Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Comments
^ Agreed
@Whocando
"I am not a PvP or PvE player, I am an MMO player."
Amen to that.
@Dygs
Yes you do raise valid points.
1. Could the game exist player vs world where the world destroys the players. Yes.
2. Could the game exist player vs player where the players destroy each other. Yes.
You then say community matters... but exclude a part of it.
Community is not an exclusive thing.
Community is about global cooperation.
As soon as you break the community, you have killed it.
Community in its very essence is fully inclusive to have its full meaning.
Otherwise its just two or more factions.
Look at all the theme park MMOs, where there is 1000s of little factions.
solos, groups, guilds.
But they dont work with each other.
They dont cooperate on a global scale.
They just have their own personal little sandbox isolated from everyone.
Their own little realm where everyone else around them rarely matters.
I would say none of those tiny factions make a community unless they cooperate as one unit.
This is where AoC delivers.
It enforces the unity and cooperation of the whole player base at the highest levels of progression.
It enforces community/cooperation in the global sense of the word.
Anyway, good luck to you guys. I hope you enjoy AoC.
[/quote]
WoW offers plenty of PVE servers. You should be fine there
Anyway, good luck to you guys. I hope you enjoy AoC.
[/quote]
Maybe Pantheon will be more to your liking. It is a PVE Group centric game.
^ Agreed
<a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/users/whocando/" rel="nofollow">@whocando</a>
“I am not a PvP or PvE player, I am an MMO player.”
Amen to that.
@Dygs
Yes you do raise valid points.
1. Could the game exist player vs world where the world destroys the players. Yes.
2. Could the game exist player vs player where the players destroy each other. Yes.
You then say community matters… but exclude a part of it.
Community is not an exclusive thing.
Community is about global cooperation.
As soon as you break the community, you have killed it.
Community in its very essence is fully inclusive to have its full meaning.
Otherwise its just two or more factions.
Look at all the theme park MMOs, where there is 1000s of little factions.
solos, groups, guilds.
But they dont work with each other.
They dont cooperate on a global scale.
They just have their own personal little sandbox isolated from everyone.
Their own little realm where everyone else around them rarely matters.
I would say none of those tiny factions make a community unless they cooperate as one unit.
This is where AoC delivers.
It enforces the unity and cooperation of the whole player base at the highest levels of progression.
It enforces community/cooperation in the global sense of the word.
[/quote]
Rune_Relic,
I want to say this is a very good message and dead on about what the developers want done with Ashes of Creation.
"Where this changes is when a Combatant kills a Non-Combatant"
1. This is singular not plural.
2. This is specific to killing not damaging.
The devil, as always, is in the details.
How it was/is/ will be read, is a matter of interpretation.
Wars have been thought over a misinterpretation of meaning.
People have been bankrupt through the sly use of wording.
You’re coming to a steakhouse and complaining that there are no gluten-free vegan dishes. This steakhouse, by design, serves up competition by murder. The folks who have bought into this game and put good money into the Kickstarter are bloodmouths who do not mind PvP to take center stage of what we do: the constant power struggle among not just players, but the <em>organizations</em> the players belong to. That was the concept pitched to us in the beginning: old MMO gamers like I got tired of MMOs of recent times which gave welfare loot for free, and made things so easy it was no longer challenging, and in turn it wasn’t fun anymore.
Unlike you, we in this steakhouse like our food a bit on the raw side, and when we cut into it, we like to see blood seep into the bottom of our platters. There are more than enough MMOs out there which serve up safe and bland fare, and you do not lack for options already. Please don’t walk into our steakhouse and call us <em>“mindless idiots”</em> for liking our meat.
[/quote]
"competition by murder"
If that sums up Ashes, this game is in trouble.
First off 20% of the mmo market are pvpers
Of those maybe 5% are the pk ganker kids
Now i realize that many many many many systems have been put in place to keep the pk gankers kids from costing developers money ( aka long term subscriptions ). Wow has flagging, Archeage has safe zones and those few with no safe areas fail pretty fast. Here they are trying to make a system where ganking basically can cost you allot. But heres how i think it will work out.
Step 1 = System put in place
Step 2 = Pvper exploit system ( via alt or friends killing them or something. But you know they will come up with something)
Step 3 = Game either goes down in flames or system gets revamped.
Step 4 = Pvper problem solved.
Yes you do raise valid points.
1. Could the game exist player vs world where the world destroys the players. Yes.
2. Could the game exist player vs player where the players destroy each other. Yes.
[/quote]
I'm going to start using different terms from now on because the EQNext/AoC concepts are a revolutionary, yet we continue to use archaic terms as if the have the same significance.
Player = the person controlling an avatar in game.
Avatar = the character a player controls in game
Node = story/content generator within a Zone of influence which can eventually establish cities
The core gameplay of AoC is Node v Node conflict. And Avatars are driving that conflict.
That is still viable on an Avatar v Environment server.
[quote]You then say community matters… but exclude a part of it.
Community is not an exclusive thing.
Community is about global cooperation.
As soon as you break the community, you have killed it.
Community in its very essence is fully inclusive to have its full meaning.
Otherwise its just two or more factions.[/quote]
Community matters. A large portion of the MMORPG community are those who prefer to play Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Games Avatar v Environment because they wish to focus more on the RolePlaying aspects of RPG than the competitive Game aspects of RPG.
The real downfall of the genre is that the focus has been primarily on the gamers - gamers who are want to be uber and pown other players and who care nothing about providing their characters with negative quirks. the gamers want to max the perks so they can kill, kill, kill, kill, kill. 90% of the content in MMORPGs revolves around using abilities to kill stuff. Even the healing is really only there to aid in groups killing mobs.
Why bring a rogue along in a party?? dps, dps, dps. People don't bring rogues on parties so that they can recon the dungeon or disarm traps or unlock doors. In MMORPGs, there are no Charisma based skills that Rogues typically use in D&D against NPCs.
Nope it's all about the dps.
Avatar v Environment players would love to get those roleplaying skills back. So there are other uses for them in a group besides just killing everything as fast as possible.
Avatar v Avatar players don't care because they're hyper-focused on killing other avatars...and would rather use the player's skills for diplomaccy rather than avatar's skills for diplomacy.
[quote]Look at all the theme park MMOs, where there is 1000s of little factions.
solos, groups, guilds. But they dont work with each other. They dont cooperate on a global scale.[/quote]
That's really true of RPGs period. Gamers... especially hardcore gamers tend to think that everyone should have their playstyle.
That that's what MMORPGs should cater to... their playstyle.
But there are all kinds of playstyles. When Bartle examined this for MUDs he came up with four types of players:
Killers, Achievers, Socializers and Explorers. Taking that test a few years ago gave me the grand understanding for why my grouping endeavors in MMORPGS typically fractured.
My Bartle score is E87; S73; A47; K0. The primary thing I want to in a dungeon is explore. In D&D, I typically play a rogue for map recon, disarming traps, unlocking doors and using diplomacy skills to avoid combat. Those are the benefits I provide for the party.
And I like to have unique quirks for my characters - like always wearing a kilt.
But, that flips gamers in MMORPGs out and makes them ballistic... because I'm not trying to be uber efficient at killing everything in the dungeon as quickly as possible. And, back in the early days of MMORPGs, most of the playerbase was comprise of hardcore gamers.
When people think of LFG, what they focus on is class composition, making sure that the Trinity is core and then allowing in some support. People never think about the Bartle Score composition.
Just as in D&D, where opposing alignment cause friction that threatens to fracture the party, the same is true of Bartle Score ratings.
Somebody with a Killer 0% rating is not going to have fun in a group with people who have a Killer 87% rating.
My Killer 0% rating doesn't simply mean I suck at combat so I try to avoid it. It means I don't like killing stuff, so I try to avoid that as much as possible. And I don't want the people around me killing stuff either, so having them kill stuff for me is not any kind of a solution to me being anti-killing.
My Exploration 87% means that the thing I like to do most in RPGs is go exploring. Exploring all kinds of stuff.
People who have a Killer 87% rating and a Exploration 0% rating will be willing to camp mobs for hours or days.
I'm not going to do that. And killing that uber mob is not going to be enough of a reward for me to be interested in doing that.
So, we cannot be in the same group. I need to group with people who have a similar playstyle as me.
Casuals who are not obsessed with killing.
And because I primarily care about exploration of the virtual world and the story, I'm not going to stick around to kill stuff over and over and over again, once I've completed the story. When I finish reading a fantasy novel, I don't keep re-reading the last chapter every night while I'm waiting for the sequel.
Because I am a hippy, peacenik carebear, I'm not going to craft stuff to support players who are obsessed with killing stuff.
There is no trade off for Avatar v Avatar folks protecting me because I don't want other people killing other people for me. I don't want people to kill other people period. I occasionally enjoy defending towns in Avatar v Avatar battles - bu the fact that I can't shut off the AvA flag when I'm tired of doing so is highly problematic for me because I don't want <ul>players</ul> attacking me just because it's possible for them to attack me... especially when I'm not in the mood for that. That impedes my free agency.
Which is why I typically end up moving over to Avatar v Environment servers.
The pillars of Ashes of Creation game design isn't new.
It's really just an appropriation of the EQNext pillars.
The primary pillar being Node v Node conflict. That conflict is revolutionarily brilliant!!!
I am a hippy, peacenik carebear, but that flips me over to a ruthless, uncaring jerk.
My favorite EQNext example is:
If I have to go into the neighboring region and kill some dryads in order to siphon their Life magic aso i can transmute that into the Shadow energy which powers my Stealth abilities and my Shadow spells...I'm going to go kills some dryads. And if some avatars in that region try to prevent me from killing the dryads, well those avatars are just going to have to die.
I'm not going to be willing to craft stuff for avatars who just want to go destroy the mines in a neighboring region because they want to bring our node into prominence. I'm not going to participate in supporting people focused on competition because they need to be the most uber people around. Which was the mindset of the AoC Avatar v Avatar guy I was talking with last night.
But, if I'm roleplaying a Druid who wants to protect Life and I learn that the Dark Elves have built a device to siphon Life magic and transmute it into Shadow magic... and that Shadow magic is causing blight in the forests...I'm going to go blow that up myself. And I will craft all kinds of stuff for people who want to rid the region of Shadow magic. Avatars protecting that Shadow device might have to die if they try to stop me from destroying it.
That's the kind of dynamic conflict that the AoC devs are really trying to provide... it's not really about the death counts of avatars killed by other avatars. It's about how the actions of the avatars within one region negatively affects all of the other regions.. or positively affects them... and how all the other avatars on the server respond to those repercussions.
That should be tons of fun for the avatar v avatar combat lovers and the avatar v avatar combat-sometimes folk.
The Avatar v Environment-Only folk will love the majority of that, too. Everything except avatars killing other avatars.
Why push those people away? Why not offer an AvE-only server?? not doing so inherently splits the community because if there isn't an AvE server, they won't be playing. Which means the AoC community loses the revenue from those subs.
What is the point in that? How is not supporting them a good thing?
[quote]They just have their own personal little sandbox isolated from everyone.
Their own little realm where everyone else around them rarely matters.
I would say none of those tiny factions make a community unless they cooperate as one unit.[/quote]
That is classic Us v Them. That's what humans do. We create cliques and factions
The same thing is going to happen in AoC on the normal servers. Those servers are going to be rife with confrontation and competition among the various nodes, regions and zones of interests. There will be no global cooperation.
Global cooperation is the antithesis of the game design.
If I hate fast travel, I'm not going to be cooperating with the people building a Science Metropolis. Rather, I'm going to be confronting them in order to rid the server of fast travel.
And I'm still not going to be grouping at all or socializing much with players who have a Killer 87% Exploration 0% Bartle score.
I'm going to be sequestered off with my clique of twitch friends who are mostly Explorer/Socializaers rather than Killer/Achievers.
The players on an Avatar v Environment server will have to cooperate with each other much more than the players on the normal servers. They are going to have to schedule their confrontations - Node v Node conflicts will like have to be coordinated more diligently server-wide in order to ensure that caravans and cities are attacked frequently enough that the content generation doesn't stagnate.
[quote]This is where AoC delivers.
It enforces the unity and cooperation of the whole player base at the highest levels of progression.
It enforces community/cooperation in the global sense of the word.[/quote]
No. It doesn't. Because without providing an Avatar v Environment server, it ostracizes one of the largest playstyles in the MMORPG community.
The primary goal of the game design is to foment competition and confrontation on a global scale rather than cooperation on a global scale.
Trying to stick everyone on the same server is like creating a D&D party that includes a Lawful Good Paladin and a Chaotic Evil Necromancer and expecting them to cooperate.
TL;DR : Great Post!!! Great Post!!!
Yes you do raise valid points.
1. Could the game exist player vs world where the world destroys the players. Yes.
2. Could the game exist player vs player where the players destroy each other. Yes.
[/quote]
Sorry. Another way too long rant.
I'm going to start using different terms from now on because the EQNext/AoC concepts are a revolutionary, yet we continue to use archaic terms as if the have the same significance.
Player = the person controlling an avatar in game.
Avatar = the character a player controls in game
Node = story/content generator within a Zone of influence which can eventually establish cities
The core gameplay of AoC is Node v Node conflict. And Avatars are driving that conflict.
That is still viable on an Avatar v Environment server.
[quote]You then say community matters… but exclude a part of it.
Community is not an exclusive thing.
Community is about global cooperation.
As soon as you break the community, you have killed it.
Community in its very essence is fully inclusive to have its full meaning.
Otherwise its just two or more factions.[/quote]
Community matters. A large portion of the MMORPG community are those who prefer to play Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Games Avatar v Environment because they wish to focus more on the RolePlaying aspects of RPG than the competitive Game aspects of RPG.
The real downfall of the genre is that the focus has been primarily on the gamers - gamers who are want to be uber and pown other players and who care nothing about providing their characters with negative quirks. the gamers want to max the perks so they can kill, kill, kill, kill, kill. 90% of the content in MMORPGs revolves around using abilities to kill stuff. Even the healing is really only there to aid in groups killing mobs.
Why bring a rogue along in a party?? dps, dps, dps. People don't bring rogues on parties so that they can recon the dungeon or disarm traps or unlock doors. In MMORPGs, there are no Charisma based skills that Rogues typically use in D&D against NPCs.
Nope it's all about the dps.
Avatar v Environment players would love to get those roleplaying skills back. So there are other uses for them in a group besides just killing everything as fast as possible.
Avatar v Avatar players don't care because they're hyper-focused on killing other avatars...and would rather use the player's skills for diplomaccy rather than avatar's skills for diplomacy.
[quote]Look at all the theme park MMOs, where there is 1000s of little factions.
solos, groups, guilds. But they dont work with each other. They dont cooperate on a global scale.[/quote]
That's really true of RPGs period. Gamers... especially hardcore gamers tend to think that everyone should have their playstyle.
That that's what MMORPGs should cater to... their playstyle.
But there are all kinds of playstyles. When Bartle examined this for MUDs he came up with four types of players:
Killers, Achievers, Socializers and Explorers. Taking that test a few years ago gave me the grand understanding for why my grouping endeavors in MMORPGS typically fractured.
My Bartle score is E87; S73; A47; K0. The primary thing I want to in a dungeon is explore. In D&D, I typically play a rogue for map recon, disarming traps, unlocking doors and using diplomacy skills to avoid combat. Those are the benefits I provide for the party.
And I like to have unique quirks for my characters - like always wearing a kilt.
But, that flips gamers in MMORPGs out and makes them ballistic... because I'm not trying to be uber efficient at killing everything in the dungeon as quickly as possible. And, back in the early days of MMORPGs, most of the playerbase was comprise of hardcore gamers.
When people think of LFG, what they focus on is class composition, making sure that the Trinity is core and then allowing in some support. People never think about the Bartle Score composition.
Just as in D&D, where opposing alignment cause friction that threatens to fracture the party, the same is true of Bartle Score ratings.
Somebody with a Killer 0% rating is not going to have fun in a group with people who have a Killer 87% rating.
My Killer 0% rating doesn't simply mean I suck at combat so I try to avoid it. It means I don't like killing stuff, so I try to avoid that as much as possible. And I don't want the people around me killing stuff either, so having them kill stuff for me is not any kind of a solution to me being anti-killing.
My Exploration 87% means that the thing I like to do most in RPGs is go exploring. Exploring all kinds of stuff.
People who have a Killer 87% rating and a Exploration 0% rating will be willing to camp mobs for hours or days.
I'm not going to do that. And killing that uber mob is not going to be enough of a reward for me to be interested in doing that.
So, we cannot be in the same group. I need to group with people who have a similar playstyle as me.
Casuals who are not obsessed with killing.
And because I primarily care about exploration of the virtual world and the story, I'm not going to stick around to kill stuff over and over and over again, once I've completed the story. When I finish reading a fantasy novel, I don't keep re-reading the last chapter every night while I'm waiting for the sequel.
Because I am a hippy, peacenik carebear, I'm not going to craft stuff to support players who are obsessed with killing stuff.
There is no trade off for Avatar v Avatar folks protecting me because I don't want other people killing other people for me. I don't want people to kill other people period. I occasionally enjoy defending towns in Avatar v Avatar battles - bu the fact that I can't shut off the AvA flag when I'm tired of doing so is highly problematic for me because I don't want <ul>players</ul> attacking me just because it's possible for them to attack me... especially when I'm not in the mood for that. That impedes my free agency.
Which is why I typically end up moving over to Avatar v Environment servers.
The pillars of Ashes of Creation game design isn't new.
It's really just an appropriation of the EQNext pillars.
The primary pillar being Node v Node conflict. That conflict is revolutionarily brilliant!!!
I am a hippy, peacenik carebear, but that flips me over to a ruthless, uncaring jerk.
My favorite EQNext example is:
If I have to go into the neighboring region and kill some dryads in order to siphon their Life magic aso i can transmute that into the Shadow energy which powers my Stealth abilities and my Shadow spells...I'm going to go kills some dryads. And if some avatars in that region try to prevent me from killing the dryads, well those avatars are just going to have to die.
I'm not going to be willing to craft stuff for avatars who just want to go destroy the mines in a neighboring region because they want to bring our node into prominence. I'm not going to participate in supporting people focused on competition because they need to be the most uber people around. Which was the mindset of the AoC Avatar v Avatar guy I was talking with last night.
But, if I'm roleplaying a Druid who wants to protect Life and I learn that the Dark Elves have built a device to siphon Life magic and transmute it into Shadow magic... and that Shadow magic is causing blight in the forests...I'm going to go blow that up myself. And I will craft all kinds of stuff for people who want to rid the region of Shadow magic. Avatars protecting that Shadow device might have to die if they try to stop me from destroying it.
That's the kind of dynamic conflict that the AoC devs are really trying to provide... it's not really about the death counts of avatars killed by other avatars. It's about how the actions of the avatars within one region negatively affects all of the other regions.. or positively affects them... and how all the other avatars on the server respond to those repercussions.
That should be tons of fun for the avatar v avatar combat lovers and the avatar v avatar combat-sometimes folk.
The Avatar v Environment-Only folk will love the majority of that, too. Everything except avatars killing other avatars.
Why push those people away? Why not offer an AvE-only server?? not doing so inherently splits the community because if there isn't an AvE server, they won't be playing. Which means the AoC community loses the revenue from those subs.
What is the point in that? How is not supporting them a good thing?
[quote]They just have their own personal little sandbox isolated from everyone.
Their own little realm where everyone else around them rarely matters.
I would say none of those tiny factions make a community unless they cooperate as one unit.[/quote]
That is classic Us v Them. That's what humans do. We create cliques and factions
The same thing is going to happen in AoC on the normal servers. Those servers are going to be rife with confrontation and competition among the various nodes, regions and zones of interests. There will be no global cooperation.
Global cooperation is the antithesis of the game design.
If I hate fast travel, I'm not going to be cooperating with the people building a Science Metropolis. Rather, I'm going to be confronting them in order to rid the server of fast travel.
And I'm still not going to be grouping at all or socializing much with players who have a Killer 87% Exploration 0% Bartle score.
I'm going to be sequestered off with my clique of twitch friends who are mostly Explorer/Socializaers rather than Killer/Achievers.
The players on an Avatar v Environment server will have to cooperate with each other much more than the players on the normal servers. They are going to have to schedule their confrontations - Node v Node conflicts will like have to be coordinated more diligently server-wide in order to ensure that caravans and cities are attacked frequently enough that the content generation doesn't stagnate.
[quote]This is where AoC delivers.
It enforces the unity and cooperation of the whole player base at the highest levels of progression.
It enforces community/cooperation in the global sense of the word.[/quote]
No. It doesn't. Because without providing an Avatar v Environment server, it ostracizes one of the largest playstyles in the MMORPG community.
The primary goal of the game design is to foment competition and confrontation on a global scale rather than cooperation on a global scale.
Trying to stick everyone on the same server is like creating a D&D party that includes a Lawful Good Paladin and a Chaotic Evil Necromancer and expecting them to cooperate.
TL;DR : Great Post!!!
1) Do you feel that the AoC creators are trying enrich the MMO environment while adding unique spins on some very old mechanics that we have already seen? PvP? General Combat? Node system? Resource trading routes?
2) Do you feel that the AoC creators are trying to take into account as many opinions from the general MMO population as possible? Saying that they will not force PvP perhaps? Saying that they are going to listen to their community as much as possible?
3) Do you think that they are taking aggressive steps to stopping the PKers in the MMO genre while still allowing them to PK? Keep in mind that there are two philosophies when implementing tools. You either implement something that is extremely over powered and then scale it back in line with everything (For everyone that was around for the release of Death Knights in WoW) and then to release something completely under powered and then slowly increase its power to bring it in line with everything (Vanilla Druids that got buffed to high hell in TBC).
Last but not least. The game is not released. No one has played it and all we have are the words of the people working on it and the questions that have been asked of them. So before you run around making blanket statements "If this game has any pvp content at all I am not going to play it...." So if a player hacks down a tree and it falls on you killing your char are you out? Is the game ruined?
Remember that people who are new to the genre, who are new to MMOs are reading your words and they are choosing whether or not to identify with them. Use your words appropriately. Your words could single-handedly destroy what would otherwise be an amazing game for someone new coming to our community.
Thanks for your time as always,
Lex
No. It doesn’t. Because without providing an Avatar v Environment server, it ostracizes one of the largest playstyles in the MMORPG community.
[/quote]
Prove this. Prove that this flagging system ostracizes the "largest" playstyle. You are probably basing this off 2 games. That is not a big enough sample size. Mix this with the fact that competitive games are easily more popular then mmorpgs, i don't think you can say that everyone hates pvp. Most people who play pve mmorpgs games probably play competitive games.
This flagging system is made for pve players not for pvp players. The system is designed to prevent the kind of pvp people don't like. We haven't even played the game yet and you are saying that all these players who play on pve servers won't like it. First, you don't know if they are all as intolerant as you and second, you don't know how this flagging system will affect pvp.
http://www.mmorpg.com/
I dont see any full loot open world pvp games the top rankings. One could take that as proof enough.
1) Do you feel that the AoC creators are trying enrich the MMO environment while adding unique spins on some very old mechanics that we have already seen? PvP? General Combat? Node system? Resource trading routes?
2) Do you feel that the AoC creators are trying to take into account as many opinions from the general MMO population as possible? Saying that they will not force PvP perhaps? Saying that they are going to listen to their community as much as possible?
3) Do you think that they are taking aggressive steps to stopping the PKers in the MMO genre while still allowing them to PK? Keep in mind that there are two philosophies when implementing tools. You either implement something that is extremely over powered and then scale it back in line with everything (For everyone that was around for the release of Death Knights in WoW) and then to release something completely under powered and then slowly increase its power to bring it in line with everything (Vanilla Druids that got buffed to high hell in TBC).
Last but not least. The game is not released. No one has played it and all we have are the words of the people working on it and the questions that have been asked of them. So before you run around making blanket statements "If this game has any pvp content at all I am not going to play it...." So if a player hacks down a tree and it falls on you killing your char are you out? Is the game ruined?
Remember that people who are new to the genre, who are new to MMOs are reading your words and they are choosing whether or not to identify with them. Use your words appropriately. Your words could single-handedly destroy what would otherwise be an amazing game for someone new coming to our community.
Thanks for your time as always,
Lex
I feel like this thread has been going on for quiet a while with no actual development lately. I would like everyone to just take a step back and ask yourselves a couple questions:
1) Do you feel that the AoC creators are trying enrich the MMO environment while adding unique spins on some very old mechanics that we have already seen? PvP? General Combat? Node system? Resource trading routes?
2) Do you feel that the AoC creators are trying to take into account as many opinions from the general MMO population as possible? Saying that they will not force PvP perhaps? Saying that they are going to listen to their community as much as possible?
3) Do you think that they are taking aggressive steps to stopping the PKers in the MMO genre while still allowing them to PK? Keep in mind that there are two philosophies when implementing tools. You either implement something that is extremely over powered and then scale it back in line with everything (For everyone that was around for the release of Death Knights in WoW) and then to release something completely under powered and then slowly increase its power to bring it in line with everything (Vanilla Druids that got buffed to high hell in TBC).
Last but not least. The game is not released. No one has played it and all we have are the words of the people working on it and the questions that have been asked of them. So before you run around making blanket statements "If this game has any pvp content at all I am not going to play it...." So if a player hacks down a tree and it falls on you killing your char are you out? Is the game ruined?
Remember that people who are new to the genre, who are new to MMOs are reading your words and they are choosing whether or not to identify with them. Use your words appropriately. Your words could single-handedly destroy what would otherwise be an amazing game for someone new coming to our community.
Thanks for your time as always,
Lex
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/please-dont-force-us-to-be-victims-of-pvpers/page/14/#post-18531" rel="nofollow">Dygz wrote:</a></div>
No. It doesn’t. Because without providing an Avatar v Environment server, it ostracizes one of the largest playstyles in the MMORPG community.
</blockquote>
Prove this. Prove that this flagging system ostracizes the “largest” playstyle. You are probably basing this off 2 games. That is not a big enough sample size. Mix this with the fact that competitive games are easily more popular then mmorpgs, i don’t think you can say that everyone hates pvp. Most people who play pve mmorpgs games probably play competitive games.
This flagging system is made for pve players not for pvp players. The system is designed to prevent the kind of pvp people don’t like. We haven’t even played the game yet and you are saying that all these players who play on pve servers won’t like it. First, you don’t know if they are all as intolerant as you and second, you don’t know how this flagging system will affect pvp.[/quote]
Um. So...
I write "one of the largest playstyles in the MMORPG community."
You say I wrote, "the largest playstyle." That's not what I wrote. That's what you wrote.
And then you want to refute that the PvE playstyle is one of the largest in the MMORPG community by asserting that competitive games are easily more popular than MMORPGs. ???
That is absurd.
You have agreed with others that diverging and making a PVE server out of what they have done so far would be problematic and time consuming. I have seen it in at least a couple of posts. There are too many separate threads now for me to spend all day finding it so I will rely on your inherent honesty to acknowledge that as true.
If that is cleared up, can you acknowledge that this whole particular game design was conceived, by Intrepid, with PVP in it's roots? When you face the facts that this is a smaller type Independent Developer Project you have to admit that they are short on development funds, short on time because of that, and MEGA focused on their EXACT design to make it all come together within a reasonable time frame. They simply don't have the time or the money right now to cater to something as massive as a split-off game, different from their concept by a lot, and with it's own additional servers.
That is even if they were willing to do such a thing. So far the KS support is showing that they don't need to. At least not yet. NOR IS THERE ANY REAL EVIDENCE that there are enough straight PVE players out their to make it profitable. Most players leery of PVP have chimed in that they are fine with trying the game as proposed.
Now after all that... Please read this: I have been playing an OWPVP MMO for about 3 years now. One in alpha/beta and two live. At least what they are calling live. There are the same proportions of PVP to PVE fans as in any game, in this one. I have been killed many times during official declared conflicts in this game. Probably Dozens. But that is because I went looking for conflict. It is a war.
Of all the time that I have played outside of official player conflict, I have been jumped and ganked 2 times. Once per year so far. The combination of the reputation system, the threat of a "guild" to back me up, and an entire game community frowning on senseless killing of players(especially new players) has kept the whole server virtually free of "naughty PVP".
Partly you love the Idea of Ashes of Creation for it's new and novel ideas. You want to play but you are defending the Non PVPer's want for a PVE server. That is noble in it's way. But I have to tell you that fears of bad PVP are very much over exaggerated. Observe a few simple steps and Bad PVP is pretty much never going to bother you. If you are the type that simply can't take being sent to the shrine once by a player, then no one can talk you into trying this game which looks like it will be awesome. It looks like a great game and if it is, it deserves to be played by antPVP players just a little different. With just a few little cautions and their time would be mostly empty of threat.
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/please-dont-force-us-to-be-victims-of-pvpers/page/14/#post-18531" rel="nofollow">Dygz wrote:</a></div>
No. It doesn’t. Because without providing an Avatar v Environment server, it ostracizes one of the largest playstyles in the MMORPG community.
</blockquote>
Prove this. Prove that this flagging system ostracizes the “largest” playstyle. You are probably basing this off 2 games. That is not a big enough sample size. Mix this with the fact that competitive games are easily more popular then mmorpgs, i don’t think you can say that everyone hates pvp. Most people who play pve mmorpgs games probably play competitive games.
This flagging system is made for pve players not for pvp players. The system is designed to prevent the kind of pvp people don’t like. We haven’t even played the game yet and you are saying that all these players who play on pve servers won’t like it. First, you don’t know if they are all as intolerant as you and second, you don’t know how this flagging system will affect pvp.
[/quote]
None of us have played this game yet. Everyone is simply projecting their fears and desires on to what amounts to being an empty shell. I think it is quite obvious that Ashes is not intended to be a gankbox, but it's not a PvE themepark, either. My take is that the developers don't want unfettered PvP because it conflicts with or constrains many of the other stated goals of the game and essentially makes them valueless. And that's why they designed their flagging system as they have.
I think those who think Ashes will be a PvP heaven are as badly mistaken as those who fear PvP romper stompers. But it's early days yet and there's no telling how the game will change once it gets into Alpha and players get their hands on it. We all can name games that did a complete 180 once they got into testing, when the developers saw what the human dynamic did to their carefully crafted ideas.
Well yes I can agree with most of that.
But that doesnt stop PvPers being relevant.
It still doesnt stop them being part of the community.
I also agree that many in-game classes now days are pure combat classes.
Non combat class roles isnt even a twinkle in most modern devs eyes.
Its simply beyond their comprehension for some reason.
So the result is the community has been conditioned into this being 'the norm' ***
I understand the frustration from the RP view who want to be more than just a living weapon.
The ability to dance with emotes isnt really much more than a token gesture.
Bartle scores aside.
Killing is a brutal fact of life.
If you dont kill something you starve and die.
If you want to survive in the wilds, you must protect yourself or die.
It would be nice if this were untrue, but it is not.
There are those that say vegetables and such arent living.
To me they are just as much alive as anything else we terminate to allow our own continuous existance.
Human, beast, plant makes no difference to me.
So killing players or beasts also makes no differnce.
Besides, how can you have extreme cooperation at one end of the scale,
without having extreme competition at the other end of the scale ?
It is duality. It is choice. What part of your inner nature will you release.
The angel or the demon or the human between ?
Should you crush the demon within to ensure the survival of others.
Should you crush the angel within to ensure the survival of yourself.
Should you give both of them an ear and ensure yourself and others all survive ?
It is this very dichotomy within each of us that AoC is playing on.
It is forcing us to recognise our imbalances and overcome them.
We are not angels, we are not demons, we are somewhere between those two extremes.
For life to flourish, we must reconcile both.
Otherwise there is only destruction or self destruction.
If we do not cooperate ...we do not progress from stage 1.
To maintain 5 metropolis will require full cooperation.
So no, the game does not enforce conflict.
It gives the players a choice between competition or cooperation.
Cooperate you progress.
The more you compete, the less you progress.
This means AoC is a training tool for young minds that only know competition.
It teaches them that true success comes through civilisation ***
And civilisation can only happen through cooperation.
Please dont think I am trying to say your psychology is wrong or flawed.
What I am trying to say is that there is a myriad of colours that make up our world.
Sticking one extreme in a box and throwing away the key, is no better than doing the same to you.
What we have to do instead, is make sure everyone plays by rules that allow mutual cooperation.
Which is why we need clear rules on engagement.
Not separate PvP and PvE servers.
This allows young minds to understand and evolve.
To move beyond the mass genocide that surrounds them in every game.
Yo need to be here to evolve those minds just as much as they need to be here to evolve.
Awesome - awesome post!!
1) I feel that the AoC creators are trying to enrich the MMORPG genre. I'm not aware of any game developers who ever try to stagnate the genre they're designing for.
I don't consider the design pillars for AoC to be unique spins on very old mechanics that we've already seen. It's mostly just a retread of the EQNext game design pillars. Those pillars were uniquely revolutionary...which is why I'm glad to see a team continuing to work on them for a new MMORPG.
2) A far as I can tell, the devs have no interest in supporting the Avatar v Environment Only players with a server designated for that playstyle. And I think Steven's concept of crafters supporting the Avatar v Avatar players so that the AvA players will protect the crafters to be a delusional pipe-dream brought on by his bias for Avatar v Avatar gameplay.
3) I think they are hoping their measures to discourage PKing will be aggressive enough to greatly curtail PKing.
I find their measures to be laughable. In fact, if I enjoyed killing players, the corruption system would encourage me to create corrupted alts just so I could have fun roleplaying a zombie. Killer/Achievers think that the measures would work because corruption would debilitate their ability to be uber. Alts don't need to be uber. Especially if they are zombie alts.
4) I probably would refuse to play an MMORPG in which my avatar could be killed due to another character chopping down a tree.
5) We have a year and half before the alpha opens. All we can critique at the moment is the current game design and a few vids.
People should share their honest opinions. Good along with the bad. The game design has plenty of good.
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/please-dont-force-us-to-be-victims-of-pvpers/page/15/#post-18569" rel="nofollow">LexLocke wrote:</a></div>
</blockquote>
Awesome – awesome post!!
1) I feel that the AoC creators are trying to enrich the MMORPG genre. I’m not aware of any game developers who ever try to stagnate the genre they’re designing for.
.....
[/quote]
Thanks for responding.
There's another thread in this forum that talks about differences in kind vs differences in scale. Take a quick look at that. It is something along the lines of what I was eluding to and what I think the creators are going for. This game would not be a good game on a pve server. The fact that there is a unique penalty for PKers gives me hope that they are working towards a new standard for allowing PVErs to thrive. This is not the final iteration of the game as stated so I can see that corruption system both increasing in its punishment and doing its job of making sure that when you are PKing someone its to assassinate a king of a rival kingdom.
In response to 5 -> yes the game is incredibly far away but that was not what I was really getting at. The heart of the comment was simply this: If you don't have anything nice to say don't say it at all.
There are a million ways to describe things and just saying things like "If this game has pvp I won't play it" helps no one. Instead provide examples of what has worked and what has not. Come with solutions. Even in the real world that we all must participate in no one ever had a boss that just wanted to hear from them nothing but complaints. For every problem you bring to your boss bring two solutions. I just want the same consideration here. People forget how to behave on forums and it often devolves into heated garbage. Let's avoid the garbage and have some constructive chit chat.
Thanks,
Lex
You chop wood in my favorite spots before I do, well you have taken my opportunity to get that wood in my set aside free time. Probably for some hours until it regens.
You throw a crafted item (or 10) onto the auction house at a lower price? You likely have cost me the sales I wanted. You have AT LEAST delayed them.
You get to the "mob of the week" grind spot ahead of my group? Now we have to wait, find another, or butt in and make things unpleasant for all.
But that doesnt stop PvPers being relevant.
It still doesn't stop them being part of the community.[/quote]
Of course AvA players are are relevant. They are a vital part of the community.
They should get to have their fun!! That doesn't mean everyone should be stuck on the same server!
Chaotic Evil Necromancer should be an option for people to play in D&D. That doesn't mean they should be in the same party as a Lawful Good Paladin and expect them to support each other's interests. That's just craziness.
[deleted a bunch of much appreciated yummy goodness for the sake of brevity - thanks]
[quote]Bartle scores aside.
Killing is a brutal fact of life.
If you dont kill something you starve and die.
If you want to survive in the wilds, you must protect yourself or die.
It would be nice if this were untrue, but it is not.
There are those that say vegetables and such arent living.
To me they are just as much alive as anything else we terminate to allow our own continuous existance.
Human, beast, plant makes no difference to me.
So killing players or beasts also makes no differnce.[/quote]
Exactly. Which is why I kill a bunch of mobs in MMORPGs in order to level my characters - despite having a Killer 0% score.
Although, I have leveled alts without killing mobs, that 0% really just represents that it holds the lowest interest for me when playing RPGs. The last thing I'm interested in doing. And would prefer to avoid it as much as possible.
And, yes, I am not a fan of harming plants in real life either - and avoid doing so as much as possible.
I try to pretend the meat I eat was never alive. I have less issues with eating plants, but some significant regret that's it's required, too. And that is reflected in my RPG gameplay.
[quote]Besides, how can you have extreme cooperation at one end of the scale,
without having extreme competition at the other end of the scale ?
It is duality. It is choice. What part of your inner nature will you release.[/quote]
I don't even understand that question. I am non-competitive.
Other people can be extremely competitive if they want to be.
I'd highly prefer not to be on the same server with them if they can't curtail that when they are near me.
[quote]The angel or the demon or the human between ?
Should you crush the demon within to ensure the survival of others.
Should you crush the angel within to ensure the survival of yourself.
Should you give both of them an ear and ensure yourself and others all survive ?[/quote]
My deafault preference would be to not crush any of them.
Probably rather absurd to put the angel and the demon on the same team and expect them to support each other's goals.
[quote]It is this very dichotomy within each of us that AoC is playing on.
It is forcing us to recognise our imbalances and overcome them.
We are not angels, we are not demons, we are somewhere between those two extremes.
For life to flourish, we must reconcile both.
Otherwise there is only destruction or self destruction.[/quote]
The thing is that, avatar to avatar, roleplaying crushing could be fine.
My avatar is evil so my avatar does evil things.
The problem is that the actions of my avatar can negatively affect the player. And if I don;t even want to hurt avatars or step on virtual snakes if I can avoid - that is exponentially more true of
[quote]If we do not cooperate …we do not progress from stage 1.[/quote]
That is true within a region/zoi. That is not true globally.
[quote]To maintain 5 metropolis will require full cooperation.[/quote]
We don't have to maintain 5 metropolises and we won't be.
The intention of the game design is that we will be tearing down rival Metropolises.
[quote]So no, the game does not enforce conflict.
It gives the players a choice between competition or cooperation.[/quote]
Nope. The game foments conflict. Node v Node conflict is the catalyst that drives world changes in AoC.
Steven says the catalyst is PvP combat, but it's really the Node v Node conflict.
[quote]Cooperate you progress.
The more you compete, the less you progress.
This means AoC is a training tool for young minds that only know competition.
It teaches them that true success comes through civilisation ***
And civilisation can only happen through cooperation.[/quote]
AoC is driven by the dynamic ebb and flow of cooperation and confrontation.
On an Avatar v Environment server, much of the confrontation will be diminished compared to a normal AoC server.
The players on an AvE server will have to be extremely diligent about cooperating and coordinating with other in order to artificially manufacture the confrontation required to keep the nodes generating new content.
[quote]Please dont think I am trying to say your psychology is wrong or flawed.
What I am trying to say is that there is a myriad of colours that make up our world.
Sticking one extreme in a box and throwing away the key, is no better than doing the same to you.
What we have to do instead, is make sure everyone plays by rules that allow mutual cooperation.[/quote]
We're having a great discussion. It's OK even if you do think my psychology is flawed.
The rules allow the AvA players to drive the AvE-only players to rage-quit the game.
That's like putting a Lawful Good Paladin and a Chaotic Good Rogue on the same team and expect them to agree to support each other's goals and play "by the rules". They are not going to agree on the same set of rules. That is a powder keg just waiting to explode. it is highly unlikely they are going to be working together for long. They are most likely going to go their separate ways.
[quote]Which is why we need clear rules on engagement.[/quote]
AvA players and AvE-only players are not going to agree on the rules of engagement.
I expect even AvA-sometimes players will be chafing and not at all happy with the state of affairs. We will just have to see how many of us stick around.
[quote]Not separate PvP and PvE servers[/quote]
The devs should offer one AvE-Only server.
[quote]This allows young minds to understand and evolve.
To move beyond the mass genocide that surrounds them in every game.[/quote]
Riiiiight. And when is that peace on Earth going to kick in? or even peace in the Middle East?
[quote]You need to be here to evolve those minds just as much as they need to be here to evolve.[/quote]
They won't be there. They won't be playing the game if there isn't at least one AvE-only server.
Much to the joy of the AvA players.
Soooo. Again, AoC is really just a retread of the EQNext concepts.
In EQNext terminology, we differentiate between in-direct PvP conflict and direct PvP combat.
A PvE-Only server would still be driven by indirect PvP-Conflict. The primary difference from a normal AoC server would be that it's impossible for indirect PvP Conflict to be resolved by direct PvP combat.
[quote]You chop wood in my favorite spots before I do, well you have taken my opportunity to get that wood in my set aside free time. Probably for some hours until it regens.
You throw a crafted item (or 10) onto the auction house at a lower price? You likely have cost me the sales I wanted. You have AT LEAST delayed them.
You get to the “mob of the week” grind spot ahead of my group? Now we have to wait, find another, or butt in and make things unpleasant for all.[/quote]
Those are all examples of PvP conflict. Yes.
Players who love direct PvP combat would likely use direct PvP combat to resolve those conflicts.
Of course, those who abhor direct PvP combat would learn to live with those scenarios without resorting to combat.
But none of those scenarios would really register as a conflict for me while playing. I would probably just go do something else.
I have never experienced a situation where i couldn't find a new spot to harvest in a handful minutes. Doing so would not take the same time as corpse run/ghost run + xp debt + recouping a looted items that might occur from being forced into combat with another player. I have every confidence I could easily find a new spot to harvest quickly and fulfill my quota favorably. That's been true in every MMORPG I've played in the past 20 years.
I don't do auction house very well so I'm happy to sell to NPCs.
As you can see by my Bartle scores, Achievements and Killing is very low on my totem pole of interests so I don't care about the mob of the week.
Players can do anything they like to do and it's fine with me... as long as they don't engage me to PvP combat with them when I'm not in the mood for PvP combat.
You forget that resources are limited.
You forget those 5 metropolis will need resources they dont have access to, to survive and not decay.
Option 1 - You burn through even more resource to start a siege against a metropolis to get those resource you must have.
Option 2 - You trade with the other metropolis. They give you materials you lack. You give them materials they lack.
One guarantees mutual survival.
One guarantees destruction of someone.
So like I said. Maximum progression requires mutual cooperation.
This is how things work in the real world.
No country has access to all the raw materials they need.
They are spread all over the world in different locations and concentrations.
Sure we could wipe each other out in an attempt to get access to them.
But its normally something we try to avoid at all costs, because the costs to ourselves is also considerable.
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/please-dont-force-us-to-be-victims-of-pvpers/page/14/#post-18531" rel="nofollow">Dygz wrote:</a></div>
No. It doesn’t. Because without providing an Avatar v Environment server, it ostracizes one of the largest playstyles in the MMORPG community.
</blockquote>
Prove this. Prove that this flagging system ostracizes the “largest” playstyle. You are probably basing this off 2 games. That is not a big enough sample size. Mix this with the fact that competitive games are easily more popular then mmorpgs, i don’t think you can say that everyone hates pvp. Most people who play pve mmorpgs games probably play competitive games.
This flagging system is made for pve players not for pvp players. The system is designed to prevent the kind of pvp people don’t like. We haven’t even played the game yet and you are saying that all these players who play on pve servers won’t like it. First, you don’t know if they are all as intolerant as you and second, you don’t know how this flagging system will affect pvp.
[/quote]
I cringe a little bit when PVP is kinda thrust upon me in games so it does make me feel inherently ostracized. Generally it makes me shy away, just not my style of play. I do have reservations in AOC but am still highly intrigued to see the actual finished product and hope that it is different than the PVP style I abhor in games past.
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/please-dont-force-us-to-be-victims-of-pvpers/page/15/#post-18592" rel="nofollow">Bringslite wrote:</a></div>
Even though I am not one to indulge in combat PVP very much, I have a hard time when people won’t acknowledge that almost ALL play is PVP.
</blockquote>
Soooo. Again, AoC is really just a retread of the EQNext concepts.
In EQNext terminology, we differentiate between in-direct PvP conflict and direct PvP combat.
A PvE-Only server would still be driven by indirect PvP-Conflict. The primary difference from a normal AoC server would be that it’s impossible for indirect PvP Conflict to be resolved by direct PvP combat.
<blockquote>You chop wood in my favorite spots before I do, well you have taken my opportunity to get that wood in my set aside free time. Probably for some hours until it regens.
You throw a crafted item (or 10) onto the auction house at a lower price? You likely have cost me the sales I wanted. You have AT LEAST delayed them.
You get to the “mob of the week” grind spot ahead of my group? Now we have to wait, find another, or butt in and make things unpleasant for all.
</blockquote>
Those are all examples of PvP conflict. Yes.
Players who love direct PvP combat would likely use direct PvP combat to resolve those conflicts.
Of course, those who abhor direct PvP combat would learn to live with those scenarios without resorting to combat.
But none of those scenarios would really register as a conflict for me while playing. I would probably just go do something else.
I have never experienced a situation where i couldn’t find a new spot to harvest in a handful minutes. Doing so would not take the same time as corpse run/ghost run + xp debt + recouping a looted items that might occur from being forced into combat with another player. I have every confidence I could easily find a new spot to harvest quickly and fulfill my quota favorably. That’s been true in every MMORPG I’ve played in the past 20 years.
I don’t do auction house very well so I’m happy to sell to NPCs.
As you can see by my Bartle scores, Achievements and Killing is very low on my totem pole of interests so I don’t care about the mob of the week.
Players can do anything they like to do and it’s fine with me… as long as they don’t engage me to PvP combat with them when I’m not in the mood for PvP combat.
[/quote]
It doesn't seem that you are swaying many people towards a PVE server. Yeah, the sampling pool here is limited because almost everyone recognizes the type of game that Intrepid is making. Still there seem to be a high number of non PVP players chiming in to say they are ready to try the game as presented so far. You are barking up the wrong tree. :)
At the very base level of the idea, I would have no personal problems with a or some PVE servers for this game, as long as:
Intrepid wants to do it.
They could do it without slowing the release.
It did not take away from the population of the regular servers.
They could do it without watering down the game that they are really trying to make, i.e. skipped features, skipped content, half finished mechanics, etc...
What about all those times though the only pve player kills that PVP player in world combat. Where a "Easy Gank" Went wrong and the pve player took the day. It makes that guy feel 10 feet tall.