Glorious Alpha Two Testers!

We are in the Alpha Two Phase II testing which will take place 5+ days each week.

Alpha Two testing is scheduled to happen daily until January 13, 2025 at 10PM PT. We will have periods of downtime for hotfixes and daily restarts happening at 2 AM PT for NA realms, and 2 CET for EU realms.

Starting next week, Alpha Two realms are scheduled to be online for 5+ days a week from Thursdays at 10 AM PT to Mondays at 10 PM PT. Alpha Two realms are planned to be down on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and for daily restarts. Alpha Two realms will also be brought down as updates and fixes are ready.

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.

The lack of instanced content and the long term health of the game.

1246710

Comments

  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Okeydoke wrote: »
    Pretty much everyone should expect that at some point they're gonna get fucked in this game lol.
    Indeed.

    That isn't the issue though.

    When you lose in PvP, you lose progression and the person that kills you gains progression.

    This means that when you lose to someone, you are more likely to lose to them again in the future. This eventually gets to the point in every game where one side literally has no chance at all against the other side.

    This will include systems like nodes in Ashes. if two players from my guild are able to roll over your caravan with 8 people protecting it, you aren't going to get your node built.

    Ever.

    That may mean you then have to move on to a metropolis - but that same basic paradigm holds true on a large scale just as it does on a small scale. If people from my metropolis start being people from your metropolis more and more, then it will get harder and harder for people from your metropolis to beat people from my metropolis, and that same circle will develop, just in a much larger form.

    If there is nothing but PvP, or activities that need to be fought over, then it will not be long before large portions of the population are unable to do anything enjoyable. Fighting a battle you have no chance of winning is not enjoyable.

    Players in this situation have very few viable options. The game NEEDS to give them things to do if the game wants to be viable long term.

    I'm not saying that the game shouldn't see people get stomped all over at times - it absolutely should. I am saying the game needs to have some content that is not subject to being lost due to that stomping.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Bricktop wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Bricktop wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Bricktop wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Bricktop wrote: »
    IN THE OPEN WORLD.
    PvE content in an open world is PvP content.

    I'm sorry but this isn't a universally held opinion, and it's going to be a huge overwhelming majority of this game I'm willing to bet.
    I'm willing to bet that it is as well, and I am not trying to change that.

    I'm fairly sure it will be roughly 80% of the game.

    And I'm fairly sure you are wrong about how this 20% will work, but we will see.

    Maybe.

    It doesn't bother me either way, I'm gonna give the game a chance and if it's not to my liking, not enough PvP, not enough going on in the world, not to my tastes, I will go and play something else. It's really that simple.

    So, either you will leave at the start because there isn't enough PvP for your liking, or you will leave after a few months when enough players have been chased away from the game and there isn't enough PvP for you.

    Do you really think you are the kind of player any game with long term ambitions should be aiming at?
  • BricktopBricktop Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Bricktop wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Bricktop wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Bricktop wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Bricktop wrote: »
    IN THE OPEN WORLD.
    PvE content in an open world is PvP content.

    I'm sorry but this isn't a universally held opinion, and it's going to be a huge overwhelming majority of this game I'm willing to bet.
    I'm willing to bet that it is as well, and I am not trying to change that.

    I'm fairly sure it will be roughly 80% of the game.

    And I'm fairly sure you are wrong about how this 20% will work, but we will see.

    Maybe.

    It doesn't bother me either way, I'm gonna give the game a chance and if it's not to my liking, not enough PvP, not enough going on in the world, not to my tastes, I will go and play something else. It's really that simple.

    So, either you will leave at the start because there isn't enough PvP for your liking, or you will leave after a few months when enough players have been chased away from the game and there isn't enough PvP for you.

    Do you really think you are the kind of player any game with long term ambitions should be aiming at?

    Hilarious way to twist an argument when I'm saying if you don't like the game don't play it. Why are you so silly?
  • DreohDreoh Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited April 2021
    Okeydoke wrote: »
    If you don't think Ashes has unique pvx content then I dunno what tell you.

    I hear you in general on your point of the losing side quitting the game. That can be a risk in a game type like this. I'm worried about mega guilds/alliances that artificially go beyond what the guild/alliance cap is, by making sister guilds/alliances etc.

    But even in "losing", there's going to be content to do. If your node get's sieged and destroyed, level up a node in more defensible, friendly area. Join an already established node that needs help with it's own pvp problems. The game isn't just over. Pretty much everyone should expect that at some point they're gonna get fucked in this game lol. It's a pvx game with a pvp focus. That's what everyone should be here for, to get fucked, and to fuck em back. Do some pve and shit along the way. Fire. Dope. I dunno

    To add on to this, the Eve players who lost the famous Eve wars are still playing, and they lost ships that take literal months or years to craft in game, and I mean that as in the craft timer is a month or a year long.
  • The best content is, In my opinion, a happy mix of non-instanced bosses and instanced dungeons. As this is a pvx game it must remain intresting in the long term for both parties PvP focused and pve focused.

    If instanced content remains interesting for pve focused players then the non instanced can still remain interesting for the pvpers in the open world. As long as there is necessity to do both or either the instanced/non instanced bosses the the population will remain happy. Take away the necessity and both sides will lose interest and leave.

    Handsome-Jakx.png
  • OkeydokeOkeydoke Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    I'm with you on most of that. My biggest worry for the game is the snowball effect you described. We're definitely gonna see that to some extent, in some situations, and on some servers. Some servers though will probably be very healthy, with a good balance between the opposing power players/guilds. But yeah if those systems fail, if it's not enjoyable for the pvp players this game is directed at, the game fails. But that IS the game, the vast majority of it at least. So they better get it right.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Dreoh wrote: »
    Okeydoke wrote: »
    If you don't think Ashes has unique pvx content then I dunno what tell you.

    I hear you in general on your point of the losing side quitting the game. That can be a risk in a game type like this. I'm worried about mega guilds/alliances that artificially go beyond what the guild/alliance cap is, by making sister guilds/alliances etc.

    But even in "losing", there's going to be content to do. If your node get's sieged and destroyed, level up a node in more defensible, friendly area. Join an already established node that needs help with it's own pvp problems. The game isn't just over. Pretty much everyone should expect that at some point they're gonna get fucked in this game lol. It's a pvx game with a pvp focus. That's what everyone should be here for, to get fucked, and to fuck em back. Do some pve and shit along the way. Fire. Dope. I dunno

    To add on to this, the Eve players who lost the famous Eve wars are still playing, and they lost ships that take literal months or years to craft in game, and I mean that as in the craft timer is a month or a year long.

    Yeah, but they are still playing because they still have content.

    PvP of note in EvE happens every few years, then everyone bunkers down to get back to playing the game. There is very little in terms of PvP between the major factions outside of the large scale PvP that we all hear about.

    I played the game for about a year, didn't PvP once.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Bricktop wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Bricktop wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Bricktop wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Bricktop wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Bricktop wrote: »
    IN THE OPEN WORLD.
    PvE content in an open world is PvP content.

    I'm sorry but this isn't a universally held opinion, and it's going to be a huge overwhelming majority of this game I'm willing to bet.
    I'm willing to bet that it is as well, and I am not trying to change that.

    I'm fairly sure it will be roughly 80% of the game.

    And I'm fairly sure you are wrong about how this 20% will work, but we will see.

    Maybe.

    It doesn't bother me either way, I'm gonna give the game a chance and if it's not to my liking, not enough PvP, not enough going on in the world, not to my tastes, I will go and play something else. It's really that simple.

    So, either you will leave at the start because there isn't enough PvP for your liking, or you will leave after a few months when enough players have been chased away from the game and there isn't enough PvP for you.

    Do you really think you are the kind of player any game with long term ambitions should be aiming at?

    Hilarious way to twist an argument when I'm saying if you don't like the game don't play it. Why are you so silly?

    I'm not twisting an argument, I am restating the point I have been making for years.

    My point is - once again - that if you want a healthy population in any game, there needs to be activities that players can enjoy and even progress from that are not subject to PvP. The game can allow other players to stomp all over them the second they stray from those activities, but players simply will not pay to play a game they can't do anything in, and this has been demonstrated so many times over I can't believe I have to keep saying it.
  • DreohDreoh Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Bricktop wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Bricktop wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Bricktop wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Bricktop wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Bricktop wrote: »
    IN THE OPEN WORLD.
    PvE content in an open world is PvP content.

    I'm sorry but this isn't a universally held opinion, and it's going to be a huge overwhelming majority of this game I'm willing to bet.
    I'm willing to bet that it is as well, and I am not trying to change that.

    I'm fairly sure it will be roughly 80% of the game.

    And I'm fairly sure you are wrong about how this 20% will work, but we will see.

    Maybe.

    It doesn't bother me either way, I'm gonna give the game a chance and if it's not to my liking, not enough PvP, not enough going on in the world, not to my tastes, I will go and play something else. It's really that simple.

    So, either you will leave at the start because there isn't enough PvP for your liking, or you will leave after a few months when enough players have been chased away from the game and there isn't enough PvP for you.

    Do you really think you are the kind of player any game with long term ambitions should be aiming at?

    Hilarious way to twist an argument when I'm saying if you don't like the game don't play it. Why are you so silly?

    I'm not twisting an argument, I am restating the point I have been making for years.

    My point is - once again - that if you want a healthy population in any game, there needs to be activities that players can enjoy and even progress from that are not subject to PvP. The game can allow other players to stomp all over them the second they stray from those activities, but players simply will not pay to play a game they can't do anything in, and this has been demonstrated so many times over I can't believe I have to keep saying it.

    You act like everyone's going to get jumped the second they step foot outside of town.
  • OkeydokeOkeydoke Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    The best content is, In my opinion, a happy mix of non-instanced bosses and instanced dungeons. As this is a pvx game it must remain intresting in the long term for both parties PvP focused and pve focused.

    If instanced content remains interesting for pve focused players then the non instanced can still remain interesting for the pvpers in the open world. As long as there is necessity to do both or either the instanced/non instanced bosses the the population will remain happy. Take away the necessity and both sides will lose interest and leave.

    Brothers, if you think I don't see what you're doing. I've been watching you guys try to destroy pvp mmo's for 25 years. You guys equivocate and try to come up with the most fanciful, noble sounding, gee golly happy arguments about why <insert game> should be MORE pve focused. Yet exactly what you propose would do nothing more than damage and hold back the game from trying to be what the devs said they want it to be.

    That's it, I'm going to Pantheons website and demanding an open pvp system so I can slaughter everyone. Because that's good for pve. or somethin
  • BricktopBricktop Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »

    I played the game for about a year, didn't PvP once.

    Yes but you have also said in the past that you hid on an island in Archeage as a solo player it just sounds like you avoid PvPing to me. I didn't play EVE but plenty of people in my guild have talked to me about it. "PvP of note" translates into the massive alliance/power shifting battles involving thousands of people in your mind and all the PvP that happens building up to that is meaningless.
  • OkeydokeOkeydoke Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    And when I get Pantheon to change to an open pvp system, I'm gonna laugh at all the idiots that spent 500 dollars willfully and knowingly buying a preorder package for a sales pitched pve game, only for ME to come in there and convince them to make it more pvp.
    lol im going to bed gnight
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Dreoh wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Bricktop wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Bricktop wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Bricktop wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Bricktop wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Bricktop wrote: »
    IN THE OPEN WORLD.
    PvE content in an open world is PvP content.

    I'm sorry but this isn't a universally held opinion, and it's going to be a huge overwhelming majority of this game I'm willing to bet.
    I'm willing to bet that it is as well, and I am not trying to change that.

    I'm fairly sure it will be roughly 80% of the game.

    And I'm fairly sure you are wrong about how this 20% will work, but we will see.

    Maybe.

    It doesn't bother me either way, I'm gonna give the game a chance and if it's not to my liking, not enough PvP, not enough going on in the world, not to my tastes, I will go and play something else. It's really that simple.

    So, either you will leave at the start because there isn't enough PvP for your liking, or you will leave after a few months when enough players have been chased away from the game and there isn't enough PvP for you.

    Do you really think you are the kind of player any game with long term ambitions should be aiming at?

    Hilarious way to twist an argument when I'm saying if you don't like the game don't play it. Why are you so silly?

    I'm not twisting an argument, I am restating the point I have been making for years.

    My point is - once again - that if you want a healthy population in any game, there needs to be activities that players can enjoy and even progress from that are not subject to PvP. The game can allow other players to stomp all over them the second they stray from those activities, but players simply will not pay to play a game they can't do anything in, and this has been demonstrated so many times over I can't believe I have to keep saying it.

    You act like everyone's going to get jumped the second they step foot outside of town.

    To me, it is more a case of what can be.

    The first thing to agree on is that if a player feels they have no worthwhile content they can do, they are likely to leave the game for another. I am sure most reasonable people agree with this - and it should be noted that this isn't necessarily something that has to be PvP related, it can simply be because they have done everything they consider worthwhile in a game.

    With that in mind, if it is possible to deny all content (or even just all worthwhile content) from other players, we all know there will be guilds out there that make that their goal in the game.

    The only way to prevent people from depriving others of all worthwhile content, and thus leaving players with no worthwhile content to do, is to make it so the game has some worthwhile content that players can't deprive others from doing.

    Now, as I said earlier, this doesn't have to mean that every aspect of that content is removed from disruption via PvP - that should be an aspect to all content in a game like Ashes - it just means that people need to know that if they log in tonight, they have something enjoyable to do.
  • akabearakabear Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited April 2021
    Honestly, I think there will be a tweaking and transition period before the in-game balances are righted and this will later probably need a more subtle dev interference with some of the many systems they have in place to offset player driven imbalances that will follow. Be that incentives, limits, who know.

    But I think things like caravans will be pretty redundant early on as players probably equally try to get one through as try not. But in time as the community work things out, needs will drive ambitions.

    And how players approach bosses will swing and change as the game matures

  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited April 2021
    akabear wrote: »
    Honestly, I think there will be a tweaking and transition period before the in-game balances are righted and this will later probably need a more subtle dev interference with some of the many systems they have in place to offset player driven imbalances that will follow. Be that incentives, limits, who know.

    But I think things like caravans will be pretty redundant early on as players probably equally try to get one through as try not. But in time as the community work things out, needs will drive ambitions.

    And how players approach bosses will swing and change as the game matures

    This is all 100% accurate as far as I am concerned.

    The developers will not get things right on day 1 - which is why I find comments about trying the game for the first few months and leaving if it isn't quite right to be so amusing.

    The game won't be "right" until 18 months after launch. What matters is if the game holds on to enough of a population to still be relevant after that amount of time.
  • BricktopBricktop Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »

    The developers will not get things right on day 1 - which is why I find comments about trying the game for the first few months and leaving if it isn;t quite right to be so amusing.

    The game won't be "right" until 18 months after launch. What matters is if the game holds on to enough of a population to still matter after that amount of time.

    What's amusing is you acting like normal people would play a game they don't have fun in or like for 18 months instead of doing something else and coming back to check it out after those 18 months or never coming back at all.

  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Bricktop wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »

    The developers will not get things right on day 1 - which is why I find comments about trying the game for the first few months and leaving if it isn;t quite right to be so amusing.

    The game won't be "right" until 18 months after launch. What matters is if the game holds on to enough of a population to still matter after that amount of time.

    What's amusing is you acting like normal people would play a game they don't have fun in or like for 18 months
    You've not been paying attention.

    Literally my entire argument is that people will not play a game they are not having fun in.

    When I said I found such comments amusing, I didn't say they should stay in the game if they are not having fun, I said I found them amusing. If I wanted to say that those people should just suck it up and play the damn game anyway, that is what I would have said.

    Either way, I'm glad you agree with me that people won't play a game they are not enjoying.
  • BricktopBricktop Member, Alpha Two
    @Noaani You make zero sense half the time in your never ending battle to be correct. First impressions mean everything and most games who make a bad one don't get to claw their way back like a No Mans Sky type situation. If the developers don't get things right on Day 1 and keep building off that you should be extremely concerned. It's not a situation of "Oh well it takes 18 months for the game to be good" or whatever you were trying to go on about at that point.

    You don't seem extremely concerned about the people who won't play the game or have fun if they add an overabundance of instancing like some of these people ask for. A lot of them are probably early supporters and were sold on an open world game. What about them? Because some of these people are asking for 50% of the content to be instanced multi boss dungeons.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Bricktop wrote: »
    If the developers don't get things right on Day 1 and keep building off that you should be extremely concerned.
    You mean like this?
    Noaani wrote: »
    What matters is if the game holds on to enough of a population to still be relevant after that amount of time.

  • Okeydoke wrote: »
    The best content is, In my opinion, a happy mix of non-instanced bosses and instanced dungeons. As this is a pvx game it must remain intresting in the long term for both parties PvP focused and pve focused.

    If instanced content remains interesting for pve focused players then the non instanced can still remain interesting for the pvpers in the open world. As long as there is necessity to do both or either the instanced/non instanced bosses the the population will remain happy. Take away the necessity and both sides will lose interest and leave.

    Brothers, if you think I don't see what you're doing. I've been watching you guys try to destroy pvp mmo's for 25 years. You guys equivocate and try to come up with the most fanciful, noble sounding, gee golly happy arguments about why <insert game> should be MORE pve focused. Yet exactly what you propose would do nothing more than damage and hold back the game from trying to be what the devs said they want it to be.

    That's it, I'm going to Pantheons website and demanding an open pvp system so I can slaughter everyone. Because that's good for pve. or somethin

    I enjoy PvP mmos, with nearly all focus on PvP, however I am pretty sure this is pvx. My statement remains true without necessity the population will lose intrest in both instances or open world encounters. If there is. No reason to do something then why do it. I am open to the ideas being posed here and I am curious as to how it will all unfold.

    Side note, what do you consider successful as a PvP MMO? The ones I think of still have a ton of pve content.
    Handsome-Jakx.png
  • HedgemonHedgemon Member, Alpha Two
    edited April 2021
    Tobisway wrote: »
    World content/PvP

    So from what I've read, there is a big emphasis on world content and PvP. I don't have an issue with this to some extent. I would say it starts to get problematic if that's the only place for any relevant and challenging content(ignoring the griefing that will occur).

    If the only place to get good items/gear is through these world bosses, where does it leave people that are not interested in doing what is essentially PVP for gear? How complicated will these world bosses even be? Is the only difficulty aspect of it having to fight other people in order to loot it? I don't mind pvp being a good place to get good rewards, but if it's forced content to be relevant in the game, then it becomes an issue.

    What about casuals?

    A lot of people like to think the casual player base can be neglected. They like to ignore the fact that casual people make up the larger part of the player base in a game, and if you neglect them, well..... your game isn't gonna live that long. I would say World of Warcraft does a good job with the different difficulty options for Raids and also the lower key level range for dungeons.
    So if you're not that interested in getting the best loot in the game, or clearing the hardest content in the game, you still have something fun to do.
    All endgame gear is craft able. You could own endgame gear by mastering profession, getting rich, and buying endgame gear, likely for ALOT of in game gold
    Trample the dead and hurdle the fallen. Run, and you will only die tired.
  • Noaani wrote: »
    Okeydoke wrote: »
    Pretty much everyone should expect that at some point they're gonna get fucked in this game lol.
    Indeed.
    That isn't the issue though.

    When you lose in PvP, you lose progression and the person that kills you gains progression.

    This means that when you lose to someone, you are more likely to lose to them again in the future. This eventually gets to the point in every game where one side literally has no chance at all against the other side.

    This will include systems like nodes in Ashes. if two players from my guild are able to roll over your caravan with 8 people protecting it, you aren't going to get your node built.

    This is why the world needs to be large and why distance needs to matter.

    Without teleportation, a group of 2 people in your example wouldn't be productive. The group that is being stalked could simply do something as non-combatants while they are being followed, and the people following them would be wasting their time and wouldn't be able to help out their guild with anything else without having to travel there.

    Sure, one guild may be able to lock down one point on a map. However this doesn't matter very much if there are 103 nodes, 10,000 players, and lots of events like caravans and sieges going on constantly. There is plenty of other content to do, and they won't be able to lock down every point on the map to prevent you from playing the game.

    Also, a player-driven economy ensures that there are alternative routes of progression.

    Anyway, losing having consequences in a game is not a bad thing. It makes winning more meaningful and rewarding. I'd much rather have a game that gives a feeling of excitement of winning or losing, than a game that gives out meaningless participation trophies. The sting of losing goes both ways in PvX or PvP, you can either feel it yourself or know that your opponent is feeling it. This makes winning even more substantial.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    bigepeen wrote: »
    Anyway, losing having consequences in a game is not a bad thing.

    It isn't, and I am in no way suggesting that they should take away the consequences of losing.

    I am saying that no matter how much you lose, there needs to be something to do.

    Remember, someone will ALWAYS be on the bottom of the pile. If the person at the bottom has literally nothing to do because literally everyone can beat them, then they will leave. When they leave, someone else becomes that person on the bottom, and it is a self-perpetuating cycle.

    This isn't going to be a thing where there is one person or group at the bottom per server, but per node cluster.

    This also happens again as players rise up through tiers of content. If you are in a guild, and you are running content designed for guilds, if all the other guilds can kill your guild and you have no more guild content to do - even if there is other content you can do without your guild - you are likely going to find yourself and your guild looking for a new game.

    Again, we all know people will go out of the way to ruin a game for another player or group of players if the game allows that to happen - so there needs to be a floor on how low they can make other peoples experience.
  • OkeydokeOkeydoke Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    @Noaani

    Brother you're worrying about Intrepid losing customers that Intrepid is not even targeting in the first place. You're worrying about people who go to a taco stand asking for hamburgers.

    Just take a second and actually look at what is happening here. Intrepid puts a game in development citing (absolutely BROADCASTING, I've seen it in forums, in videos, on twitch, in summits stream, in discord, on podcasts, EVERYWHERE) an open world with very limited instances. Tobisway creates a thread that says "The lack of instanced content and the long term health of the game." In it, he pushes for more instancing. Something the devs have already said is not part of their vision, its actually the opposite of their vision. They are NOT targeting the instanced pve/raid crowd. They're targeting them sooooo little that in fact people from that instanced pve/raid crowd are here trying to get the game changed such as Tosbisway, and I guess you too. If put into effect, screwing the people that have already spent hundreds and thousands of dollars on the original vision, out of their money.

    Should I start making threads about how the game doesn't have enough full loot mechanics, and shouldn't have a strict corruption system? Because I'm concerned we're gonna scare off the hardcore pvp crowd? They won't have enough content? Hell no, that'd be dumb and rude to the people already invested in the original vision.

    I'm pretty sure Steven and Intrepid have already analyzed "The lack of instanced content and the long term health of the game." Because they made limited instancing a cornerstone, a selling point of their game. They think there's enough people in the middle, between the extremes of hardcore pvp and hardcore pve, for the game to succeed. I think they're right.
  • OkeydokeOkeydoke Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Side note, what do you consider successful as a PvP MMO? The ones I think of still have a ton of pve content.

    Ashes is going to have a ton of pve content. Me saying that instances should be very limited has no bearing on the existence of pve, nor the quantity or quality of it. I think the pve should be as robust as possible.

    There have been a ton of successful pvp mmos. Too many to list. Wow at one point had more of a pvp focus than it does now. Most successful pvp mmo's that I would cite are better categorized as pvp/pve mmos. ESO, Warhammer, Dark Ages of Camelot, Black Desert. Even hardcore pvp mmo's like Darkfall have found some success, having 2 or 3 sequels, private servers, and a small but loyal player base. Successful in that they probably made more money than they spent on development. But they tend to be niche and die out eventually. As do some pve games.

    But Ashes is trying to be it's own thing. Open world, pvx, heavy player interaction/conflict. And heavy instancing ruins what Ashes is trying to be and how it's trying to push the genre. ESO for example had instances. It didn't matter, there was no world wide pvp/political/strategic situation. You go pvp in Cyrodiil, and then you have instanced pvp in scenarios and instanced pve in dungeons. That's all the game was trying to be, a theme park, everything on rails.

  • Okeydoke wrote: »
    Side note, what do you consider successful as a PvP MMO? The ones I think of still have a ton of pve content.

    Ashes is going to have a ton of pve content. Me saying that instances should be very limited has no bearing on the existence of pve, nor the quantity or quality of it. I think the pve should be as robust as possible.

    There have been a ton of successful pvp mmos. Too many to list. Wow at one point had more of a pvp focus than it does now. Most successful pvp mmo's that I would cite are better categorized as pvp/pve mmos. ESO, Warhammer, Dark Ages of Camelot, Black Desert. Even hardcore pvp mmo's like Darkfall have found some success, having 2 or 3 sequels, private servers, and a small but loyal player base. Successful in that they probably made more money than they spent on development. But they tend to be niche and die out eventually. As do some pve games.

    But Ashes is trying to be it's own thing. Open world, pvx, heavy player interaction/conflict. And heavy instancing ruins what Ashes is trying to be and how it's trying to push the genre. ESO for example had instances. It didn't matter, there was no world wide pvp/political/strategic situation. You go pvp in Cyrodiil, and then you have instanced pvp in scenarios and instanced pve in dungeons. That's all the game was trying to be, a theme park, everything on rails.

    Looking forward to whatever comes!

    Thanks for the answer, you listed the same games I had in my thoughts. I was curious if you had something else than, hat I expected.
    Handsome-Jakx.png
  • OkeydokeOkeydoke Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Yeah me too. I think it's going to be really good. Could fall flat on it's face too though, we'll see.
    I've posted a lot in this thread and I'm not trying to be a stubborn jackass. If the thing's being proposed, like instancing, had a net neutral effect on the game, I'd be all for it. No reason to not implement things people want in a game if it doesn't have a negative effect. But instancing does have a negative effect. And there's a fear of the slippery slope too. Once Intrepid reverses on a decision like instancing, that intellectually honest people KNOW has a horrible effect on open world games, then everyone's going to wonder what bad decision are they going to make next? And if they make one, they're probably gonna make more.
  • Noaani wrote: »
    I am saying that no matter how much you lose, there needs to be something to do.
    I agree. The thing that worries me is I don't think that they will get all the content that they've planned in the game before it releases. The scope that they've proposed is a huge, and it'll take more time than they think to implement and polish everything. So yeah, it's possible that people are totally locked out of fun content if they rush the game with a bunch of features cut or half-baked.
  • OkeydokeOkeydoke Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »

    Again, we all know people will go out of the way to ruin a game for another player or group of players if the game allows that to happen - so there needs to be a floor on how low they can make other peoples experience.

    100% agree. There is a toxic element that will ruin people's fun fanatically. You gotta control that some, but without completely neutering the pvp system. The good shouldn't suffer for the bad. You don't sink a ship to drown a rat.

    So what we know is:
    - Player body looting only applies to the corruption system. In node wars, guild wars, caravans etc there will be no player body looting.
    - Killing of players by corrupted people will make the dead players lootable of a percentage of their harvested materials and monster certificates, no finished goods or items.
    - Successful caravan attackers will get a percentage of the goods. I think....but not sure the caravan owner keeps the rest? Or maybe it's destroyed.
    - Successful node siegers will get a 2 hour window to loot the freeholds of that node. They may or may not be able to loot them all. You will have opportunity to defend your freehold. If yours is looted you lose a percentage of your mats and certificates but not all of it. And your freehold blueprint is mailed to you ready to be placed again.

    So it's going to come down to what all of those percentages are. Can't be too much or too little. But it sounds like it's going to be fairly lenient to me. I personally don't want to see any of those systems be a crushing defeat, major financial loss for individual players. I want to see those things happen a LOT, but only have moderate at best rewards and loot transfer for the victors.

  • NeauxNeaux Member
    edited April 2021
    Noaani wrote: »
    If the point of the game is the fight over the content, rather than the content itself, that means as soon as that fight is over, the losing side will go off to the next game - as has been the case for every PvP based MMO ever. It is access to content that keeps people in a game, not the ability to fight over access to content.

    This is my fear too. Given AoC intends to have long term occupation of territories etc there is a chance that the losing side will have a lot less to do than they would like and for long periods of time. As long as the developers have enough in place to keep players busy and not so much under the foot of oppression of the winning side, then the game should be fine.

    The good news is, I hear AoC has hired a group of developers from both Planetside 1 and Planetside 2, both games I played a lot, and although it's an entirely different genre, those guys had a real emphasis on making sure that anyone that lost could re-immerse into another fight as soon as possible - so hopefully they bring some of that perpetual gameplay to Ashes.
    Bricktop wrote: »
    I didn't play EVE but plenty of people in my guild have talked to me about it. "PvP of note" translates into the massive alliance/power shifting battles involving thousands of people in your mind and all the PvP that happens building up to that is meaningless.

    Just a side note about EVE. I played that a good bit too and you are right about those big battles, in general the stakes are too high in EVE for normal chance PVP encounters to be a common thing, but they do happen. In EVE, if you want to do any missions or mining (for credits) out in the world you have to venture into PVP areas and if you get killed out there you lose your ship and everything in it - which was freaking expensive depending on what type of ship you ran. To me that was one reason why EVE wasn't more popular than it is and also why I had a bit of a fear that AoC might tie too much personal loss to PVP.

    I eventually quit EVE, not because I lost everything due to PVP but because as I piloted more and more expensive ships I got more stressed about the potential of losing them .. :neutral:

Sign In or Register to comment.