Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options

Server Vs Server

So I was talking about one other game and that game have server vs server fighting, and In AOC it will be max 10000 people on one server, so I wanted to know if you would also like that and how much
«1

Comments

  • Options
    I cant see how server vs server would work. I don't think you will be able to switch servers
  • Options
    I don't like the thought of server vs. server. After the battle there would be destruction, but it wouldn't be meaningful to the area. A node taking out another node for resources or really any other reason I am fine with, but people not even on my server potentially destroying my keep just 'cause, no.
  • Options
    Azathoth said:
    I don't like the thought of server vs. server. After the battle there would be destruction, but it wouldn't be meaningful to the area. A node taking out another node for resources or really any other reason I am fine with, but people not even on my server potentially destroying my keep just 'cause, no.
    Yea you are right with that, you wouldn't be able to use a node then, maybe just for fun with no real destruction or a few bosses and what server destroy then fist win someting?
  • Options
    An arena style setting would be okay with me, that way you could match your skills against a buddy or another guild on a different server. However, those types of battles should be contained in an area that prevents damage to nodes. Now, the nodes that build the arenas should be able to benefit or be harmed (even if just financially) by winning or losing server vs server battles. :smile:

  • Options
    Azathoth said:
    An arena style setting would be okay with me, that way you could match your skills against a buddy or another guild on a different server. However, those types of battles should be contained in an area that prevents damage to nodes. Now, the nodes that build the arenas should be able to benefit or be harmed (even if just financially) by winning or losing server vs server battles. :smile:

    Yea that would be better and more awsome like our own ESport  :D
  • Options
    Server v server breaks lore about as far as it could possibly be broken.
  • Options
    It would serve no purpose in Ashes.  
  • Options
    Can you imagine the whining that would occur when one server has had a raid unlock due to node development that had a really powerful item drop as loot, then they are matched versus another server that hadn't had the chance for the same level of loot. Besides the technical details of matching servers, there are all the other reasons mentioned above. They have said that you would be able to server transfer, but it would not be a painless process that you could do on any sort of regular basis.
  • Options
    i see no point in it. and as to what the purpose of the game and its lore is. pretty unneeded and useless. could be fun to pvp masses of people(not imo) but still uneeded, useless,and would do nothing for this game. its not gw2. 
  • Options
    ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited July 2017
    When I think Server v Server, I think instanced battlegrounds. Those battle grounds probably have no effect on the individual server. It's just a fun match. 

    Expanding or pooling the number of players available to do routine things, like instanced PvP, is a good thing IMO. 
  • Options
    I chose no because I hope they flesh out the node and castle sieges instead of a realm v realm mechanic.
  • Options
    tugowar said:
    When I think Server v Server, I think instanced battlegrounds. Those battle grounds probably have no effect on the individual server. It's just a fun match. 

    Expanding or pooling the number of players available to do routine things, like instanced PvP, is a good thing IMO. 


    Arenas yes but I do not recall any mention of instanced battlegrounds.  Would they not be redundant considering the sieges involved in developing the world?
    Kinda  overkill imho.
  • Options
    tugowar said:
    When I think Server v Server, I think instanced battlegrounds. Those battle grounds probably have no effect on the individual server. It's just a fun match. 

    Expanding or pooling the number of players available to do routine things, like instanced PvP, is a good thing IMO. 


    Arenas yes but I do not recall any mention of instanced battlegrounds.  Would they not be redundant considering the sieges involved in developing the world?
    Kinda  overkill imho.
    I have to agree. I feel we have more than enough pvp as it is. We even get open world pvp plus most likely arenas. To me thats more than enough. If this wasnt a open world pvp game, then i could see it
  • Options
    No need. There will be plenty of pvp to do on your own server. 
  • Options
    I think that some people are still thinking in the "traditional" MMO thinking. That is, that competition/leaderboards/so on are all the game is about, and that the "rest" of the game is just fluff to be worked around that.

    Ashes is coming out as a new twist on an old, failing genre. It's coming out with offerings of "meaningful" decisions, conflicts, etc. The only "meaningful" part of SvS would be elitism. I can't see that being a part of the package, as it's currently being developed.
  • Options
    tugowar said:
    When I think Server v Server, I think instanced battlegrounds. Those battle grounds probably have no effect on the individual server. It's just a fun match. 

    Expanding or pooling the number of players available to do routine things, like instanced PvP, is a good thing IMO. 


    Arenas yes but I do not recall any mention of instanced battlegrounds.  Would they not be redundant considering the sieges involved in developing the world?
    Kinda  overkill imho.
    Everything is supposed to feed back into the 4 Pillars: Economy, Nodes, Meaningful Conflict, Narrative.
    I don't see how server v server instanced battlegrounds can do that.
  • Options
    Sintu said:
    No need. There will be plenty of pvp to do on your own server. 
    Hi,

    I agree with @CylverRayne  that there are already enough PvP game mechanics in place.  I had the unfortunate experience of being in a low population server before they pooled servers into battle groups in WoW (which happened in one of the early patches in Vanilla I believe).  All the great mechanics are meaningless if there aren't enough people on your server to experience them with!  That is all.  :)

    -tug


  • Options
    tugowar said:
    Sintu said:
    No need. There will be plenty of pvp to do on your own server. 
    Hi,

    I agree with @CylverRayne  that there are already enough PvP game mechanics in place.  I had the unfortunate experience of being in a low population server before they pooled servers into battle groups in WoW (which happened in one of the early patches in Vanilla I believe).  All the great mechanics are meaningless if there aren't enough people on your server to experience them with!  That is all.  :)

    -tug


    Fair point but the fix ( in only my opinion) would be server merges not realm vs realm.
  • Options
    tugowar said:
    Sintu said:
    No need. There will be plenty of pvp to do on your own server. 
    Hi,

    I agree with @CylverRayne  that there are already enough PvP game mechanics in place.  I had the unfortunate experience of being in a low population server before they pooled servers into battle groups in WoW (which happened in one of the early patches in Vanilla I believe).  All the great mechanics are meaningless if there aren't enough people on your server to experience them with!  That is all.  :)

    -tug


    I agree with this. Low pop servers are no bueno for player driven content 
  • Options
    This could be fun. You know Guild Wars 2 style. 
  • Options
    This could be fun. You know Guild Wars 2 style. 
    i loled after reading this. cus i was like "this aint GW2" in ym comment haha. i did love that game.
  • Options
    I think arenas / bgs should be (instances pvp) should be cross server to make sure that the que times are short and keeps active :) 
  • Options
    Fortunately, the devs have already shown that they are intelligent enough not to do this or even think it would be a good idea.
  • Options
    ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited July 2017
    You can have competition between servers without an actual battle.  Have events that require progression and unlock new scenarios after certain parameters have been met.  For example, collect 100,000 of this, or kill 1,000 players to advance to the next step, as a server.

    This still accomplishes the same concept behind server vs server, which is competition, without the logistics of a battle.
  • Options
    I would much rather have each server organically evolve on its own path than have them all racing each other to the exact same content/achievements.
  • Options
    I think it would be a great idea in the right setting :) I'm thinking of Arena tournaments being held where the best of the best get to fight it out in cross-server matches. This would inspire server pride, which is meaningful conflict in my opinion.
  • Options
    lexmax said:
    I think it would be a great idea in the right setting :) I'm thinking of Arena tournaments being held where the best of the best get to fight it out in cross-server matches. This would inspire server pride, which is meaningful conflict in my opinion.
    I 100% agree - I wants this :3
  • Options
    Diura said:
    lexmax said:
    I think it would be a great idea in the right setting :) I'm thinking of Arena tournaments being held where the best of the best get to fight it out in cross-server matches. This would inspire server pride, which is meaningful conflict in my opinion.
    I 100% agree - I wants this :3
    Hmmm... Can I change my vote now??

    Beware the ninja frog!
  • Options
    lexmax said:
    I think it would be a great idea in the right setting :) I'm thinking of Arena tournaments being held where the best of the best get to fight it out in cross-server matches. This would inspire server pride, which is meaningful conflict in my opinion.
     
    https://youtu.be/TjcOJmoJwpk
  • Options
    Opiee said:
    You can have competition between servers without an actual battle.  Have events that require progression and unlock new scenarios after certain parameters have been met.  For example, collect 100,000 of this, or kill 1,000 players to advance to the next step, as a server.

    This still accomplishes the same concept behind server vs server, which is competition, without the logistics of a battle.
    Ick. Grind. And again, for what? Name on a leaderboard? Um ... I'll be over here, building my character in this nice shiny world. See ya!
Sign In or Register to comment.