies via a shorter route. Stuff like that.

As far as dungeons go I dislike dungeons for the same reason I dislike FATEs. They're static never changing gameplay that offers next to no engagement/challenge.

The same way you make 8 and 24 man content "engaging", except with less wiping because one in X people didn't jump the rope in time?

I respectfully disagree. Let's consider a light party comp of 1 tank, 1 healer, 1 melee, and 1 ranged/caster.

This means that tank cooldowns are binary. Content can only EVER have enough incoming damage to accommodate a singular tanks kit and cooldown timings.

This also means that you're limited by # of simultaneous mechanics/obstacles/adds. You can't ever have a fight with multiple priority adds because incoming damage would be impossible to tank/heal, else they'd be trivial and inconsequential, which directly goes against the goal of this content form.

A full party would have more room for additional simultaneous mechanics that can interact in unique and engaging ways. Splitting DPS on adds/boss can be more robust and tightly tuned rather than having it be so loose that any singular job needs to be able to do it, thus trivializing the check.

Things like tank swaps based on organic gameplay (i.e. out of tank cooldowns, swap) until mine are back up, etc. or more rapid swapping to maximize cooldown uptime to handle harsh incoming damage, etc..

Phase 1:
You start by pulling Cruise Chaser and he starts by throwing right and left laser swords and spin crushers instead of autoattacks at random people. Optical sights work entirely the same, except a random clock position is called out when a clock position is demanded. Whirlwind becomes a gaze attack. No add, but the pauldron spawns on Cruise Chaser himself and needs to be killed in time. Cue limit cut and 1-8, which will slowly count down from 1 to 6 and alternately drop chaser images and corresponding target markers, the latter only if you face the most recent chaser image to emulate the current gameplay. An image without target marker will cause a wipe. It works the same again in P3. Counting to 6 instead of 8 because you may not overlap target markers and there are only 3 safe placings between the turrets in Phase 3. Then the ATE begins and you transition to phase 2.

Dodging telegraphs and killing an add solo doesn't quantify as terribly engaging to me because its fixed gameplay and never changes and how could you even tune that to be challenging? It's a simple pass/fail. You either push your X amount of keypresses (GCDs / DPS check time allotment) or fail.

How would incoming damage work? How would a DPS do this? How would a Healer do this? If you allow any and all jobs to solo this, it means DPS checks don't exist. Incoming damage wouldn't exist, it'd literally just be Bardams Mettle second boss. Is that what you're advocating?

A tab target trinity MMO just doesn't have the core combat fundamentals to be a good platform for solo content IMO. An action combat system a la B&S handles this content form infinitely better IMO, but that's because of reactionary dodging/healing and defensives that allow individual skill to flourish. Whereas its large group content IMO is not as much fun as FF14's.

Yeah a mechanic can be just as interesting whether you have 60 people or 1 person.

You're looking at mechanics in an isolated singular fashion when this is not indicative of how it actually works in encounter design.

Look at O4S Exdeath. He does a Holy Stack marker. If you don't have to worry about 7 other peoples positioning or Fire III timing that mechanic becomes trivial.

It's not about simply looking away for gaze or getting to the middle with the stack marker, or running away from a blast point. It's about navigating dynamic player and encounter positioning based on other simultaneously outgoing mechanics and managing the space therein.

While I'd agree that there's certainly nothing to necessarily make a given fight any more complex when scaling to higher player counts, the lack of such indicates wasted opportunity, imo.

Consider the difference in complexity from 1 to 6 players in Overwatch, for instance.

Each added player creates additional factors, by-fight and in macro, of interaction or by which to leverage a win. Rather than redundancies, they end up being mechanically augmentative.

Exactly. It's not a linear map that says X > Y when considering party size in content forms. There are spots where some things are better and others could be worse. In the content form I designed with the goal I wanted (engaging/challenging) repeatable semi-random battle content for all 3 roles I felt that 8 man best fit that. I felt that 24 man would have diluted the experience and I felt that 4 man didn't reach the level I wanted, all 3 examples cited with evidence and reasoning for my deductions.

[Wintersandman]

FATE chains are not engaging and regular FATEs are by and far the most horrifically boring gameform I've ever played in an MMO.

That is just your view on fates. They can be engaging it is all in how they are designed. It could be "Sneak through the tunnel, open the gate, without being detected" while another simultaneous fate is going on "Seige the gate". It is a race to see which works and you could have x and y players participating in each. So if you are solo you could be sneaking through while an 8 man party is trying to seize the gate. A FATE is literally just an open world time based event and you can make it anything you want, the only limitation is imagination so don't get hung up on the word.