I'll say that I've already experienced griefing in Alpha. But they turned everyone purple (so it's a PvP free-for-all with no consequences). The griefing I experienced was a high level character repeatedly killing me and camping my spawn as I was trying to test questing. (This by the way is against the rules in the test and I reported them.) I think that this person would not be doing that if corruption was in place.
Yikes, @Atama, would be nice to start testing corruption sooner than later … if a handful of POS players are going to completely ignore the Alpha rules of engagement.
I personally like the feeling of the risk. Traveling as group is safer, but alone is risky. Like it would be in a real life scenario. Not that AoC needs to be all about realism, but with these kind of things I think it fits the game.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
And yet they continue to post on the forums here, insisting that open world PvP needs to be abolished.
New people ask for that - some, as in this case - voice their concern.
And then they either leave or enter a waiting period to see whether Corruption will work sufficiently.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I personally like the feeling of the risk. Traveling as group is safer, but alone is risky. Like it would be in a real life scenario. Not that AoC needs to be all about realism, but with these kind of things I think it fits the game.
Um. I don't know where you live, but even as an African-American male living in the South, walking alone has never been risky for me in the US. Even at night.
DC, NYC, Memphis, Compton - I have never been attacked while exploring alone.
Even the year when I was playing Ingress and venturing down dark alleyways and scouring parks at 1 AM in the morning...
Real life is not as risky as PvP enabled servers on MMORPGs.
You like the feeling of risk in a game because there is no pain and no permadeath.
I personally like the feeling of the risk. Traveling as group is safer, but alone is risky. Like it would be in a real life scenario. Not that AoC needs to be all about realism, but with these kind of things I think it fits the game.
Um. I don't know where you live, but even as an African-American male living in the South, walking alone has never been risky for me in the US. Even at night.
DC, NYC, Memphis, Compton - I have never been attacked while exploring alone.
Even the year when I was playing Ingress and venturing down dark alleyways and scouring parks at 1 AM in the morning...
Real life is not as risky as PvP enabled servers on MMORPGs.
You like the feeling of risk in a game because there is no pain and no permadeath.
I obviously meant in a "midieval fantasy" setting, smarty pants. In midieval times, traveling from town to town with your wagon of supplies/trading goods was definitely dangerous.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Medieval fantasy is not real life.
And there is really no way for us to compare how risky it was for an individual to travel alone in real life medieval times with regard to getting ganked by people.
You like the risk of PvP in MMORPGs - which is fine.
The comparison to real life is highly questionable.
I remember walking back alone about ten blocks to my hotel from Bourbon St at like 3am in a rainstorm and being aware of my surroundings, but not worried. I don't think I would have the same experience if I were in Morocco or East London.
Yeah the corruption system sounds good to me, but the way it goes away is not great. It should have a decay timer for it. So for example if the corrupted player dies, he gets a 20hr or more decay timer before the corruption fully dissipates. Meaning he still has the bad effects of the level of corruption that player got to, until the decay timer finishes or the player removes the decay timer and stays corrupted by reengaging in pvp specifically by ganking pve flagged players. This way the risks don't feel underwhelming and the systems would be less abused with having players teaming up to kill each other to remove their own corruption and share the rewards. Which would also allow bounty hunter players to actually find corrupted players.
This might seem to be a slight tangent, but I feel it's relevant enough to this thread.
I've been taking part in the New World beta that's going on to see if it's worth buying, and there seems to be a huge population of general chat and the New World forums that travel times suck and they hate that they have to walk everywhere, and they need to add mounts asap or the game will be dead a month in.
Personally I think the reason why people think the travelling is boring is because the original concept for New World was a pvp-centric game, and they decided to change it up to cater to the pve hungry crowd, but in that change they lost what made that travel engaging.
In a pvp-centric game, traveling to your destination is inherently engaging and part of the content because you have to be aware of your surroundings, if you auto-run without a care to your destination, you're liable to be caught off guard and killed. Planning routes and being aware was the game.
But then when they made it so you can opt-out of pvp, suddenly that travel time became monotonous and tedious. The only engaging part of going to your destination when all you have to worry about is pve is avoiding wolf dens or hostile enemy camps.
The point I'm trying to make is that removing pvp aspects or reducing their threat directly affects one of the most important part of a game like Ashes.. the travel.
PvE players complain about traveling being boring but refuse to accept anything that might make it not boring. The only solution I ever see people come up with to make travelling in PvE "fun" is "Auto-pathing" or "MoUnTs (as if they won't just complain mounts are still too slow later)". Hell, if you go to the New Worlds subreddit every thread is full of spergs who downvote any mention that mounts are not the solution and pvp is too hard/threatening to ever consider making travel interesting.
Ashes definitely has struck a very good balance here. PvE players still have a slight threat looming over them to keep travel interesting, but enough safeguards to cause any would-be attackers to really consider if it's worth it.
Tl;Dr: PvP in some fashion is healthy for a travel-based game, whether you like it or not. The option to opt out of pvp is in direct contradiction to this.
This way the risks don't feel underwhelming and the systems would be less abused with having players teaming up to kill each other to remove their own corruption and share the rewards.
If i understood the wiki well, dying one time could not be enough to remove corruption if you have too much.
the "reward" for killing a red is only for bounty hunters (which is not avaible for a duo of red players so, remains only the "save friend")
And red player get 400% the death drawback so 4 time the XP debt. And this, even killed by a friend, no way to avoid it.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
This might seem to be a slight tangent, but I feel it's relevant enough to this thread.
A huge tangent because New World was not originally intended to be an RPG as far as I can tell.
It was intended to be heavily PvP and closer to Survival than RPG.
But, the original PvP was so toxic that they've tried to provide more PvE stuff to do.
Obviously, if you are trying to nerf the PvP in a heavily PvP-centric game, the balance is going to feel off.
New World and Ashes aren't even supposed to be the same genre.
The only reason why PvE players would complain about travel being boring is if they're traveling through static content they've already leveled past. And there's several ways to rectify that.
PvP is just one method out of several. Not boring =/= desirable.
Medieval fantasy is not real life.
And there is really no way for us to compare how risky it was for an individual to travel alone in real life medieval times with regard to getting ganked by people.
You like the risk of PvP in MMORPGs - which is fine.
The comparison to real life is highly questionable.
I know games are not reality, but fantasy settings obviously borrow many elements from a romanticised midieval theme, it is not questionable at all.
I am more surprised you made the comparison to your current day situation. Otherwise what stops us from adding cars, machine guns, moden glass buildings in the game? Right, because the setting is based on a different time.
All i am saying that this particular thing would fit the game very well.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited July 2021
Right. But what you said is the risk of traveling alone in Ashes is like the risk of traveling alone in real life.
What you kinda wanted to say is it's like the risk of traveling alone in medieval fantasy? Which is also questionable.
But, all you really mean is that you like the risk. Which is good enough.
There wont be random killing/gamging.
It is too painful for people to kill peaceful players.
You might die to a random player, without fighting back, once a month or two.
If you are not interested in fighting other players dont expect to PvE in prime locations.
The focus of the game is open world pve and pvp.
it's not because it exists and works, reviewing and remodeling an idea is what makes things better. Most of the times when I thought something was bad I was seeing things wrong way
there's strength in numbers, friendship & allies i can't pvp to save my life doesn't stop me from having fun ashes of creation is basically real world if someone bullying you just send army after them
This might seem to be a slight tangent, but I feel it's relevant enough to this thread.
A huge tangent because New World was not originally intended to be an RPG as far as I can tell.
It was intended to be heavily PvP and closer to Survival than RPG.
But, the original PvP was so toxic that they've tried to provide more PvE stuff to do.
Obviously, if you are trying to nerf the PvP in a heavily PvP-centric game, the balance is going to feel off.
New World and Ashes aren't even supposed to be the same genre.
The only reason why PvE players would complain about travel being boring is if they're traveling through static content they've already leveled past. And there's several ways to rectify that.
PvP is just one method out of several. Not boring =/= desirable.
You're right, PvP is not the only answer to making travel not boring, it's just the simplest and most effective way. You can add PvE content to make travelling more interesting, but people can and will find ways around doing anything PvE-related in any game. It's not impossible, just more difficult to retain that level of engagement in traveling through PvE. To make it stay engaging, the developers need to actively adjust the game around the ways people are circumventing the PvE, which is something developers commonly lose focus on.
New World originally not being an RPG is irrelevant because it is one now, and in fact has taken a lot of ideas from Ashes and implemented many Node ideas into it.
Travel in Rust (the exact kind of game you described, a PvP-centric game that is also toxic) is engaging entirely for the reasons I described. There's PvE stuff in Rust, but because you can't opt out of PvP there's no room for complaints about the world being boring or monotonous.
There wont be random killing/gamging.
It is too painful for people to kill peaceful players.
You might die to a random player, without fighting back, once a month or two.
If you are not interested in fighting other players dont expect to PvE in prime locations.
The focus of the game is open world pve and pvp.
it's not because it exists and works, reviewing and remodeling an idea is what makes things better. Most of the times when I thought something was bad I was seeing things wrong way
Ok then.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
LMFAO
PvP is not the simplest and most effective way to make travel in an RPG less boring.
As far as I can tell, New World bills itself as an MMO PC Game and leaves out the RP.
Rust is a survival game. It is not an RPG.
Next you will be telling us how PvP in Call of Duty makes travel less boring..
New World is very travel heavy, just as Ashes plans to be. I also never said Rust is an rpg lol, in fact I specifically said it was a pvp-centric game
I think you're drawing a weird line in the sand here, maybe because you haven't played New World. I'm honestly not sure what you're arguing here because you're just being pedantic about what kind of games these are and not really arguing about the topic of the thread or even what the point of my tangent was
I thought Valheim struck a good tone for having a dangerous world to travel up to a certain point, then I could kill everything easily and stopped playing.
I thought Valheim struck a good tone for having a dangerous world to travel up to a certain point, then I could kill everything easily and stopped playing.
See that's what many mmos dont want you to do. They want you to keep playing. That's the big disconnect. Wow is a prime example of them doing anything and everything outside of kidnapping and forcing you to play it.
I'll be real I was complaining about not having mounts in new world but now that I have unlocked almost all of the fast travel points it's not really an issue anymore. They were smart enough to not put fast travel to the forts you need to defend as well.
I think you're drawing a weird line in the sand here, maybe because you haven't played New World. I'm honestly not sure what you're arguing here because you're just being pedantic about what kind of games these are and not really arguing about the topic of the thread or even what the point of my tangent was
New World was designed to be a heavily PvP-centric survival game, but it was so toxic they've added some other features. Using New World as an example to tout PvP as a great addition to make make travel in an MMORPG is patently absurd.
That's what I'm arguing. It's not a weird line in the sand at all.
I think you're drawing a weird line in the sand here, maybe because you haven't played New World. I'm honestly not sure what you're arguing here because you're just being pedantic about what kind of games these are and not really arguing about the topic of the thread or even what the point of my tangent was
New World was designed to be a heavily PvP-centric survival game, but it was so toxic they've added some other features. Using New World as an example to tout PvP as a great addition to make make travel in an MMORPG is patently absurd.
That's what I'm arguing. It's not a weird line in the sand at all.
It's not absurd because I was using current New World as the example, I was saying nothing about the original concept.
Current New World has travel as a mechanic just like Ashes does, but travel in New World is stale because travel was originally meant to have PvP as a mechanic baked into it, just like Ashes. The original "toxic pvp" concept has no part in that argument other than that it's the reason why New World is the way it is.
Like, just stop talking about the initial design of new world, because it's not relevant at all lmao
My entire point was "Travel in current New World is boring because you can opt out of PvP, and New World doesn't have interesting travel mechanics as part of it's design outside of PvP"
I thought Valheim struck a good tone for having a dangerous world to travel up to a certain point, then I could kill everything easily and stopped playing.
That's the PvE "falling off" aspect I was talking about in my earlier post. PvE needs constant updates and tweaks to make it continuously engaging, because players always, always optimize their way around PvE inconveniences.
Open world PvP is something you can't really optimize your way around, which is why PvP is the easiest option for interesting travel, and why being able to just opt out of PvP makes travel uninteresting in many games.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited July 2021
What's irrelevant is the comparison in the first place, so, yes - let's drop it.
Travel in MMORPGs becomes boring when the content is outleveled and static and people are stuck in an endgame for years at a time while waiting for new content.
Ashes is dynamic and will have flor, fauna and towns and villages that change over time, so travel won't be boring - regardless of PvP.
But, Ashes will also have open world PvP.
At the risk of sounding like a thousand times before - please forgive me!
I am very interested in this game and my guild is already on pins and needles. However, we also have - including me - a very high proportion of PvE members, so quite balanced compared to the PvP part. What about functions, regarding gankers or players who want to farm you completely? Now this is not hyperbole - we all know exactly how selfish, sadistic and misanthropic these PvP players can be.
Steven has often emphasised that he will take precautions against this, but so far we have only seen the issue with red players and purple players, right? Do you think there will be something else or is that enough? I have heard from many PvP players so far that this status is actually of little interest to them. We are in alliance with a few guilds, including quite a few PvP players, and we have received similar feedback.
I am looking forward to your feedback! Thank you very much!
Ideal game to me would be working on inteligence with the guild and the pvpers should deal with this and they should be financed by the guild.
Steven is clearly at the wrong side of the road when the subject is ganking, he sees it as bad but it is in fact good, because it prevents people with drone ants mentality of becomming too powerful and destroying the game by transforming it into another hoarding game.
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
I'm not sure 'Necroposting' is really a concern on this forum, though.
We can't ask people to use the search function and then be 'upset' when the result is that they find the thread discussing the thing they care about and bump it, right?
The alternative is 'yet another new thread on the same thing'.
I'm not sure 'Necroposting' is really a concern on this forum, though.
We can't ask people to use the search function and then be 'upset' when the result is that they find the thread discussing the thing they care about and bump it, right?
The alternative is 'yet another new thread on the same thing'.
Yeah yeah, I get it. I just find it funny. Especially when it's a serial necro like in this case. Nothing wrong with it, obviously, as I've done it myself before.
Comments
Like FF14, for me, an absolute boring game I would never play and dont complain.
Yikes, @Atama, would be nice to start testing corruption sooner than later … if a handful of POS players are going to completely ignore the Alpha rules of engagement.
And then they either leave or enter a waiting period to see whether Corruption will work sufficiently.
DC, NYC, Memphis, Compton - I have never been attacked while exploring alone.
Even the year when I was playing Ingress and venturing down dark alleyways and scouring parks at 1 AM in the morning...
Real life is not as risky as PvP enabled servers on MMORPGs.
You like the feeling of risk in a game because there is no pain and no permadeath.
I obviously meant in a "midieval fantasy" setting, smarty pants. In midieval times, traveling from town to town with your wagon of supplies/trading goods was definitely dangerous.
And there is really no way for us to compare how risky it was for an individual to travel alone in real life medieval times with regard to getting ganked by people.
You like the risk of PvP in MMORPGs - which is fine.
The comparison to real life is highly questionable.
I've been taking part in the New World beta that's going on to see if it's worth buying, and there seems to be a huge population of general chat and the New World forums that travel times suck and they hate that they have to walk everywhere, and they need to add mounts asap or the game will be dead a month in.
Personally I think the reason why people think the travelling is boring is because the original concept for New World was a pvp-centric game, and they decided to change it up to cater to the pve hungry crowd, but in that change they lost what made that travel engaging.
In a pvp-centric game, traveling to your destination is inherently engaging and part of the content because you have to be aware of your surroundings, if you auto-run without a care to your destination, you're liable to be caught off guard and killed. Planning routes and being aware was the game.
But then when they made it so you can opt-out of pvp, suddenly that travel time became monotonous and tedious. The only engaging part of going to your destination when all you have to worry about is pve is avoiding wolf dens or hostile enemy camps.
The point I'm trying to make is that removing pvp aspects or reducing their threat directly affects one of the most important part of a game like Ashes.. the travel.
PvE players complain about traveling being boring but refuse to accept anything that might make it not boring. The only solution I ever see people come up with to make travelling in PvE "fun" is "Auto-pathing" or "MoUnTs (as if they won't just complain mounts are still too slow later)". Hell, if you go to the New Worlds subreddit every thread is full of spergs who downvote any mention that mounts are not the solution and pvp is too hard/threatening to ever consider making travel interesting.
Ashes definitely has struck a very good balance here. PvE players still have a slight threat looming over them to keep travel interesting, but enough safeguards to cause any would-be attackers to really consider if it's worth it.
Tl;Dr: PvP in some fashion is healthy for a travel-based game, whether you like it or not. The option to opt out of pvp is in direct contradiction to this.
If i understood the wiki well, dying one time could not be enough to remove corruption if you have too much.
the "reward" for killing a red is only for bounty hunters (which is not avaible for a duo of red players so, remains only the "save friend")
And red player get 400% the death drawback so 4 time the XP debt. And this, even killed by a friend, no way to avoid it.
It was intended to be heavily PvP and closer to Survival than RPG.
But, the original PvP was so toxic that they've tried to provide more PvE stuff to do.
Obviously, if you are trying to nerf the PvP in a heavily PvP-centric game, the balance is going to feel off.
New World and Ashes aren't even supposed to be the same genre.
The only reason why PvE players would complain about travel being boring is if they're traveling through static content they've already leveled past. And there's several ways to rectify that.
PvP is just one method out of several. Not boring =/= desirable.
I know games are not reality, but fantasy settings obviously borrow many elements from a romanticised midieval theme, it is not questionable at all.
I am more surprised you made the comparison to your current day situation. Otherwise what stops us from adding cars, machine guns, moden glass buildings in the game? Right, because the setting is based on a different time.
All i am saying that this particular thing would fit the game very well.
What you kinda wanted to say is it's like the risk of traveling alone in medieval fantasy? Which is also questionable.
But, all you really mean is that you like the risk. Which is good enough.
it's not because it exists and works, reviewing and remodeling an idea is what makes things better. Most of the times when I thought something was bad I was seeing things wrong way
You're right, PvP is not the only answer to making travel not boring, it's just the simplest and most effective way. You can add PvE content to make travelling more interesting, but people can and will find ways around doing anything PvE-related in any game. It's not impossible, just more difficult to retain that level of engagement in traveling through PvE. To make it stay engaging, the developers need to actively adjust the game around the ways people are circumventing the PvE, which is something developers commonly lose focus on.
New World originally not being an RPG is irrelevant because it is one now, and in fact has taken a lot of ideas from Ashes and implemented many Node ideas into it.
Travel in Rust (the exact kind of game you described, a PvP-centric game that is also toxic) is engaging entirely for the reasons I described. There's PvE stuff in Rust, but because you can't opt out of PvP there's no room for complaints about the world being boring or monotonous.
Ok then.
PvP is not the simplest and most effective way to make travel in an RPG less boring.
As far as I can tell, New World bills itself as an MMO PC Game and leaves out the RP.
Rust is a survival game. It is not an RPG.
Next you will be telling us how PvP in Call of Duty makes travel less boring..
New World is very travel heavy, just as Ashes plans to be. I also never said Rust is an rpg lol, in fact I specifically said it was a pvp-centric game
I think you're drawing a weird line in the sand here, maybe because you haven't played New World. I'm honestly not sure what you're arguing here because you're just being pedantic about what kind of games these are and not really arguing about the topic of the thread or even what the point of my tangent was
See that's what many mmos dont want you to do. They want you to keep playing. That's the big disconnect. Wow is a prime example of them doing anything and everything outside of kidnapping and forcing you to play it.
I'll be real I was complaining about not having mounts in new world but now that I have unlocked almost all of the fast travel points it's not really an issue anymore. They were smart enough to not put fast travel to the forts you need to defend as well.
That's what I'm arguing. It's not a weird line in the sand at all.
QFT. That’s why I want Verra to feel (and be) dangerous for some time.
It's not absurd because I was using current New World as the example, I was saying nothing about the original concept.
Current New World has travel as a mechanic just like Ashes does, but travel in New World is stale because travel was originally meant to have PvP as a mechanic baked into it, just like Ashes. The original "toxic pvp" concept has no part in that argument other than that it's the reason why New World is the way it is.
Like, just stop talking about the initial design of new world, because it's not relevant at all lmao
My entire point was "Travel in current New World is boring because you can opt out of PvP, and New World doesn't have interesting travel mechanics as part of it's design outside of PvP"
That's the PvE "falling off" aspect I was talking about in my earlier post. PvE needs constant updates and tweaks to make it continuously engaging, because players always, always optimize their way around PvE inconveniences.
Open world PvP is something you can't really optimize your way around, which is why PvP is the easiest option for interesting travel, and why being able to just opt out of PvP makes travel uninteresting in many games.
Travel in MMORPGs becomes boring when the content is outleveled and static and people are stuck in an endgame for years at a time while waiting for new content.
Ashes is dynamic and will have flor, fauna and towns and villages that change over time, so travel won't be boring - regardless of PvP.
But, Ashes will also have open world PvP.
Ideal game to me would be working on inteligence with the guild and the pvpers should deal with this and they should be financed by the guild.
Steven is clearly at the wrong side of the road when the subject is ganking, he sees it as bad but it is in fact good, because it prevents people with drone ants mentality of becomming too powerful and destroying the game by transforming it into another hoarding game.
I'm not sure 'Necroposting' is really a concern on this forum, though.
We can't ask people to use the search function and then be 'upset' when the result is that they find the thread discussing the thing they care about and bump it, right?
The alternative is 'yet another new thread on the same thing'.