Glorious Alpha Two Testers!

Alpha Two Phase II testing is currently taking place 5+ days each week. More information about testing schedule can be found here

If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.

Server Vs Server

ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
edited July 2017 in Ashes Of Creation General Discussion
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

  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    I cant see how server vs server would work. I don't think you will be able to switch servers
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    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.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    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?
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    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:

  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    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
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    Server v server breaks lore about as far as it could possibly be broken.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    It would serve no purpose in Ashes.  
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    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.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    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. 
  • 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. 
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    I chose no because I hope they flesh out the node and castle sieges instead of a realm v realm mechanic.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    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.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    CylverRayne said:
    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
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    No need. There will be plenty of pvp to do on your own server. 
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    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.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    CylverRayne said:
    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.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    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


  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    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.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    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 
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    This could be fun. You know Guild Wars 2 style. 
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    caranteenser said:
    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.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    I think arenas / bgs should be (instances pvp) should be cross server to make sure that the que times are short and keeps active :) 
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    Fortunately, the devs have already shown that they are intelligent enough not to do this or even think it would be a good idea.
  • 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.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    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.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    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.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    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
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    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!
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    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
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    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.