Shared instances.

Bounty: -
Assignee: -
The server was closed on April 2nd, 2023
https://pwmirage.com/forum/thread/342-we-are-closing/

    As we are likely going to stay a low-population server I'm thinking to make the dungeon runs less lonely. By default you could be put into a shared instance that works just like Secret Passage. If you insist on having the instance exclusive to you, you could talk to an NPC to get it - after paying a small symbolic fee.


    This should bring people together, although it poses some technical difficulties

    1. The mobs need to respawn quickly (about 5 minutes)
    2. The bosses need to respawn (15 minutes?), but mustn't be abusable. Perhaps a special NPC with a quest at the beginning of the instance that asks you to kill the boss. The quest is good enough to the point where killing the boss without it is not so worth it.
    3. Asking for an exclusive dungeon should effectively reset it (no more resetting problems)
    4. Wining the shared instance has to work differently. (or does it? maybe just nerf it a little)

    I do like the idea of the shared instance, like secret passage or sadistic glee. I wouldn't add any symbolic fee for exclusive instance though, since most of the times wining it is already a fee that keeps a solo player busy enough pre-dungeon, be it farming mats or coins for the wine. Instead, I would work on better rewards for the shared instance to make it more attractive. In other words, treat the shared instance like an addition to the game without adding obstacles to the already existing content.

    About the technical difficulties of the shared instance approach:

    1. 5min seems good for the averaged geared squad;

    2. Same for 15min. I like the quest idea, the respective reward should be the extra reward that makes it more attractive than the solo option;

    3. Agreed;

    4. Agreed, since now it's a wine for a shared instance, that will affect other players too. Keeping in mind that wining is already less effective the higher the level of the dungeon, what about setting a limited duration for the wine effect? 30/45 min perhaps? Or maybe add 16min (kill+loot) per boss plus the time a cleric takes to walk the full bh59 xD. Another idea on this aspect would be getting rid of wines for the shared instance option and make the quest reward VERY attractive compared to the solo option, since it would raise the difficulty considerably for the averaged geared squad and, if the squad wants to wine it, they could opt for the exclusive dungeon instead.

    Quote from EdgePunisher

    In other words, treat the shared instance like an addition to the game without adding obstacles to the already existing content.

    I like that. The symbolic fee I though about was literally 5k coins just to suggest what's the preferred choice. But it can be free too.


    30/45 mins per wine is doable. So is removing it :) I wanted to hear the initial feedback and then we could set up a poll.
    We still need to figure out what exactly is that extra reward here.

    Rewards suggestion:

    • exp (equivalent to the respective level crazy stone quest, maybe?)
    • dragon essences (very useful for refining and other prizes-trade, not sure about the amount) OR sleeping dragon orbs (if you find it interesting to have another way to get them besides voting, not sure of the amount/grade)
    • mirages (same amount possible as 1 boss of the respective bh?)
    • lv8 shard (or maybe different level shards for different level bhs?)

    i get trying to encourage more group play, but not sure this is the right way to do it. there are some very low ppl, a few mid lvl ppl, and a decent number of high ppl. being in the mid range (60 or so), there's no one in my lvl range to group with and the online population remains far to low to make that feasible. this leaves me in the position of watching a high lvl toon simply run the instance and me doing nothing. that's not group play. if i have to pay something to get a solo instance, i won't do bh's any more than i can do them now. if you limit the wine duration, i won't do bh's because even taking alts with me to do the instance, i'm not likely to finish an entire instance with hard (for me) bosses in the time proposed. i could barely manage the fb59 bosses at 60+ to get culti done and couldn't manage a couple of them at all without help -- again back to watching a high lvl person simply run them while i watch. that's not group play. even the ones i could manage took significant time to kill. i dont even want to think about having to do it unwined because the wine duration ran out.

    toonaddict Please suggest something else then. Saying no and basically making me flex to find a decent solution is not going to get us moving anywhere. And we've already discussed the fee is either 5k or nothing, so this change should be merely an extra addition to existing gameplay, making your point not valid.

    I'm glad the option for the orignal instance dungeon would still be available as I have some additional worries about how and open-instance would work, so would be keen for the original intances to remain as a fall-back.


    Concerns:

    1. How would they effect gated instances? Eg fb59: If someone is already inside killing Qianji, but you need Zimo, would you have to wait for them to kill all the other bosses first? Eg fb99: if the guards respawn do the gates also respawn?

    2. Boss camping. As some bosses drop nice molds and skill books, toxic competitiveness could be an issue if multiple people start camping bosses. This could also have an effect on gate mechanics.

    3. Log-in/Log-off mechanic inside open-intance dungeons - will the person remain in that spot if they been offline a long time? I believe current instances will boot your character out the dungeon when they are offline for >4 hours.

    4. Loot share. Currently, the highest damage dealing party or player receives all loot - this can lead to toxisity if remained, but could also lead to drama if loot is free for all. Players of the recommended level for the instance would struggle if a high level player was in the instance but not in their party.

    5. A nice server. We are for sure, a very kind and nice community, but the concept of the open-instances depends highly on the community remaining that way.


    I don't want to be negative :P and overall think its an interesting idea that would certainly give us a distinguished difference to other classic servers, I just feel these things, along with all players concerns, should probably be discussed prior to launch.

    well how about making an NPC with a point system - the same way with doing the Event from last month | is there a way to place an NPC with level caps (I.E Lv90-100 | Lv 40-55) We are trying to change the instances themselves | cap how many times you can go in the instance (I.E there are 3 BHs or 7 times a day | only allow that specific toon to go in 3 (Or w.e number gets chosen) times) | whilst yes this will make people pick and choose when to go in | it solves your ''farming'' issue :(


    1. NPC point system for the drops on that boss
    2. Limit the amount of times you can go in | this would probably have to include the Level caps

    (?) Is it possible to change Glee so that it has bosses or relevance but respawn times of say, 2-3 hours (to stop the farm aspect) | this is going to suck for late comers if they need the bosses i understand that | but it would mean less work arounds since glee is already a public cave :O

    (This may remove the shared aspect with the level capping so, :/ i doubt it'll hold much sway)
    The other issue i understand with this is the players that are lower level and there's not many lv 50-70 players so it makes finding an instance hard for them | the only fix i can think of is having a quest that would allow higher lvs to help in a lower instance using a quest or an item at the exchange of one of their daily instance uses :O

    just a suggestions | it is a bit extreme at people will more than likely turn their noses up at it but, that's all i have :)

    mikoto Not sure how that helps. Yeah we can permanently add points, another tokens of love, or daily BH limits but it rewards everyone equally, solo or party. Nothing wrong with extra rewards, but it doesn't solve the loneliness problem :P As for helping - we do have FBs that reward higher level players and encourage group play. It's great, but extending it for any BH to the point where helping a friend with a lower level instance is comparably rewarding to doing a your-level instance makes a recipe for an alt army.


    About placing arbitrary barriers or limits in general - we're all here just for fun and being told to do this not that is no fun. We want to slightly bend the gameplay to make it better for everyone, not place concrete walls all over it.

    Quote from Satine

    1. How would they effect gated instances? Eg fb59: If someone is already inside killing Qianji, but you need Zimo, would you have to wait for them to kill all the other bosses first? Eg fb99: if the guards respawn do the gates also respawn?

    2. Boss camping. As some bosses drop nice molds and skill books, toxic competitiveness could be an issue if multiple people start camping bosses. This could also have an effect on gate mechanics.

    3. Log-in/Log-off mechanic inside open-intance dungeons - will the person remain in that spot if they been offline a long time? I believe current instances will boot your character out the dungeon when they are offline for >4 hours.

    4. Loot share. Currently, the highest damage dealing party or player receives all loot - this can lead to toxisity if remained, but could also lead to drama if loot is free for all. Players of the recommended level for the instance would struggle if a high level player was in the instance but not in their party.

    5. A nice server. We are for sure, a very kind and nice community, but the concept of the open-instances depends highly on the community remaining that way.

    Those are very good problems.

    The gates are indeed problematic. In FB59 we could get away with simply removing them as they're are not very useful. But if we remove them in let's say FB39 we inevitably change the game. And removing them in FB99 would be a complete disaster. We may exclude 99 from the shared instances list, or perhaps make all gates respawn after 1 hour. FB99 still needs special consideration though. I would need to take a closer look at it.


    People will camp bosses if it's easy reward. We might need a boot timer as currently there is none. Mobs, bosses, and gates respawn after 4h. If you have 4 characters in 4 different instances you can kill a boss every hour. That's something to be improved either way.

    I don't think loot sharing is a problem. The quest at the entrance I mentioned earlier makes sure everyone gets some reward for killing the boss. If you're outside of a party then you're slightly worse on loot and, well ... sucks to be you :) Either join that party, get an exclusive dungeon, or wait till the other group is finished. We don't need more, do we?

    Yeah, the gates are possible problems in many other dungeons too. 69 and 79 have bh bosses as gatekeepers, for example. I wonder if there is a way to just remove the gates and not the mobs/bosses linked to it, maybe?


    Assuming we are treating the shared instance separated from the regular one, and this exclusive/regular option would remain as it is, the camping bosses problem would be a thing only in the shared instance because of the boss respawn time, right? In that case, if we increase the boss respawn time from the original 15min to 1h, would it be too bad? It's not like the shared dungeon could be "reseted" like the exclusive ones, so the respawn time would affect other possible groups that decide to go for it in a different time... My concern is that different groups would be limited on their options to start a shared instance by another group that started it earlier and be "forced" to get an exclusive dungeon to do the bh or wait for the respawn (not sure if it's bad too...). I'm really not sure how to address it, I particularly liked the option with 15min respawn, but I feel like it would be exploited to farm specific drops from bosses, on the other hand, a higher respawn time would affect other groups (although it's not like we have that many squads going for the same dungeon atm...). Maybe gather the options and do a poll on it?


    About the log in/log off mechanic to be booted after 4h in a dungeon, I didn't know it existed here, since there is no msg when you enter the dungeon... but I never tested it.


    About the loot sharing, if the most interesting loot is tied to the quest at the entrance and if the kill count could be obtained by everyone in range of the boss, I think that would be solved, I agree with Beta that the regular drops going to the squad/player who killed it is ok (considering that would not be the most interesting reward). But I'm not sure it works that way, I believe you don't get the kill credit/count by only being in range atm, you need to be in the squad with most damage or you don't get the credit. I didn't test it, but that is something we should verify and confirm if the kill credit based on "just being around the boss" is doable.


    The shared instance would introduce some new forms of pvp too (inside dungeons...), for whoever is in white name. It would be interesting to see how it would go xD

    Gates are controlled by a trigger. The trigger is enabled by default and the boss/gatekeeper in its AI is coded to disable the trigger on death. We don't have an editor for monster AI yet (Scripting for monster AI, special actions, etc), but I can make one-time changes to this manually. We have a lot of flexibility here.


    The shared and instanced versions should be separate - there will be changes in one that won't be in the other. I would like to keep the instanced version without any changes, although if there's significant deviation it might need some to make both versions feel similar. Or maybe bosses should respawn in both shared and instanced versions? Although 1h respawn time is definitely too much. You could run the entire shared dungeon with a group, casually killing monsters on your way, just to realize there was someone else before you and you have to wait up to ~50 minutes for the boss to respawn. That really sucks. Maybe 20 minutes respawn time at most? I probably wouldn't like to wait more. Since we're talking about monster AI I just remembered the one-shotting skills in TT or Lunar. We could bring it to other bosses, or just restore this mechanism from later versions where killing mobs makes the boss much weaker. Then you can try to camp the boss, but it's much harder and burns your charms. I will very likely prepare a poll later, but let's get even more ideas first.


    Ahh you're right about quest kill. Yes, I would need to check how hackable this is in the server files. There's high chance it is. You're right about pvp too - that could be interesting, could it also cause any problems? Accidental kills perhaps?

    This is very likely to be introduced in parts. Probably with just bh29 and 39 introduced first. We could see how it works and how playable it is.

    20mins seems good for boss respawn, not too much to wait, I think.


    I'm not sure about the respawn in exclusive/instanced dungeons; let's say you wined it, you go and kill the boss looking for a mold, you don't get it, just wait for respawn, without needing to use another wine set or killing mobs to get there... there's another camping exploit introduced in an exclusive dungeon with that. Keeping them separate should be the ideal to avoid "breaking a mechanic that works atm" in instanced/exclusive dungeons.


    About the pvp, the only problem I could think of is someone complaining because they don't understand that going white name you are open to be killed by other players, even if it is an accidental kill, at any time... Which I already saw in other servers before. But since white name is a choice here, I hope it won't happen that frequently. But then again, I don't do pvp, so I'm not sure that is all that could happen, I just find it interesting that this situation is something I saw in the anime series DotHack and it was very fun to watch some PKers camping in dungeons for other players lol

    idk what if anything has been decided on this but I agree with toonaddict "if i have to pay something to get a solo instance, i won't do bh's any more than i can do them now. if you limit the wine duration, i won't do bh's because even taking alts with me to do the instance, i'm not likely to finish an entire instance with hard (for me) bosses in the time proposed."


    I only run bhs with/for my low level toons now since I can't solo some of the bosses in the bhs for my main toon and rarely find anyone willing to run with me.


    my thoughts on limiting wine time - a wined instance of bh 51 can take up to an hour, for me, to run an alt through - if mobs respawn because the wine "ran out" I would be really POed! I don't want to waste my time farming the wine, click click click clickclick click click click ( 5 clicks per wine) to get 2 wines, spend 10k (5k each toon) to use the teleport stone, talk to old man in dungeon, again click click click click, wait for mobs to disappear, only to have to fight mobs when the wine "runs out" because I can't kill the bosses fast enough!

    About the suggested "fee for the exclusive dungeon", as low as it could be, I think/hope it wouldn't be implemented, because noone liked it so far (me included) xD

    So if we have a poll for it later, I doubt it would pass, considering the input we got so far.

    All that other stuff (wine duration, etc...) wouldn't be an issue, since regular (exclusive) dungeons wouldn't be changed. All of that would apply only to the shared version of the dungeon, the version thought for squad play, aeerg :). So basically, that means the dungeon as you know it now would remain unchanged, but there would be another option for squad play (not alt-self-squad, real squads with different ppl), with changes.

    in my opinion, the only thing to make not alts-self squad is make the boss more harder and tricky (ex: explode in the circle, aoe atk which need to avoid them), but sure this is not good for low or mid lvl.

    So, i suggest to make 2 optional type on dungeon at the begin, 1st for the normal boss , and 2nd one for harder boss. and the reward we talking before only can get from 2nd intance, which is i think its fair cause we cant do alt-self squad with harder bosses and really need team work for that)

    although, this opinion still have weakness on it:

    1. high-lvl still can solo/alts-self on low cave (maybe from 29-51 caves)

    2. low-lvl and mid-lvl hard to find ppl who want come with them


    but, all of this are depends of the player itself. cause none suggest have all positive options and everything we do for low and mid dungeons, high-lvl still have advantage on it.


    that all i can think, maybe its impossible to make this suggest happens, but for me open share dungeons is a bad idea.

    EdgePunisher tbh i can already see my days of running bhs coming to an end - there aren't enough people interested in running any lower level bh (51, 59, 69, or 79) to create a 'real' squad even when there are tabs involved!


    high level toons (95+) are busy with their own dailies and farming their own things (gear, refines, dqs, tomes, wb, etc) they don't have time or are otherwise unable/unwilling to run a low level dungeon and there aren't enough people at/near level to get a 'real' squad to run them.