If you're aiming for a massive game, the masses don't like open pvp

I do not understand how it is possible not to understand that today 2020 a game with classes and tab targeting cannot host, due to various balance problems, pvp except in a completely amateur and instantiated form, or managed separately with servers dedicated to pvp and dedicated pve servers, where in one cities will be destroyed by players via the pvp system and by npc and events in pve servers.
I don't understand where the problem lies in pleasing as many players as possible.
Amazon's New World understood that pvp was a problem for many, and ran for cover, what makes you think your game is different? Thanks for the replies and any discussion.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

daveywavey

Fair dos. Enjoy playing New World! Bye!

Tragnar

You are a bit off here. Players want control - in open world if you are ganked by someone you have no control, because usually they pick an opening that is to their advantage (such as you fighting a mob) and thus making such combat inherently imbalanced

There are many systems to curate pvp in ashes and i don't think it is fair by you or anyone to comment on them without learning about them first. Which I can say you have no idea what pvp systems are in ashes - just from your post

Sorf

Just because something is different from the norm doesn't make it bad, poor implementation makes it bad (which is why New World had the response it did). Maybe Ashes won't be for everyone with the open world pvp, but I think they will implement it well and many will enjoy it.

You can't please everyone, but I believe Ashes will please the market of people that want this type of MMO from what they have shown as and how they speak during updates.

Where you may see other players destroying your city and being upset by it, I see a chance for a community to come together to build the city in the first place, and then having a chance to defend what they have built.
If you lose then you rebuild, either continuing with the community or building a new one which sounds like it will keep the game fresh and interesting.

Certainly beats sitting in a PVE area/City that's immune to attacks and sitting semi-afk whilst waiting for a BG or instanced pvp event to pop up anyway, from my point of view.

Ciube

Tragnar wrote: »

You are a bit off here. Players want control - in open world if you are ganked by someone you have no control, because usually they pick an opening that is to their advantage (such as you fighting a mob) and thus making such combat inherently imbalanced

There are many systems to curate pvp in ashes and i don't think it is fair by you or anyone to comment on them without learning about them first. Which I can say you have no idea what pvp systems are in ashes - just from your post

Wrong, if I say that pvp does not make sense in a classroom game with unique equipment it is because I know very well what I am talking about, I never talk about things I do not know as many ignorant do on the contrary. Then unlike you pvp lovers, I do not exclude but on the contrary I am talking about inclusion.

George_Black

The aim was to feel the void left by 15 years of crappy mmos and get back to risk vs reward.
The fact that you are here means that you aint happy with what's out there.

FuryBladeborne

Ciube wrote: »

I do not understand how it is possible not to understand that today 2020 a game with classes and tab targeting cannot host, due to various balance problems, pvp except in a completely amateur and instantiated form, or managed separately with servers dedicated to pvp and dedicated pve servers, where in one cities will be destroyed by players via the pvp system and by npc and events in pve servers.

From what I understand, the open world PvP over world bosses and dungeons is based on Archage Lineage 2 and both were very successful. So, a successful MMO can apparently host PvP in an open world.

Ashes is intended for people to fight all over the world. Fighting over open world dungeons. Over world bosses. Over resources. Perhaps you see someone gather a rare resources before you could get to it and want to take it. You can kill them for the chance that they drop that resource. There are many other reasons to fight and kill around your level. The vision of Ashes is one that you have not adjusted to yet.

Ciube wrote: »

I don't understand where the problem lies in pleasing as many players as possible.
Amazon's New World understood that pvp was a problem for many, and ran for cover, what makes you think your game is different?

Pleasing as many people as possible is an option. It does have a cost in what can be done. For instance, players that do not want open world PvP are at odds with those who do and only one can actually be appeased. The other will just leave if it is a deal breaker for them.

This game is not being made for everyone. Ashes understands its target consumer; and, based off of your current statements you are not it. At least not at this point.

Ciube

Sorf wrote: »

Just because something is different from the norm doesn't make it bad, poor implementation makes it bad (which is why New World had the response it did). Maybe Ashes won't be for everyone with the open world pvp, but I think they will implement it well and many will enjoy it.

You can't please everyone, but I believe Ashes will please the market of people that want this type of MMO from what they have shown as and how they speak during updates.

Where you may see other players destroying your city and being upset by it, I see a chance for a community to come together to build the city in the first place, and then having a chance to defend what they have built.
If you lose then you rebuild, either continuing with the community or building a new one which sounds like it will keep the game fresh and interesting.

Certainly beats sitting in a PVE area/City that's immune to attacks and sitting semi-afk whilst waiting for a BG or instanced pvp event to pop up anyway, from my point of view.

George Black wrote: »

The aim was to feel the void left by 15 years of crappy mmos and get back to risk vs reward.
The fact that you are here means that you aint happy with what's out there.

I think that if wow after 15 years is still among the numbers 1 it is because no one else has managed to do better, the problem of wow is now at the graphic level and the optimization of the rng which in 2020 is overcome by a token system at the FF14 for the purchase of items.
Here, I expected cooperation between players to give birth to cities to spawn npc that gave quests and to discover dungeons and special boss fights in dynamic open world with public events that risked destroying the villages or cities created by the players, all surrounded by PVP in dedicated areas such as Teso or GW2. But this is only my idea.

daveywavey

Ciube wrote: »

Here, I expected cooperation between players to give birth to cities to spawn npc that gave quests and to discover dungeons and special boss fights in dynamic open world with public events that risked destroying the villages or cities created by the players, all surrounded by PVP in dedicated areas such as Teso or GW2. But this is only my idea.

Aha, there's the problem. Have a read of the wiki and watch some of the videos, and you'll get a better understanding of what to expect.

FuryBladeborne

Ciube wrote: »

I think that if wow after 15 years is still among the numbers 1 it is because no one else has managed to do better, the problem of wow is now at the graphic level and the optimization of the rng which in 2020 is overcome by a token system at the FF14 for the purchase of items.

Coming here for a WoW clone is going to meet with massive rejection.

Stevens ideas are not similar to WoW and are based off of a more PvP everywhere, risk vs. reward, earn your stuff, you can't have everything, you will not be pandered to, etc.

It's the opposite of WoW in many ways. If your interested in Ashes, you should take the time to learn about where it is going rather than trying to destroy its foundation.

Ciube wrote: »

Here, I expected cooperation between players to give birth to cities to spawn npc that gave quests and to discover dungeons and special boss fights in dynamic open world with public events that risked destroying the villages or cities created by the players, all surrounded by PVP in dedicated areas such as Teso or GW2. But this is only my idea.

Your on the wrong track. While cooperation will be required to build the world in Ashes , PvE is used to build the world and PvP is used to tear it down. Additionally, when rebuilt through PvE, it will not be the same that it was before the destruction. The goals here are not similar to the other games you are citing.

Ciube

FuryBladeborne wrote: »

Ciube wrote: »

I do not understand how it is possible not to understand that today 2020 a game with classes and tab targeting cannot host, due to various balance problems, pvp except in a completely amateur and instantiated form, or managed separately with servers dedicated to pvp and dedicated pve servers, where in one cities will be destroyed by players via the pvp system and by npc and events in pve servers.

From what I understand, the open world PvP over world bosses and dungeons is based on Archage and Archage was very successful. So, a successful MMO can apparently host PvP in an open world.

Archeage has almost closed, and at present I am not in much health, so I would say that if they took Archage as an example they have done a good fuck. Forgive me for the expression

Ciube wrote: »

I don't understand where the problem lies in pleasing as many players as possible.
Amazon's New World understood that pvp was a problem for many, and ran for cover, what makes you think your game is different? Thanks for the replies and any discussion.

Pleasing as many people as possible is an option. It does have a cost in what can be done. For instance, players that do not want open world PvP are at odds with those who do. New world went toward the please everyone option. This game is not being made for everyone. Ashes understands its target consumer; and, based off of your current statements you are not it. At least not at this point.

Very likely they are not the target, I'm just sorry that being the only mmo with western Tab targeting after decades they manage to do just that, maybe I was expecting too much is true.
I'll try it anyway, maybe they will change my mind about the pvp mechanics because they will be implemented very well.

Sathrago

Ciube wrote: »

I do not understand how it is possible not to understand that today 2020 a game with classes and tab targeting cannot host, due to various balance problems, pvp except in a completely amateur and instantiated form, or managed separately with servers dedicated to pvp and dedicated pve servers, where in one cities will be destroyed by players via the pvp system and by npc and events in pve servers.
I don't understand where the problem lies in pleasing as many players as possible.
Amazon's New World understood that pvp was a problem for many, and ran for cover, what makes you think your game is different? Thanks for the replies and any discussion.

FuryBladeborne

Ciube wrote: »

Very likely they are not the target, I'm just sorry that being the only mmo with western Tab targeting after decades they manage to do just that, maybe I was expecting too much is true.
I'll try it anyway, maybe they will change my mind about the pvp mechanics because they will be implemented very well.

I hadn't finished editing my previous 2 posts before you quoted them. Feel free to take a look as my points are complete. Have a good one.

maouw

Hey Ciube,

I just wanted to chime in to say, AoC is aiming for PvX (some would call PvPvE) where PvP and PvE are interdependent on each other.

I think this is because the problem with PvP is that people want something to fight over, and PvE provides lots of things to fight over.
On the other hand PvE wants infinite and dynamic content, which is what you find in PvP.
This is why they marry well, and why AoC would like to make PvE and PvP interdependent.

Hopefully we reach a day where there is no polarization between PvP and PvE because they work together to make a great game experience.

Mamut

Ciube wrote: »

I do not understand how it is possible not to understand that today 2020 a game with classes and tab targeting cannot host, due to various balance problems, pvp except in a completely amateur and instantiated form, or managed separately with servers dedicated to pvp and dedicated pve servers, where in one cities will be destroyed by players via the pvp system and by npc and events in pve servers.
I don't understand where the problem lies in pleasing as many players as possible.
Amazon's New World understood that pvp was a problem for many, and ran for cover, what makes you think your game is different? Thanks for the replies and any discussion.

What makes you say that? MMORPGs with some form of open-world PvP were and are successful - like Tera, ArcheAge or Black Desert just to name a few examples from 2010s. The key is to provide certain barriers designed to stop people from constantly PKing and Ashes of Creation has them in the form of no-PVP starting areas or the Corruption system.
Btw. have you actually seen any impressions of the most recent New World beta? Many people were genuinely pissed off that PvP isn't being incentivised enough and that people can play this "PvP-oriented MMO" without ever having to toggle PvP.

Voidwalkers

Oh no ... not this topic again ... (facepalm)
Someone's right in the other open pvp thread - nothing dies on forums.

While open pvp vs separate dedicated pve/pvp servers is a totally valid (& endless) subject on any general mmorpg forums, I sincerely doubt whether it'll get anywhere close to being constructive here on the Ashes forums.

I think it's safe to say that a majority of this community are here because we're all long time gamers, have been through a plethora of various mmorpgs, and at various points have decided that we want something great BUT different from the existing successful, pleasing-as-many-ppl-as-possible themepark games such as WoW and GW2. We went on our game hunts, found Ashes, bought into Intrepid's vision of PvX open world gameplay, and decided to sign up and wait.

In short, I believe the majority of people you'll see on this forum have already made up their minds - that they want a PvX (which includes open pvp with penalty) game, and they came here for a PvX game. Any attempts at persuading Intrepid to change this direction probably won't end very constructively.

This might be a not-so-appropriate analogy but, imagine entering a mosque and trying to preach Christianity to the Muslims gathering inside (or vice versa)

BobzUrUncle

Your or anyone's opinion of 'the masses don't like open PVP' doesn't really matter. Steven does. Since he is backing it, it gets made the way he wants it to.

Warth

@Bricktop I choose you.

Use "This game might just not be for you"

CptBrownBeard

Warth wrote: »

@Bricktop I choose you.

Use "This game might just not be for you"

OP uses Deflection.

The enemy team is protected from logic for 3 turns.

Noaani

Ciube wrote: »

I don't understand where the problem lies in pleasing as many players as possible.

This here is where the issue is - Intrepid are not attempting to please as many players as possible.

They are aware that the inclusion of open PvP in Ashes will mean that about half of the general MMO playerbase will not give Ashes a second look - and they are fine with that. They are making the game they want to make, and PvP is a core aspect to that.

There will be systems in place to drastically lower the frequency of unprovoked attacks, but any player that absolutely refuses to be attacked by another player really is better off in another game.

Yes, that means that this may not be the game for you. Then again, you may find that you enjoy that aspect of it - should you try it.

Magic Man

What ''masses'' exactly? xd Tens of thousands of people have been looking for an MMORPG with risk vs reward. Lack of diversity in the genre with many games copying one another for quick cash is one of the reasons MMORPGs are 5th tier of gaming.

Next time say outright ''I don't like PvP so Ashes shouldn't have it''

Child Item