Ashes could end up being with EvE numbers. I think the devs would be happy with that. But, people should keep in mind that Shadowbane "Play to Crush" was fairly popular for the first few years but was shut down due to not having sufficient numbers of players - those devs got their major success from Wizard101.
I like how you try to attribute the failures of pvp mmos to their open pvp elements.
Please stop trying to say all pve players share your intolerance of pvp. It's not true. Pve players want pve content which is what this game has. Open pvp doesn't change the fact that the pve content is there.
After wow, pve mmos is pretty much all we got in the market. Instead of trying to directly compete with pve mmos, it's smart of ashes to try to go into a slightly different direction and create a pvx game that might appease to a different crowd. Pvp is part of this game which is something most MMO players haven't experienced.
I also question how many of the players who would be turned off by open pvp would also be turned off by other mechanics like the death penalty, caravans, and node sieges.
I consider myself a PvE player, the caravan system sounds fun. But I want to mostly explore and pick flowers. I'll do other stuff but I think thats the stuff I'm looking forward to the most. I have a greater chance to get ganked then be the person doing the ganking.
I'm also interested in what corruption will add to the game, how will bounty hunting work.
Personally I think that the corruption mechanic is a missed opportunity, lets say that open world PvP wasn't a thing for the most part, but you could gain corruption for attacking caravans.
Corruption is now needed to join a thieves guild and some city become barred to a corrupted player. Nodes can also become corrupted if the local thieves guild is strong enough. Openworld killing becomes a thing for these nodes and people have a greater chance to drop a higher number of resources if they are killed.
Any node can become corrupted
Bounty Hunters suddenly become a thing because now people have a reason to become corrupted.
But honestly I'm excited for the game thats currently being designed.
Attitudes seem to be pretty much all over the place. That really isn't "wrong", per se, but it is part of why building a PVX game is kind of a gamble and possible would be groundbreaking if done in the best possible way.
Lots of hard lessons have been demonstrated and hopefully learned by the past attempts. Can hardly wait to see if IS can pull it off better than anyone else ever has.
Attitudes seem to be pretty much all over the place. That really isn't "wrong", per se, but it is part of why building a PVX game is kind of a gamble and possible would be groundbreaking if done in the best possible way.
Lots of hard lessons have been demonstrated and hopefully learned by the past attempts. Can hardly wait to see if IS can pull it off better than anyone else ever has.
I wouldnt worry to much. This thread is mostly filled with the same people coming back in and agrueing back and forth both sides presenting reasonable arguments. What your seeing here is the vocal minority of both sides. Ashes has the opportunity to do a lot with a faction less game, open world pvx, and a corruption system.
I would have loved to see the corruption system being an in game influencer on NPC and city interaction (think loosely like fable) but it's being used as a redundency for the bounty system to prevent mindless killing of players.
Am I extreme either way? No.. but I obviously prefer a less restrictive open world pvp system. l like banditry and mercenary work so I'm gonna being walking the line anyway. I'm just glad there is finally a game (that I think) will allow that playstyle to be possible.
I don't think it is that hard to build a pvx game and i'm pretty sure AA and BDO is proof of that. A lot of people left AA because of the heavy p2w aspect of the game that undermined the game's progression. BDO has been relatively successful just because of it's pretty graphics and fun combat. Looking outside of the MMO genre, some of the most popular games are pvp games so the gaming community as a whole doesn't seem to be opposed to the concept and is used to competing against other players.
Point i'm trying to make is i don't think this is as controversial as some in this thread like to think.
I like how you try to attribute the failures of pvp mmos to their open pvp elements.
Please stop trying to say all pve players share your intolerance of pvp. It's not true. Pve players want pve content which is what this game has. Open pvp doesn't change the fact that the pve content is there.
After wow, pve mmos is pretty much all we got in the market. Instead of trying to directly compete with pve mmos, it's smart of ashes to try to go into a slightly different direction and create a pvx game that might appease to a different crowd. Pvp is part of this game which is something most MMO players haven't experienced.
I also question how many of the players who would be turned off by open pvp would also be turned off by other mechanics like the death penalty, caravans, and node sieges.
There's no trying - I either say all or I don't. So, you should stop acting like a statement that does not state all means all.
I'm not aware of anyone saying that open PvP changes the fact that PvE content exists. That is a moot point.
After WoW, there were still MMORPGs that had PvE servers and PvP servers. "Pretty much" is your subjective perspective... but, yeah, that's because for MMORPGs, PvPers are a minority playstyle. Most MMORPG players have experienced MMORPGs with PvP combat. They've even experienced playing open world PvP combat. Even though lots of post-WoW MMORPGs, like NWO, have instanced PvP combat.
It's fine for Ashes to attempt to force PvPers and PvEers to play on the same servers. How successful that will be remains to be seen.
There's no trying - I either say all or I don't. So, you should stop acting like a statement that does not state all means all.
I'm not aware of anyone saying that open PvP changes the fact that PvE content exists. That is a moot point.
After WoW, there were still MMORPGs that had PvE servers and PvP servers. "Pretty much" is your subjective perspective... but, yeah, that's because for MMORPGs, PvPers are a minority playstyle. Most MMORPG players have experienced MMORPGs with PvP combat. They've even experienced playing open world PvP combat. Even though lots of post-WoW MMORPGs, like NWO, have instanced PvP combat.
It's fine for Ashes to attempt to force PvPers and PvEers to play on the same servers. How successful that will be remains to be seen.
Not everything i said was directed at you. There are some who imply that because this game has open pvp it does not appeal to the pve player base which i think is false. You appeal to the pve crowd with pve content. Yes, there are people in that crowd that are intolerant of pvp but doesn't mean the game can't appeal to pve players while also having open pvp.
Yes, they had pve and pvp servers but they weren't really pvp games. They were pve games that had servers that allowed pvp to take place in the world. While it allowed it to take place, it had little to no point. The reason we don't have separate servers in this game is open pvp is supposed to play a role and be part of the game.
Yes, we will have to see how the game fairs but I don't like the way you divide players in the pvp and pve category and act like they are being shoved together in some kind of science experiment. The amount someone enjoys pvp and pve isn't mutually exclusive. If you enjoy one it doesn't mean you don't enjoy the other.
As you said, we will have to see how this game fairs. I was just pointing out what i have observed and how i don't think that even though this is different then the popular MMOs on the market, it won't be as alien as some like to think.
There is no implication that because there is open PvP combat Ashes does not appeal to the PvE fanbase - that is simply your inference. What has been stated is the concern that open PvP in Ashes will be so extensive that it will drive a significant portion of PvE players interested in other aspects of Ashes game design from playing the game. Just as the behavior of PvPers on PvP servers in other MMORPGs typically drives me to play on PvE-only servers...even though I enjoy PvP combat sometimes.
Appealing to the PvE crowd with PvE content is meaningless if open PvP is too rampant for the PvE crowd. Ashes also isn't really a PvP game.
Whether you like the way I and other divide people into PvP and PvE categories is irrelevant. It is a fact that there is a spectrum and that most MMORPG players are more PvE-oriented than PvP-oriented. Doesn't matter whether you like that fact or not. Facts are facts. So, what the Ashes devs have to do is find a way to make open PvP combat palatable enough for PvP-haters to find the PvP combat in Ashes enticing enough to meet their target numbers. People at the extreme ends of the spectrum remain skeptical of how well the current design will work, for the most part. Which shouldn't be surprising.
As I mentioned a few days ago... my complaint is about other players choosing how my playtime is spent. Other players should not be able to add 30 minutes plus to the playtime I've allotted to achieve the goals for my play session. Via battle time + corpse run + xp debt. But, in Bless Online, where all of that added up to only 5 minutes, I was fine with the forced PvP combat.
So, really, we have to see how a variety of mechanics combine in the attempt to make the experience entertaining across the spectrum. Because Ashes is a PvX game. And that's probably going to take some getting used to for everyone.
I was looking at stabbys post but I feel like you just said that you think open pvp will drive pve players away from the game. I still disagree with this. As i said, there are anti-pvp players who will be driven away by open pvp but i stick by what i said that the pve crowd will be drawn by the pve content.
What are you using as proof of player orientate towards one side or the other? I might be an exception but I don't think it sticks for me as it depends on the game. In vanilla i both raided Naxx and achieved the pvp title of "Warlord." Now in games like wow, I can spend a lot of time doing pvp because that's how i can progress and get gear but in BDO where you need to pve for resources and levels i do more of that. In ashes, it sounds like it will be more like BDO where to progress, you will need to do pve to progress and pvp is only a tool you can use to influence the game world. I don't really consider myself tied to one side as i enjoy and do both.
With the game being pvx and involving both pvp and pve i don't think it should try to appeal to people who hate either pvp or pve. If those people can find a place in the game then cool but I think Ashes needs to first try to be itself and see where the dice fall.
You don't like world pvp because it affects your play but that's why i like it. I like having my game time mixed up and if i can't get done what i had planned then there is always tomorrow.
Yes, we will see how it works out and hopefully it will be great!
It is really the extremes of either preference that will have most to dislike. Ultimately I'd like to see a game that could overcome almost all of either side's objections and can satisfy most, if not all, those objections. Then have that game keep re investing into it's own success in smart ways. A game that I could play HAPPILY for 10+ years.
I was looking at stabbys post but I feel like you just said that you think open pvp will drive pve players away from the game. I still disagree with this. As i said, there are anti-pvp players who will be driven away by open pvp but i stick by what i said that the pve crowd will be drawn by the pve content.
What are you using as proof of player orientate towards one side or the other? I might be an exception but I don't think it sticks for me as it depends on the game. In vanilla i both raided Naxx and achieved the pvp title of "Warlord." Now in games like wow, I can spend a lot of time doing pvp because that's how i can progress and get gear but in BDO where you need to pve for resources and levels i do more of that. In ashes, it sounds like it will be more like BDO where to progress, you will need to do pve to progress and pvp is only a tool you can use to influence the game world. I don't really consider myself tied to one side as i enjoy and do both.
With the game being pvx and involving both pvp and pve i don't think it should try to appeal to people who hate either pvp or pve. If those people can find a place in the game then cool but I think Ashes needs to first try to be itself and see where the dice fall.
You don't like world pvp because it affects your play but that's why i like it. I like having my game time mixed up and if i can't get done what i had planned then there is always tomorrow.
Yes, we will see how it works out and hopefully it will be great!
You keep talking about what you FEEL I said. Either I said that or I didn't say that. There is no "feeling". And I didn't say what you FEEL I said.
I am not an anti-PvPer. I enjoy PvP combat sometimes. But, no amount of great PvE content can draw me to a game that is too PvP-centric for my tastes. Specifically, I won't play any MMORPG where other players are able to force me into PvP combat when I'm not in the mood for PvP combat. PvE content cannot change that. And the same is true for most RPG players who don't enjoy PvP combat. So what the devs have to do is find a way to sufficiently minimize PvEers being forced into PvP combat and/or make the consequences of PvP combat so meaningful that PvEers are more interested in the resulting impact on the world than they are on having their PvE experiences interrupted by other players. Specifically, I am optimistic that the latter is possible because the EQNext devs gave examples of Storybricks scenarios that caused me to respond with, "Yeah, I have I have to kill some player Druids who are protecting NPC Dryads so that I can advance my Stealth skills, I'm a have to kill some Druids."
In that scenario, the Druids would need to protect the Dryads because if that population is sufficiently depleted, Shadow Demons will escape their bonds and destroy all life in the region. But, that still is all about choice. I can avoid that PvP encounter by agreeing not to kill those Dryads - if I'm not in the mood for PvP combat. Or, if I'm a Druid, I can choose not to protect the Dryads and go do something else. Instead of "I'm going to force you to fight me because I'm in the mood for PvP combat and I don't care if you're in the mood for PvP combat."
What I've said is that open world PvP in Ashes, MIGHT drive PvEers away from the game: it depends on whether Corruption is a sufficient deterrent in the eyes of the PvEers. Also depends on other factors - like how quickly PvEers can get back to doing what they were doing before they were interrupted. You act as though our views are diametrically opposed, even though I stated - in Bless Online, I didn't care about being forced into PvP combat because it only took 5 minutes out of an hours-long play session. So, we agree - it depends on the parameters of the specific game.
If Ashes is like BDO, I probably won't play Ashes. I'm hoping Ashes will be similar to the EQNext design. If you don't consider yourself tied to one side, you are probably near the middle of the spectrum... and you would probably enjoy Ashes regardless. But, PvEers (and PvE-sometimes folk, like myself) won't play if the game feels too PvP-centric. Different strokes for different folks.
I'm a PvE but I like the ideas of open world PvP as it is now, because let's be honest that will require more coordination from player and it bring a little bit more realistic view on the game, like we just set our self in a new world and you can't exepex that people you never seen are going to be your friend right away.
Corruption is now needed to join a thieves guild and some city become barred to a corrupted player. Nodes can also become corrupted if the local thieves guild is strong enough. Openworld killing becomes a thing for these nodes and people have a greater chance to drop a higher number of resources if they are killed.
...
I know I am a little late to respond to this, but I do not think corruption should be required for anything. Making corruption a requirement for anything makes corruption a goal for a subset of players that may not have chosen that goal. I do not think corruption should be used, in any sense, as something to "works towards."
I do understand that the argument was made under the "...what if corruption came from Caravan raids because of no OW/PvP." In that case having to gain corruption to join a thieves guild or gaining corruption from destroying a caravan might add a layer to the game, but would still likely deter some PvE players from caravan raids (even on NPCs) if they gained corruption as it is now (penalties).
@Azathoth Please read the whole post, your quoting 1 slice of a post and I'd venture to say the least important slice when looking at my post in parts.
Edit: I should take my own advice, and read your entire post. But quoting that one part can give someone the wrong impression of what I wrote.
Corruption is now needed to join a thieves guild and some city become barred to a corrupted player. Nodes can also become corrupted if the local thieves guild is strong enough. Openworld killing becomes a thing for these nodes and people have a greater chance to drop a higher number of resources if they are killed.
...
I know I am a little late to respond to this, but I do not think corruption should be required for anything. Making corruption a requirement for anything makes corruption a goal for a subset of players that may not have chosen that goal. 1. I do not think corruption should be used, in any sense, as something to "works towards."
I do understand that the argument was made under the "...what if corruption came from Caravan raids because of no OW/PvP." In that case having to gain corruption to join a thieves guild or gaining corruption from destroying a caravan might add a layer to the game, 2. but would still likely deter some PvE players from caravan raids (even on NPCs) if they gained corruption as it is now (penalties).
1. If corruption is no longer a penalty for perhaps ruining someones playtime, and someones playtime can't be ruined by griefing, then I think you address issue that @dygz has for example with non-consentual pvp and still keep the most important aspects of the game unchanged.
Bounty Hunting becomes even more meaningful.
2. I think the people who would raid a caravan would be more likely to do so, if they could level up their nodes thieves guild. People who would defend a caravan would remain unchanged and mostly PvE people could choose on whether or not to participate.
But again I want to note that I'm fine with the current design of the game
I could as well say: I'm not in the mood for PvE for gearing. They shouldn't force me to PvE.
If I said so what would u tell me? Then say that to urself. Maybe thus you can hear urself...
When we're not in the mood for PvE, we can go on caravan raids or participate in castle sieges and arena battles. And, it's easy enough to set up PvP battlegrounds such that when people are not in the mood for PvE, they have places in the game to go for PvP combat. But, also, that's why having separate PvP servers and PvE servers is typically the way to go to appease both playstyles. So...I'm hearing myself just fine.
I could as well say: I'm not in the mood for PvE for gearing. They shouldn't force me to PvE.
If I said so what would u tell me? Then say that to urself. Maybe thus you can hear urself...
When we're not in the mood for PvE, we can go on caravan raids or participate in castle sieges and arena battles. And, it's easy enough to set up PvP battlegrounds such that when people are not in the mood for PvE, they have places in the game to go for PvP combat. But, also, that's why having separate PvP servers and PvE servers is typically the way to go to appease both playstyles. So...I'm hearing myself just fine.
Just do what I do... Everyone outside of your party/guild/friends list is an NPC. Now there is no pvp everything is PVE... Just like old table top rpgs and no one is hurting your consent... Just those pesky AI's aggroing you.
I did suggest in an earlier post that leaving resource drops to caravans and ships would help incentivize the node conflict system and make PKing for the griefers less attractive. As at that point pvping for caravans and ships is less griefing than it is actual node conflict with meaningful value
I didn't get any feedback as of yet regarding that.
I feel that gatherers with mules (or anyone with a mule, really) should be fair game for looting. Economic warfare will be a thing, and looting from the gatherers or courriers of rival guilds/nodes should be one of the common elements of said warfare.
If a mule also acts as a mount, which it has been depicted as such, if you own one you would certainly be using it exploring and questing. Good gatherers are always ready no matter what they are doing.
Well, that would present the player with an important choice, would it not? Mount a horse for fast travel and lower appeal to possible bandits, or mount a mule for the greater utility/storage at the cost of greater appeal to bandits.
The incentives/motivations to kill other players should be more meaningful than looting individuals. Even looting individuals with mules.
There will be plenty of motivation to kill people with mules aside from simple plunder. For instance, I fully intent to murder rival gatherers at contested resource sites in order to secure those resources for my guild mates. I might even murder gatherers from rival nodes in order to halt their progress and give my home node an advantage. Why should I not get loot from the dead rivals and their dead mules?
Indeed,why should I not get every simple scrap of material that was on my victim's body and mule? That is the far more realistic scenario, is it not? The answer to those questions is that such a looting system would be way too harsh for the PvE-minded players. As such, looting will be limited to a small portion of carried goods (or so we speculate). That is a rather small price to pay, is it not?
AoC is designed to have an element of risk and strategic play. I made a suggestion that would benefit PvE players while still maintaining that element of risk and strategic choice in the belief that it would placate PvE players. Chances are that even this suggestion will not be noted or even approved, and all players will remain lootable. If my suggestion does not appease you, then chances are the actual game will please you even less.
I like this guy. Too bad I dont live near dropbears. damn upsidedownpeople.
I could as well say: I'm not in the mood for PvE for gearing. They shouldn't force me to PvE.
If I said so what would u tell me? Then say that to urself. Maybe thus you can hear urself...
When we're not in the mood for PvE, we can go on caravan raids or participate in castle sieges and arena battles. And, it's easy enough to set up PvP battlegrounds such that when people are not in the mood for PvE, they have places in the game to go for PvP combat. But, also, that's why having separate PvP servers and PvE servers is typically the way to go to appease both playstyles. So...I'm hearing myself just fine.
Just do what I do... Everyone outside of your party/guild/friends list is an NPC. Now there is no pvp everything is PVE... Just like old table top rpgs and no one is hurting your consent... Just those pesky AI's aggroing you.
If other players left me alone in the same manner as NPCs - great. But, that's not the case.
I wonder how a game where NPCs roamed further and aggro'd at greater distances would play out. Would it be easier to think of random PK'ers as wandering monsters if there was more of that?
I typically spend most of my time exploring as far as I can go before encountering mobs that can one-shot me.
I am a casual-challenge and NPCs and mobs are the casual challenges I seek.
Fighting other players is a hardcore challenge I'm rarely interested in.
So, no, you'd have to get AI advanced enough to be as ruthless and conniving as gankers for them to feel like players... and, at that point, I would stop playing the game.
The amount someone enjoys pvp and pve isn't mutually exclusive. If you enjoy one it doesn't mean you don't enjoy the other.
This line made me reflect upon my experience in Rift.
I spent most of the first year as a pure PvE player, and eventually tried PvP in a Warfront with my Mage healer. I didn't like the experience so I stuck to PvE.
Some time in the second year I tried a Warfront with my Warrior alt and had a great time. This motivated me to get a bit more familiar with Warfronts and try again with my Mage.
To greatly condense the story: I was a full time PvP player by the third year.
I figure a fair few of those who heatedly oppose PvP likely had some bad experiences with PvP that have shaped their views on the topic. Those who have been griefed by gankers in the past are particularly sensitive on the issue of open-world PvP. I have no solution for these players aside from advising that they just keep an eye on how the game continues to develop.
P.S. Seeing this topic getting new posts fills me with great joy. Keep it up guys.
Comments
But, people should keep in mind that Shadowbane "Play to Crush" was fairly popular for the first few years but was shut down due to not having sufficient numbers of players - those devs got their major success from Wizard101.
Please stop trying to say all pve players share your intolerance of pvp. It's not true. Pve players want pve content which is what this game has. Open pvp doesn't change the fact that the pve content is there.
After wow, pve mmos is pretty much all we got in the market. Instead of trying to directly compete with pve mmos, it's smart of ashes to try to go into a slightly different direction and create a pvx game that might appease to a different crowd. Pvp is part of this game which is something most MMO players haven't experienced.
I also question how many of the players who would be turned off by open pvp would also be turned off by other mechanics like the death penalty, caravans, and node sieges.
I'm also interested in what corruption will add to the game, how will bounty hunting work.
Personally I think that the corruption mechanic is a missed opportunity, lets say that open world PvP wasn't a thing for the most part, but you could gain corruption for attacking caravans.
Corruption is now needed to join a thieves guild and some city become barred to a corrupted player. Nodes can also become corrupted if the local thieves guild is strong enough. Openworld killing becomes a thing for these nodes and people have a greater chance to drop a higher number of resources if they are killed.
Any node can become corrupted
Bounty Hunters suddenly become a thing because now people have a reason to become corrupted.
But honestly I'm excited for the game thats currently being designed.
Attitudes seem to be pretty much all over the place. That really isn't "wrong", per se, but it is part of why building a PVX game is kind of a gamble and possible would be groundbreaking if done in the best possible way.
Lots of hard lessons have been demonstrated and hopefully learned by the past attempts. Can hardly wait to see if IS can pull it off better than anyone else ever has.
I would have loved to see the corruption system being an in game influencer on NPC and city interaction (think loosely like fable) but it's being used as a redundency for the bounty system to prevent mindless killing of players.
Am I extreme either way? No.. but I obviously prefer a less restrictive open world pvp system. l like banditry and mercenary work so I'm gonna being walking the line anyway. I'm just glad there is finally a game (that I think) will allow that playstyle to be possible.
Point i'm trying to make is i don't think this is as controversial as some in this thread like to think.
So, you should stop acting like a statement that does not state all means all.
I'm not aware of anyone saying that open PvP changes the fact that PvE content exists. That is a moot point.
After WoW, there were still MMORPGs that had PvE servers and PvP servers.
"Pretty much" is your subjective perspective... but, yeah, that's because for MMORPGs, PvPers are a minority playstyle.
Most MMORPG players have experienced MMORPGs with PvP combat. They've even experienced playing open world PvP combat. Even though lots of post-WoW MMORPGs, like NWO, have instanced PvP combat.
It's fine for Ashes to attempt to force PvPers and PvEers to play on the same servers.
How successful that will be remains to be seen.
Yes, they had pve and pvp servers but they weren't really pvp games. They were pve games that had servers that allowed pvp to take place in the world. While it allowed it to take place, it had little to no point. The reason we don't have separate servers in this game is open pvp is supposed to play a role and be part of the game.
Yes, we will have to see how the game fairs but I don't like the way you divide players in the pvp and pve category and act like they are being shoved together in some kind of science experiment. The amount someone enjoys pvp and pve isn't mutually exclusive. If you enjoy one it doesn't mean you don't enjoy the other.
As you said, we will have to see how this game fairs. I was just pointing out what i have observed and how i don't think that even though this is different then the popular MMOs on the market, it won't be as alien as some like to think.
What has been stated is the concern that open PvP in Ashes will be so extensive that it will drive a significant portion of PvE players interested in other aspects of Ashes game design from playing the game. Just as the behavior of PvPers on PvP servers in other MMORPGs typically drives me to play on PvE-only servers...even though I enjoy PvP combat sometimes.
Appealing to the PvE crowd with PvE content is meaningless if open PvP is too rampant for the PvE crowd.
Ashes also isn't really a PvP game.
Whether you like the way I and other divide people into PvP and PvE categories is irrelevant. It is a fact that there is a spectrum and that most MMORPG players are more PvE-oriented than PvP-oriented. Doesn't matter whether you like that fact or not.
Facts are facts.
So, what the Ashes devs have to do is find a way to make open PvP combat palatable enough for PvP-haters to find the PvP combat in Ashes enticing enough to meet their target numbers.
People at the extreme ends of the spectrum remain skeptical of how well the current design will work, for the most part. Which shouldn't be surprising.
As I mentioned a few days ago... my complaint is about other players choosing how my playtime is spent. Other players should not be able to add 30 minutes plus to the playtime I've allotted to achieve the goals for my play session. Via battle time + corpse run + xp debt.
But, in Bless Online, where all of that added up to only 5 minutes, I was fine with the forced PvP combat.
So, really, we have to see how a variety of mechanics combine in the attempt to make the experience entertaining across the spectrum.
Because Ashes is a PvX game. And that's probably going to take some getting used to for everyone.
What are you using as proof of player orientate towards one side or the other? I might be an exception but I don't think it sticks for me as it depends on the game. In vanilla i both raided Naxx and achieved the pvp title of "Warlord." Now in games like wow, I can spend a lot of time doing pvp because that's how i can progress and get gear but in BDO where you need to pve for resources and levels i do more of that. In ashes, it sounds like it will be more like BDO where to progress, you will need to do pve to progress and pvp is only a tool you can use to influence the game world. I don't really consider myself tied to one side as i enjoy and do both.
With the game being pvx and involving both pvp and pve i don't think it should try to appeal to people who hate either pvp or pve. If those people can find a place in the game then cool but I think Ashes needs to first try to be itself and see where the dice fall.
You don't like world pvp because it affects your play but that's why i like it. I like having my game time mixed up and if i can't get done what i had planned then there is always tomorrow.
Yes, we will see how it works out and hopefully it will be great!
Either I said that or I didn't say that. There is no "feeling".
And I didn't say what you FEEL I said.
I am not an anti-PvPer. I enjoy PvP combat sometimes.
But, no amount of great PvE content can draw me to a game that is too PvP-centric for my tastes. Specifically, I won't play any MMORPG where other players are able to force me into PvP combat when I'm not in the mood for PvP combat. PvE content cannot change that. And the same is true for most RPG players who don't enjoy PvP combat.
So what the devs have to do is find a way to sufficiently minimize PvEers being forced into PvP combat and/or make the consequences of PvP combat so meaningful that PvEers are more interested in the resulting impact on the world than they are on having their PvE experiences interrupted by other players.
Specifically, I am optimistic that the latter is possible because the EQNext devs gave examples of Storybricks scenarios that caused me to respond with, "Yeah, I have I have to kill some player Druids who are protecting NPC Dryads so that I can advance my Stealth skills, I'm a have to kill some Druids."
In that scenario, the Druids would need to protect the Dryads because if that population is sufficiently depleted, Shadow Demons will escape their bonds and destroy all life in the region.
But, that still is all about choice. I can avoid that PvP encounter by agreeing not to kill those Dryads - if I'm not in the mood for PvP combat. Or, if I'm a Druid, I can choose not to protect the Dryads and go do something else.
Instead of "I'm going to force you to fight me because I'm in the mood for PvP combat and I don't care if you're in the mood for PvP combat."
What I've said is that open world PvP in Ashes, MIGHT drive PvEers away from the game: it depends on whether Corruption is a sufficient deterrent in the eyes of the PvEers. Also depends on other factors - like how quickly PvEers can get back to doing what they were doing before they were interrupted.
You act as though our views are diametrically opposed, even though I stated - in Bless Online, I didn't care about being forced into PvP combat because it only took 5 minutes out of an hours-long play session. So, we agree - it depends on the parameters of the specific game.
If Ashes is like BDO, I probably won't play Ashes. I'm hoping Ashes will be similar to the EQNext design.
If you don't consider yourself tied to one side, you are probably near the middle of the spectrum... and you would probably enjoy Ashes regardless.
But, PvEers (and PvE-sometimes folk, like myself) won't play if the game feels too PvP-centric.
Different strokes for different folks.
I'm not in the mood for PvE for gearing. They shouldn't force me to PvE.
If I said so what would u tell me? Then say that to urself.
Maybe thus you can hear urself...
I do understand that the argument was made under the "...what if corruption came from Caravan raids because of no OW/PvP." In that case having to gain corruption to join a thieves guild or gaining corruption from destroying a caravan might add a layer to the game, but would still likely deter some PvE players from caravan raids (even on NPCs) if they gained corruption as it is now (penalties).
Edit: I should take my own advice, and read your entire post. But quoting that one part can give someone the wrong impression of what I wrote.
Bounty Hunting becomes even more meaningful.
2. I think the people who would raid a caravan would be more likely to do so, if they could level up their nodes thieves guild. People who would defend a caravan would remain unchanged and mostly PvE people could choose on whether or not to participate.
But again I want to note that I'm fine with the current design of the game
But, also, that's why having separate PvP servers and PvE servers is typically the way to go to appease both playstyles.
So...I'm hearing myself just fine.
But, that's not the case.
Shut Up and play settler 3...pve mode