Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
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'.