The hunting in Hunting Grounds does not refer to players hunting other players, rather it refers to players hunting mobs and resources.
In a way it does. If the resources are valuable enough people will flag for them. L2 pretty much only had mobs and people would kill you for looking at them. What makes you think the stakes are going to be any lower when nodes are involved.
As opposed to Battlegrounds - Caravans and Sieges - PvP combat with no Corruption mechanic.
In Steven's vision, Corruption will be enough of a deterrent for non-consensual PvP combat that safe zones won't be required.
I agree, I just don't get the feeling that a lot of the people who think they can only PvE understand that death is literally lurking at every corner of the map.
Steven and the devs call the game PvX.
And specifically state it is a PvX game and not a PvP game.
(Obviously it's not a PvE game since there won't even be any PvE-Only servers)
Right, and I am skeptical about that. EVE states that it is a "PvP and PvP game". Unless your grand plan is to grind in high sec for your entire existence. EVE is a PvP game, both on in the stars and on the markets.
My problem is that we are arguing about the degree to how much a average player can expect to deal with PvP. I am saying it is gonna be a lot more than some people think. The idea that you can avoid PvP entirely is the false expectation I am talking about. You might be able to avoid it for hours to days at a time, but if you are doing anything that results in a reward that is valuable. People will flag to prevent you from getting it before they get it.
You underestimate the number of PvE-Only EQ fans who are interested in Ashes of Creation due to all the EQ designers on the Ashes dev team.
Let me clarify a little. I think we'll get all types in the first few months of the game, when it's shiny and new. I think it will primarily be the PvE-only players that will leave after a while. The initial rush to build the world and explore the new stuff will slow, and the more long-term node and guild wars, and territory control stuff will increase, because that is the over-arching endgame of AOC. Within that, players can focus on their own things, like crafting and such, that are PvE content, but for the PvE-only players who mostly like instanced dungeons and such, they will probably move on from AOC.
As Varkun said, different people have different opinions of it, and will have different tolerances of it. I don't see there'll be any agreement coming out of this thread!
Probably not no
I guess people will just have to explain their version of it, every time they mention the word "griefing".
About the whole PvX side debate here. It just means the game will have both PvE and PvP content. Sometimes it will overlap. That's it. If you're deep in a dungeon grinding mobs for 4 hours, and then a group comes and wipes you in a few minutes, you have now experienced both types of content. Specifically 98% PvE and 2% PvP. If you're in a node siege, you'll be getting 2 hours of 100% PvP. It's not a hard concept folks
Ganking and griefing are not the same thing although you can gank someone as part of griefing.
Gank = PK = Killing another player. This is usually a one sided or lopsided encounter where the ganker has a distinct advantage and kills an unsuspecting person but not always. If I go out with the intention of PvPing and I'm say jumped by 3 stealthers and taken out in 2 secs, I could consider myself "ganked".
Griefing on the other hand is any act that prevents the player being griefed from forward progression in the game. If a player is kept from playing the game specifically by another player's premeditated act, that's griefing. This could range from spawn/graveyard camping to repeatedly killing the same person trying to farm an area or it could be as simple as preventing access to a dungeon by blocking it.
Now in my initial example about the 3 stealthers, if this group of 3 continued to target and gank me every time I stepped out onto the field, that's griefing.
In some games a certain level of griefing is acceptable. If my goal is to say, get into a keep so I can help defend it but the opposition doesn't want that to happen, I could be killed repeatedly and by the same person/group. This does prevent my personal progression BUT is part of the meta for how the game functions so should not be considered intentional.
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Steven and the devs call the game PvX.
And specifically state it is a PvX game and not a PvP game.
(Obviously it's not a PvE game since there won't even be any PvE-Only servers)
....A pvx game is both a pvp game and a pve game. pvp and pve are not mutually exclusive.
Being attacked by another player in a pvx game isn't griefing as it's part of the game, that is why it's allow.
You underestimate the number of PvE-Only EQ fans who are interested in Ashes of Creation due to all the EQ designers on the Ashes dev team.
Let me clarify a little. I think we'll get all types in the first few months of the game, when it's shiny and new. I think it will primarily be the PvE-only players that will leave after a while. The initial rush to build the world and explore the new stuff will slow, and the more long-term node and guild wars, and territory control stuff will increase, because that is the over-arching endgame of AOC. Within that, players can focus on their own things, like crafting and such, that are PvE content, but for the PvE-only players who mostly like instanced dungeons and such, they will probably move on from AOC.
I think even this is a bit of a thin outlook for the game progression. While I agree with the general sense that a lot of the end game content will revolve around guilds waring, sieging etc the depth at which intrepid seems to be developing other systems in the game I think will offer people a lot of reprieve from content out of their interest.
In addition to this I really believe there has been an entire generation of MMO players who've yet to experience true open world conflict and political play. I find it hard to believe that once shown the light they would abandon the game entirely. In all likelihood they may fall in love with the game play and figure out some playstyle that gives them enjoyment. Keep in mind that you can avoid all sieges, guild wars, territory control etc. While they may become impacted by this it ultimately could just result in migration patterns around the map as wars and conflict pushes and pulls people in different directions.
I could be very wrong of course but the game has many systems that I've got very little interest in, I'm not a gatherer, crafter or shop owner etc by historical game play but there is a chance I will find something in the game I enjoy that I've yet to enjoy from past games. While it's unlikely it would over take my core game play if it became 10% of my overall time in game, I can only figure it could work the same way from the opposite perspective as well.
If the developers give the PvP crowd enough outlets to fight each other without having to engage the entire population and disrupt passive game play it seems reasonable to consider the two could co-exist. For instance when the "end game" model you describe above kicks in it would seem reasonable most of us PvPers will be off doing that stuff which would then leave a lot of the early game conflict by forced interaction at a smaller percentage of having to exists in such proximities to continue. What I mean by this simply is if I'm occupied with sieges, guild wars, territory fights it would put less emphasis on my interest to fight over dungeons, raid zones etc etc.
Tyrantor
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
Funny thing about these forums - there are people here that are going to be surprised by how little PvP the game has, once it goes live, and there will be other people shocked by how much PvP there is.
Funny thing about these forums - there are people here that are going to be surprised by how little PvP the game has, once it goes live, and there will be other people shocked by how much PvP there is.
I hope i'm on the shocked side.
Tyrantor
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
You are the one with the delusion that there will only be "PvP Guilds" in Ashes.
Steven does not say that everyone in Ashes will probably be PvPing everyday.
You can believe the Earth is the center of the solar system if you want to.
Steven doesnt have to say it for it to be true. To progress optimally in this game you will be exposed to pvp. That is why it's called PvX. But hey, if you want to take extremely round about, time consuming, and less profitable tactics be my guest. More money for me.
Having read up on the size of the world, and how the node system works, and the fact that there will not be easy ways to move large numbers of players over great distances, borders are going to emerge as guilds/nations form up, resources are claimed, alliances and treaties are hammered out, and trade is established. I'm sure there will be frontier areas, collapsed states, theaters of war, and many other things, but just as likely, there will be areas of relative peace maintained by various guilds/nations of considerable power.
Having played Shadowbane long ago, I can say that the more people and guilds gain, the more they have to lose, and the more risk averse they will become. In games like WoW, "poking the bear" can be the spark to epic battles. But in a game where someone raiding another guild's small town could potentially spark a war that causes the loss/destruction of nodes and resources other guildies spent large amounts of time and effort on, "poking the bear" willy-nilly can get you kicked out of your own guild. The ability to cooperate and work together in a group will matter more than pure individual skill. And there will likely be lots of room for people who wish to concentrate on things other than combat.
Sure, PvP will always be a possibility, but I doubt it will be a guarantee. And people running around randomly killing folks will probably not be looked upon too kindly within civilized areas.
What exactly is the benefit of defending a caravan for random people? Genuine question here. I can't think of a single scenario where it wouldn't be more lucrative to kill everybody and take whatevers in the caravan unless you are like a RPer or something who's interested in defending the common man.
I suppose someone could possibly etch out a PvE only existence if they are ready to lose 80+% of what they earn because they won't defend it and they are prepared to progress much slower than the rest of the server. Oh they are also probably gonna need to find a guild who doesn't mind carrying someone who sucks at or flat out refuses to PvP in a PvP-centric game as well for all the group content.
From what I understand, it would be a mistake to think of Ashes as a PvP-centric game. It's an ecosystem they are creating, and while most of us will bounce between PvE and PvP, there will be no shortage of players that seek to live at the extremes of both ends of that spectrum. Ashes seems to have plenty of potential for all players to find their place, even those seeking to avoid PvP entirely.
Why would other players help and support them? Many reasons may emerge. PvE will be what holds up the economy of a Node, and what keeps a Node ahead of it's neighbours. The more PvE, the more resources on the local market, which means cheaper and better equipment and repairs for PvP players, which means a better equipped population if a neighbouring Node decides to attack. When a neighbouring Node does attack, a war may heavily drain resources, and some players may be needed to continually PvE behind the scenes to keep their side maintained and funded. It will likely be in the best interests of each Node population to work together and not ostracise or prey on one another, because each setback for one player or guild will trickle down to effect the economy of the Node as a whole. This may inspire many Nodes to build up a sense of community, rather than an "every man/guild for themselves" mentality.
PvE only players will adapt to ensure they aren't losing what they earn. They may deploy scouts to ensure they can avoid hostile players before they are even detected. They may set up a freehold near their favourite harvesting spots for additional safety. They may hire the services of PvP players to protect them and deter aggressors (or simply use their scouts to alert nearby PvPers seeking aggressors to hunt down). They may seek out the most obscure harvesting locations and keep them secret. If players don't want to fight, they won't be perpetually forced into PvP, they will simply adapt and will find new ways to avoid fighting, and those Nodes that offer them the best security to play the game the way they want might even become the economic powerhouses on the map as a result.
As for the Caravans, what is the benefit of defending them?
For one thing, reputation. Steal those goods and word will get around. In EVE Online, there are entire guilds/corporations that have made a business out of transporting goods safely from one location to another for random people, and they'd never even get off the ground if word got out that they betrayed their customers.
For another thing, the sender of the Caravan might be avoiding PvP, but there's also a receiver at the other end of that Caravan in the next Node waiting for that shipment who may not be as adverse to hunting you down and making your life a misery, possibly even rallying his Node behind him. Plus, there's nothing stopping the sender hiring his own mercs to hunt you down as well (many players will jump at any excuse to justify PvP). Half the fun of these kinds of MMO's are the bigger consequences of how things can snowball out of control, never knowing what small actions can cascade into either huge benefits or massive misfortunes down the line.
Funny thing about these forums - there are people here that are going to be surprised by how little PvP the game has, once it goes live, and there will be other people shocked by how much PvP there is.
I hope i'm on the shocked side.
Nope, you'll be surprised. You and Dygz are at diametrically opposite sides (as I am sure you can see).
While I wouldn't want to try and guess where exactly the game will fall, it is safe to say it will be somewhere between what you think the game will be, and what he thinks the game will be.
Funny thing about these forums - there are people here that are going to be surprised by how little PvP the game has, once it goes live, and there will be other people shocked by how much PvP there is.
I hope i'm on the shocked side.
Nope, you'll be surprised. You and Dygz are at diametrically opposite sides (as I am sure you can see).
While I wouldn't want to try and guess where exactly the game will fall, it is safe to say it will be somewhere between what you think the game will be, and what he thinks the game will be.
If the game was lacking in pvp as you say then I'll be roaming in bulk manufactured gear mercing people as a corrupted player.
Funny thing about these forums - there are people here that are going to be surprised by how little PvP the game has, once it goes live, and there will be other people shocked by how much PvP there is.
I hope i'm on the shocked side.
Nope, you'll be surprised. You and Dygz are at diametrically opposite sides (as I am sure you can see).
While I wouldn't want to try and guess where exactly the game will fall, it is safe to say it will be somewhere between what you think the game will be, and what he thinks the game will be.
If the game was lacking in pvp as you say then I'll be roaming in bulk manufactured gear mercing people as a corrupted player.
I'm not saying the game will be lacking in PvP, just that some people think the game will have more than it actually will - and some other people think it will have less than it will.
Funny thing about these forums - there are people here that are going to be surprised by how little PvP the game has, once it goes live, and there will be other people shocked by how much PvP there is.
I hope i'm on the shocked side.
Nope, you'll be surprised. You and Dygz are at diametrically opposite sides (as I am sure you can see).
While I wouldn't want to try and guess where exactly the game will fall, it is safe to say it will be somewhere between what you think the game will be, and what he thinks the game will be.
If the game was lacking in pvp as you say then I'll be roaming in bulk manufactured gear mercing people as a corrupted player.
I'm not saying the game will be lacking in PvP, just that some people think the game will have more than it actually will - and some other people think it will have less than it will.
Well my point is that if the game "lacks" pvp, people will find ways to make more pvp, even if it comes at more risk.
Funny thing about these forums - there are people here that are going to be surprised by how little PvP the game has, once it goes live, and there will be other people shocked by how much PvP there is.
I hope i'm on the shocked side.
Nope, you'll be surprised. You and Dygz are at diametrically opposite sides (as I am sure you can see).
While I wouldn't want to try and guess where exactly the game will fall, it is safe to say it will be somewhere between what you think the game will be, and what he thinks the game will be.
If the game was lacking in pvp as you say then I'll be roaming in bulk manufactured gear mercing people as a corrupted player.
I'm not saying the game will be lacking in PvP, just that some people think the game will have more than it actually will - and some other people think it will have less than it will.
Well my point is that if the game "lacks" pvp, people will find ways to make more pvp, even if it comes at more risk.
Indeed.
The flip side of that is that if there is too much PvP, people running PvE content will find themselves not ending up with the rewards from it too often. This will simply mean players won't run PvE as often (or will run it in other games).
This is a balancing act that Intrepid need to perform in order to simply make the game function.
Too little PvP and things don't work - too much PvP and things don't work.
Funny thing about these forums - there are people here that are going to be surprised by how little PvP the game has, once it goes live, and there will be other people shocked by how much PvP there is.
I hope i'm on the shocked side.
Nope, you'll be surprised. You and Dygz are at diametrically opposite sides (as I am sure you can see).
While I wouldn't want to try and guess where exactly the game will fall, it is safe to say it will be somewhere between what you think the game will be, and what he thinks the game will be.
If the game was lacking in pvp as you say then I'll be roaming in bulk manufactured gear mercing people as a corrupted player.
I'm not saying the game will be lacking in PvP, just that some people think the game will have more than it actually will - and some other people think it will have less than it will.
Well my point is that if the game "lacks" pvp, people will find ways to make more pvp, even if it comes at more risk.
Indeed.
The flip side of that is that if there is too much PvP, people running PvE content will find themselves not ending up with the rewards from it too often. This will simply mean players won't run PvE as often (or will run it in other games).
This is a balancing act that Intrepid need to perform in order to simply make the game function.
Too little PvP and things don't work - too much PvP and things don't work.
I would disagree only for the fact that all gear progression stems from doing pve as you clearly pointed out to me in my murder pit thread. Meaning they will have to either quit the game or be forced to take the risk to go out and get materials for gear. Sure there might be ways to stay within a safe spot and make profit that can be used to purchase gear, I just don't see it yet.
Basically, I don't believe the game would ever reach a point where the pvp would hamper the pve so much that people wouldnt do pve, as that is the only way to level, progress gear, craft, gather etc. Pvp is glued onto most of these aspects and should be expected.
Funny thing about these forums - there are people here that are going to be surprised by how little PvP the game has, once it goes live, and there will be other people shocked by how much PvP there is.
I hope i'm on the shocked side.
Nope, you'll be surprised. You and Dygz are at diametrically opposite sides (as I am sure you can see).
While I wouldn't want to try and guess where exactly the game will fall, it is safe to say it will be somewhere between what you think the game will be, and what he thinks the game will be.
If the game was lacking in pvp as you say then I'll be roaming in bulk manufactured gear mercing people as a corrupted player.
I'm not saying the game will be lacking in PvP, just that some people think the game will have more than it actually will - and some other people think it will have less than it will.
Well my point is that if the game "lacks" pvp, people will find ways to make more pvp, even if it comes at more risk.
Indeed.
The flip side of that is that if there is too much PvP, people running PvE content will find themselves not ending up with the rewards from it too often. This will simply mean players won't run PvE as often (or will run it in other games).
This is a balancing act that Intrepid need to perform in order to simply make the game function.
Too little PvP and things don't work - too much PvP and things don't work.
I would disagree only for the fact that all gear progression stems from doing pve as you clearly pointed out to me in my murder pit thread. Meaning they will have to either quit the game or be forced to take the risk to go out and get materials for gear. Sure there might be ways to stay within a safe spot and make profit that can be used to purchase gear, I just don't see it yet.
Basically, I don't believe the game would ever reach a point where the pvp would hamper the pve so much that people wouldnt do pve, as that is the only way to level, progress gear, craft, gather etc. Pvp is glued onto most of these aspects and should be expected.
To be clear, I am not saying these people would expect no PvP, just that there is a point where if they are losing the rewards for their efforts too often, they absolutely will stop putting in that effort.
And yes, players in this situation absolutely will quit the game.
If you are a solo harvester and 3 of the last 5 times you went out for an hour or more you came back with nothing other than a repair bill, you are not going to remain a solo harvester in Ashes for long. If it was once, or maybe even twice out of the last 5 times you went out, you could take that - but there is a point where too much PvP will kill the game.
Funny thing about these forums - there are people here that are going to be surprised by how little PvP the game has, once it goes live, and there will be other people shocked by how much PvP there is.
I hope i'm on the shocked side.
Nope, you'll be surprised. You and Dygz are at diametrically opposite sides (as I am sure you can see).
While I wouldn't want to try and guess where exactly the game will fall, it is safe to say it will be somewhere between what you think the game will be, and what he thinks the game will be.
If the game was lacking in pvp as you say then I'll be roaming in bulk manufactured gear mercing people as a corrupted player.
I'm not saying the game will be lacking in PvP, just that some people think the game will have more than it actually will - and some other people think it will have less than it will.
Well my point is that if the game "lacks" pvp, people will find ways to make more pvp, even if it comes at more risk.
Indeed.
The flip side of that is that if there is too much PvP, people running PvE content will find themselves not ending up with the rewards from it too often. This will simply mean players won't run PvE as often (or will run it in other games).
This is a balancing act that Intrepid need to perform in order to simply make the game function.
Too little PvP and things don't work - too much PvP and things don't work.
I would disagree only for the fact that all gear progression stems from doing pve as you clearly pointed out to me in my murder pit thread. Meaning they will have to either quit the game or be forced to take the risk to go out and get materials for gear. Sure there might be ways to stay within a safe spot and make profit that can be used to purchase gear, I just don't see it yet.
Basically, I don't believe the game would ever reach a point where the pvp would hamper the pve so much that people wouldnt do pve, as that is the only way to level, progress gear, craft, gather etc. Pvp is glued onto most of these aspects and should be expected.
To be clear, I am not saying these people would expect no PvP, just that there is a point where if they are losing the rewards for their efforts too often, they absolutely will stop putting in that effort.
And yes, players in this situation absolutely will quit the game.
If you are a solo harvester and 3 of the last 5 times you went out for an hour or more you came back with nothing other than a repair bill, you are not going to remain a solo harvester in Ashes for long. If it was once, or maybe even twice out of the last 5 times you went out, you could take that - but there is a point where too much PvP will kill the game.
Well to be fair, the game is designed around group play, so at that point maybe the solo harvester should guild/group/friend up. Trust me when I say I fully understand the frustration of fishing by myself only to have a bunch of zombie swarming rejects come along and rip me a new one, and unlike ashes I lose *everything* I have. Many times has this happened to me. What did I do? I joined one of the most powerful guilds on the server and now if some gankers come into our zone we mass up and completely ruin their day.
Well to be fair, the game is designed around group play
Correction - PvP is designed around group play.
The game will have solo activities, harvesting is one that Steven has talked about.
Joining a top end guild is not an appropriate answer to this for everyone. If everyone joined guilds, there would still be a guild that is the bottom of the pecking order. No matter who moves around trying to find a better situation, there will always be people at the bottom of that order.
The game needs to function for the people at that bottom in order for it to function for anyone.
Well to be fair, the game is designed around group play
Correction - PvP is designed around group play.
The game will have solo activities, harvesting is one that Steven has talked about.
Joining a top end guild is not an appropriate answer to this for everyone. If everyone joined guilds, there would still be a guild that is the bottom of the pecking order. No matter who moves around trying to find a better situation, there will always be people at the bottom of that order.
The game needs to function for the people at that bottom in order for it to function for anyone.
PvP is not the only thing designed around group play, literally every aspect of the game is. Crafting, raiding, grinding, the economy, etc. The game allows for solo play for sure but should not build around making solo play more accessible. Rather, it should promote group game play. Which I feel it does that more so than it does crapping on solo players. They are making a choice to play alone, and they could also make a choice to join a competent guild that will help them out. My example doesn't have to be the baseline, you just need a group of friends that can protect you and make the experience more enjoyable.
In my opinion, a solo player should be less effective at the game than a group of players. In all aspects.
Well to be fair, the game is designed around group play
Correction - PvP is designed around group play.
The game will have solo activities, harvesting is one that Steven has talked about.
Joining a top end guild is not an appropriate answer to this for everyone. If everyone joined guilds, there would still be a guild that is the bottom of the pecking order. No matter who moves around trying to find a better situation, there will always be people at the bottom of that order.
The game needs to function for the people at that bottom in order for it to function for anyone.
PvP is not the only thing designed around group play, literally every aspect of the game is. Crafting, raiding, grinding, the economy, etc. The game allows for solo play for sure but should not build around making solo play more accessible. Rather, it should promote group game play. Which I feel it does that more so than it does crapping on solo players. They are making a choice to play alone, and they could also make a choice to join a competent guild that will help them out. My example doesn't have to be the baseline, you just need a group of friends that can protect you and make the experience more enjoyable.
Raiding is designed around group play (by definition), but crafting, grinding and the economy (which would include harvesting) are not.
While you do need to interact with others in regards to crafting and the economy, interacting with players is not the same thing as designing content around groups (which is what you suggested). If crafting were designed around group play, you would need multiple people present to craft an item, rather than simply needing materials from other professions to make items.
Designing for interaction is not the same as designing for a group.
Now, there is the obvious need to move materials around to different nodes, which is obviously a group activity. However, it is not required that the crafter, the processor nor the harvester move said materials. All that is required is that they are moved.
In my opinion, a solo player should be less effective at the game than a group of players. In all aspects.
I totally agree, that should be the case in every aspect of the game.
However, your previous point where you said that solo harvester should be expected to get a friend for protection is basically you saying solo gameplay shouldn't exist at all. Needing a friend for protection means you are no longer solo harvesting, and if it is required it means that harvesting basic raw materials is now an organized group activity.
I agree that a solo player should be less effective, but you are basically saying they should have zero effectiveness (not existing = zero effectiveness). This is clearly not ideal.
My point can be summed up as follows; I believe solo harvesters should exist in Ashes, as they are the baseline of solo play. In order for solo harvesters to exist, they need to retain ~70%+ of their harvests, on agragate, over time. If the level of PvP in the game sees them losing more than 30%, they are are unlikely to stay in the game, and this is bad for everyone. Based on this, I expect Intrepid to adjust the dials associated with various forms of PvP to influence player behavior so that the above is somewhat accurate.
Raiding is designed around group play (by definition), but crafting, grinding and the economy (which would include harvesting) are not.
While you do need to interact with others in regards to crafting and the economy, interacting with players is not the same thing as designing content around groups (which is what you suggested). If crafting were designed around group play, you would need multiple people present to craft an item, rather than simply needing materials from other professions to make items.
Designing for interaction is not the same as designing for a group.
Gathering is totally going to be a group activity. Look into spoiling(Another L2 mechanic)
"If you want to be able to get those mats from the boss, they're just not going to drop for anybody. They will only drop for a master gatherer who is capable of extracting those resources from the creature itself... The reason why we say there's a lot of interdependencies between the crafters of the world and the raiders of the world and our PvPers of the world is because we don't want to house the capability to attain these things all within the adventuring class. We want there to be an influence necessary from the craftsmen's guild to come in to either come and participate and spoil the boss and gather the goods or something along those lines."– Steven Sharif
My point can be summed up as follows; I believe solo harvesters should exist in Ashes, as they are the baseline of solo play. In order for solo harvesters to exist, they need to retain ~70%+ of their harvests, on agragate, over time. If the level of PvP in the game sees them losing more than 30%, they are are unlikely to stay in the game, and this is bad for everyone. Based on this, I expect Intrepid to adjust the dials associated with various forms of PvP to influence player behavior so that the above is somewhat accurate.
I don't think end-game harvesters will be safe alone. There might be people who can no-life low to mid level nodes, and be safe because its not worth flagging to prevent them from gathering. I do think that anyone gathering anything with a higher value and long respawn counter will need to be able to hold their own in PvP and have an escort. Which is great because that promotes group play and socialization.
Gathering is totally going to be a group activity. Look into spoiling(Another L2 mechanic)
"If you want to be able to get those mats from the boss, they're just not going to drop for anybody. They will only drop for a master gatherer who is capable of extracting those resources from the creature itself... The reason why we say there's a lot of interdependencies between the crafters of the world and the raiders of the world and our PvPers of the world is because we don't want to house the capability to attain these things all within the adventuring class. We want there to be an influence necessary from the craftsmen's guild to come in to either come and participate and spoil the boss and gather the goods or something along those lines."– Steven Sharif
This isn't harvesting, this is taking on PvE content that drops specific raw materials that are then combined with regular harvested materials to make items. While it may use harvesting skills, it is not actual harvesting.
I don't think end-game harvesters will be safe alone. There might be people who can no-life low to mid level nodes, and be safe because its not worth flagging to prevent them from gathering. I do think that anyone gathering anything with a higher value and long respawn counter will need to be able to hold their own in PvP and have an escort. Which is great because that promotes group play and socialization.
If there are rare harvested resource types, I totally agree. If these exist, they will be of a significantly higher value, and thus will be more highly contested.
However, such resources existing in this specific manner is - at this point - an assumption. We have no real way of knowing how rare harvested materials (as opposed to rare dropped materials) will work
Right now, one thing we do know for sure is that a good number of resources will be used at all levels of crafting, rather than simply being relegated to lower level irrelevance.
Once the game is live, this is likely to be things like wood or iron - basic things that are used as the foundation for other things.
It is highly likely that in order to make use of that one drop from that PvE content that you were talking about above, a player making a piece of armor from it would also need something like 200 generic iron to go along with that single dropped material. That would be the same iron that is used to make a level 3 sword - just that the low level item would use much less of it.
That iron is the material that most solo harvesters will be going after, along with other similar level agnostic materials.
If a solo harvester does stumble upon some rare materials (which itself is assuming they exist), and they opt to stand there harvesting them for a bit, it is on them if they are killed, and they have no one to complain to. They took an additional risk, and would have had to have known it was an additional risk. That additional risk didn't pay off.
However, that same player, when out harvesting those basic materials above rather than the rare materials, that is when they need to know they are going to bring in most of what they harvest.
This isn't harvesting, this is taking on PvE content that drops specific raw materials that are then combined with regular harvested materials to make items. While it may use harvesting skills, it is not actual harvesting.
I count it because it requires high level gatherers to harvest the full loot potential of the mobs.
If there are rare harvested resource types, I totally agree. If these exist, they will be of a significantly higher value, and thus will be more highly contested.
However, such resources existing in this specific manner is - at this point - an assumption. We have no real way of knowing how rare harvested materials (as opposed to rare dropped materials) will work
Right now, one thing we do know for sure is that a good number of resources will be used at all levels of crafting, rather than simply being relegated to lower level irrelevance.
Mostly agree, there was some speculation there on my part. I just learned that resources in the open world will not be tied to the node system. Nearly everything is, but I guess it makes sense that the natural world wont change. I just thought it gave access to mines or something.
Once the game is live, this is likely to be things like wood or iron - basic things that are used as the foundation for other things.
It is highly likely that in order to make use of that one drop from that PvE content that you were talking about above, a player making a piece of armor from it would also need something like 200 generic iron to go along with that single dropped material. That would be the same iron that is used to make a level 3 sword - just that the low level item would use much less of it.
That iron is the material that most solo harvesters will be going after, along with other similar level agnostic materials.
Yeah that's basically SWG/L2, which is something I am excited about. It was also a key point in my over enchanting thread. (We need stuff like this to keep the economy going, otherwise it stagnates like WOW/FFXIV/ESO.)
If a solo harvester does stumble upon some rare materials (which itself is assuming they exist), and they opt to stand there harvesting them for a bit, it is on them if they are killed, and they have no one to complain to. They took an additional risk, and would have had to have known it was an additional risk. That additional risk didn't pay off.
However, that same player, when out harvesting those basic materials above rather than the rare materials, that is when they need to know they are going to bring in most of what they harvest.
[/quote]
We do know they exist, they will even be mobs themselves or defended by mobs.
"Some unique resources may be monsters in disguise or have monsters defending them"
Steven described it as going to harvest a flower and it turning out to be a monster.
I am still not seeing an argument where solo play of any kind is really going to be worth while. They seem to be designing the game in a way where solo play would be exceedingly harsh. Which is something I am happy for.
I count it because it requires high level gatherers to harvest the full loot potential of the mobs.
But it is quite obviously not the harvesting we are talking about here. No one is suggesting that solo players should be able to go around and kill boss mobs to gather the materials they drop - and bringing that in to the discussion is just odd.
Yeah that's basically SWG/L2, which is something I am excited about. It was also a key point in my over enchanting thread. (We need stuff like this to keep the economy going, otherwise it stagnates like WOW/FFXIV/ESO.)
It is perhaps worth pointing out that - as with your enchanting thread - what Steven has said in regards to materials in Ashes fits in exactly with what Archeage did.
We do know they exist, they will even be mobs themselves or defended by mobs.
We know some more unique materials will exist.
What we don't know is what form they will take - will they be resources that a player is able to harvest as per regular harvested materials, or will they always require killing a mob of some sort. We don't know if these materials will spawn in dungeons (meaning groups are necessary to get to them, which means they are not applicable to our discussion here). We don't know if these resources will have a chance to spawn randomly within a cluster of more common resource nodes.
The point I was making is that we simply don't know what form rarer resources will spawn in the game.
I am still not seeing an argument where solo play of any kind is really going to be worth while. They seem to be designing the game in a way where solo play would be exceedingly harsh. Which is something I am happy for.
I mean, this may well be true. Thing is, the point I am making in relation to there being less PvP than some think (and more PvP than some others think) is not solely a case of solo play - it applies to all levels of the game. The solo example was used as it is the easiest to discuss.
As another example, if the game has so much PvP that guilds are unable to do what the players in those guilds want to do, then those guilds are not likely to last long. If every time you and your group of friends try to go to a dungeon you are beset by PvP that always distracts you from your actual goal, you are going to get pissed at the game eventually.
In this regard, it is similar to how too many daily quests/tasks can ruin a game by taking up all your time. The difference is, when it is PvP, you don't have the choice to opt out.
These things aren't issues in games like L2, because that is a PvP game. Ashes isn't, it is PvX. As such, players should rightly expect to be able to do the PvE portion of that PvX at times.
Again, this is not to say there shouldn't be PvP, and that those players shouldn't be subject to PvP - it is simply saying Intrepid have a balancing act on their hands to make it all work, and people at either extreme of the PvP/PvE spectrum will clearly not get the game they think Ashes will be.
That last point should go without saying, to be honest.
But it is quite obviously not the harvesting we are talking about here. No one is suggesting that solo players should be able to go around and kill boss mobs to gather the materials they drop - and bringing that in to the discussion is just odd.
I thought we were talking about activities that gatherers will be reasonably expected to do in general.
It is perhaps worth pointing out that - as with your enchanting thread - what Steven has said in regards to materials in Ashes fits in exactly with what Archeage did.
I have played a lot of L2, and much less ArcheAge. AA shared L2 Devs, and seemed to mess up a lot of things about the economy that worked so well in L2. I wanted to play AA, but the P2W made me not want to get invested in it. AOC specifically sounds more like L2 to me, but that could just be me not caring about AA.
What we don't know is what form they will take - will they be resources that a player is able to harvest as per regular harvested materials, or will they always require killing a mob of some sort. We don't know if these materials will spawn in dungeons (meaning groups are necessary to get to them, which means they are not applicable to our discussion here). We don't know if these resources will have a chance to spawn randomly within a cluster of more common resource nodes.
I think its all of the above. Check out the gathering page on the Wiki. It's like everything you just said and more.
I mean, this may well be true. Thing is, the point I am making in relation to there being less PvP than some think (and more PvP than some others think) is not solely a case of solo play - it applies to all levels of the game. The solo example was used as it is the easiest to discuss.
As another example, if the game has so much PvP that guilds are unable to do what the players in those guilds want to do, then those guilds are not likely to last long. If every time you and your group of friends try to go to a dungeon you are beset by PvP that always distracts you from your actual goal, you are going to get pissed at the game eventually.
In this regard, it is similar to how too many daily quests/tasks can ruin a game by taking up all your time. The difference is, when it is PvP, you don't have the choice to opt out.
I think that is very likely to be common. There might be some people bouncing from guild to guild at the start trying to get settled into a successful group. I would wager that the best way to play AOC is just to be a well rounded player. Have a craft, be able to hold your own in PvP and PvE. Be understanding that the game is going to be ever changing, and you may loose or gain access to certain activities due to the node system. I don't think the game is going to be extremely accommodating when everything is in constant flux. It just has to be something that the player base excepts as a part of the node system. A once relatively peaceful zone may become a warzone over night.
These things aren't issues in games like L2, because that is a PvP game. Ashes isn't, it is PvX. As such, players should rightly expect to be able to do the PvE portion of that PvX at times.
Again, this is not to say there shouldn't be PvP, and that those players shouldn't be subject to PvP - it is simply saying Intrepid have a balancing act on their hands to make it all work, and people at either extreme of the PvP/PvE spectrum will clearly not get the game they think Ashes will be.
That last point should go without saying, to be honest.
I am not sure L2 ever actually called itself a PvP game. I think it got that title through reputation alone. I would bet the DEVs just created the karma system because Ultima Online's open world PvP was pure anarchy. L2 could be considered PvX too. Ultima Online was not trying to be a PvP game, they had some crazy RP systems like a simulated ecosystem at the start of the game.
The reason why I keep saying AoC will lean to the PvP sandbox side of the spectrum, is because all of the systems they have confirmed share DNA with with games that are now considered to be PvP sandbox games. I don't think many of the MMOs that are considered to be PvP MMOs started out with that goal. Otherwise they could have saved a lot of time and energy making a match based game. To me AOC looks like it is on the path to becoming the best PvP sandbox of my life.
Comments
I agree, I just don't get the feeling that a lot of the people who think they can only PvE understand that death is literally lurking at every corner of the map.
Right, and I am skeptical about that. EVE states that it is a "PvP and PvP game". Unless your grand plan is to grind in high sec for your entire existence. EVE is a PvP game, both on in the stars and on the markets.
My problem is that we are arguing about the degree to how much a average player can expect to deal with PvP. I am saying it is gonna be a lot more than some people think. The idea that you can avoid PvP entirely is the false expectation I am talking about. You might be able to avoid it for hours to days at a time, but if you are doing anything that results in a reward that is valuable. People will flag to prevent you from getting it before they get it.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
Let me clarify a little. I think we'll get all types in the first few months of the game, when it's shiny and new. I think it will primarily be the PvE-only players that will leave after a while. The initial rush to build the world and explore the new stuff will slow, and the more long-term node and guild wars, and territory control stuff will increase, because that is the over-arching endgame of AOC. Within that, players can focus on their own things, like crafting and such, that are PvE content, but for the PvE-only players who mostly like instanced dungeons and such, they will probably move on from AOC.
Probably not no
I guess people will just have to explain their version of it, every time they mention the word "griefing".
Lol I suppose you can argue that P2W = a game company griefing its players for profit.
Gank = PK = Killing another player. This is usually a one sided or lopsided encounter where the ganker has a distinct advantage and kills an unsuspecting person but not always. If I go out with the intention of PvPing and I'm say jumped by 3 stealthers and taken out in 2 secs, I could consider myself "ganked".
Griefing on the other hand is any act that prevents the player being griefed from forward progression in the game. If a player is kept from playing the game specifically by another player's premeditated act, that's griefing. This could range from spawn/graveyard camping to repeatedly killing the same person trying to farm an area or it could be as simple as preventing access to a dungeon by blocking it.
Now in my initial example about the 3 stealthers, if this group of 3 continued to target and gank me every time I stepped out onto the field, that's griefing.
In some games a certain level of griefing is acceptable. If my goal is to say, get into a keep so I can help defend it but the opposition doesn't want that to happen, I could be killed repeatedly and by the same person/group. This does prevent my personal progression BUT is part of the meta for how the game functions so should not be considered intentional.
....A pvx game is both a pvp game and a pve game. pvp and pve are not mutually exclusive.
Being attacked by another player in a pvx game isn't griefing as it's part of the game, that is why it's allow.
I think even this is a bit of a thin outlook for the game progression. While I agree with the general sense that a lot of the end game content will revolve around guilds waring, sieging etc the depth at which intrepid seems to be developing other systems in the game I think will offer people a lot of reprieve from content out of their interest.
In addition to this I really believe there has been an entire generation of MMO players who've yet to experience true open world conflict and political play. I find it hard to believe that once shown the light they would abandon the game entirely. In all likelihood they may fall in love with the game play and figure out some playstyle that gives them enjoyment. Keep in mind that you can avoid all sieges, guild wars, territory control etc. While they may become impacted by this it ultimately could just result in migration patterns around the map as wars and conflict pushes and pulls people in different directions.
I could be very wrong of course but the game has many systems that I've got very little interest in, I'm not a gatherer, crafter or shop owner etc by historical game play but there is a chance I will find something in the game I enjoy that I've yet to enjoy from past games. While it's unlikely it would over take my core game play if it became 10% of my overall time in game, I can only figure it could work the same way from the opposite perspective as well.
If the developers give the PvP crowd enough outlets to fight each other without having to engage the entire population and disrupt passive game play it seems reasonable to consider the two could co-exist. For instance when the "end game" model you describe above kicks in it would seem reasonable most of us PvPers will be off doing that stuff which would then leave a lot of the early game conflict by forced interaction at a smaller percentage of having to exists in such proximities to continue. What I mean by this simply is if I'm occupied with sieges, guild wars, territory fights it would put less emphasis on my interest to fight over dungeons, raid zones etc etc.
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
I hope i'm on the shocked side.
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
Steven doesnt have to say it for it to be true. To progress optimally in this game you will be exposed to pvp. That is why it's called PvX. But hey, if you want to take extremely round about, time consuming, and less profitable tactics be my guest. More money for me.
Having played Shadowbane long ago, I can say that the more people and guilds gain, the more they have to lose, and the more risk averse they will become. In games like WoW, "poking the bear" can be the spark to epic battles. But in a game where someone raiding another guild's small town could potentially spark a war that causes the loss/destruction of nodes and resources other guildies spent large amounts of time and effort on, "poking the bear" willy-nilly can get you kicked out of your own guild. The ability to cooperate and work together in a group will matter more than pure individual skill. And there will likely be lots of room for people who wish to concentrate on things other than combat.
Sure, PvP will always be a possibility, but I doubt it will be a guarantee. And people running around randomly killing folks will probably not be looked upon too kindly within civilized areas.
Why would other players help and support them? Many reasons may emerge. PvE will be what holds up the economy of a Node, and what keeps a Node ahead of it's neighbours. The more PvE, the more resources on the local market, which means cheaper and better equipment and repairs for PvP players, which means a better equipped population if a neighbouring Node decides to attack. When a neighbouring Node does attack, a war may heavily drain resources, and some players may be needed to continually PvE behind the scenes to keep their side maintained and funded. It will likely be in the best interests of each Node population to work together and not ostracise or prey on one another, because each setback for one player or guild will trickle down to effect the economy of the Node as a whole. This may inspire many Nodes to build up a sense of community, rather than an "every man/guild for themselves" mentality.
PvE only players will adapt to ensure they aren't losing what they earn. They may deploy scouts to ensure they can avoid hostile players before they are even detected. They may set up a freehold near their favourite harvesting spots for additional safety. They may hire the services of PvP players to protect them and deter aggressors (or simply use their scouts to alert nearby PvPers seeking aggressors to hunt down). They may seek out the most obscure harvesting locations and keep them secret. If players don't want to fight, they won't be perpetually forced into PvP, they will simply adapt and will find new ways to avoid fighting, and those Nodes that offer them the best security to play the game the way they want might even become the economic powerhouses on the map as a result.
As for the Caravans, what is the benefit of defending them?
For one thing, reputation. Steal those goods and word will get around. In EVE Online, there are entire guilds/corporations that have made a business out of transporting goods safely from one location to another for random people, and they'd never even get off the ground if word got out that they betrayed their customers.
For another thing, the sender of the Caravan might be avoiding PvP, but there's also a receiver at the other end of that Caravan in the next Node waiting for that shipment who may not be as adverse to hunting you down and making your life a misery, possibly even rallying his Node behind him. Plus, there's nothing stopping the sender hiring his own mercs to hunt you down as well (many players will jump at any excuse to justify PvP). Half the fun of these kinds of MMO's are the bigger consequences of how things can snowball out of control, never knowing what small actions can cascade into either huge benefits or massive misfortunes down the line.
Nope, you'll be surprised. You and Dygz are at diametrically opposite sides (as I am sure you can see).
While I wouldn't want to try and guess where exactly the game will fall, it is safe to say it will be somewhere between what you think the game will be, and what he thinks the game will be.
If the game was lacking in pvp as you say then I'll be roaming in bulk manufactured gear mercing people as a corrupted player.
I'm not saying the game will be lacking in PvP, just that some people think the game will have more than it actually will - and some other people think it will have less than it will.
Well my point is that if the game "lacks" pvp, people will find ways to make more pvp, even if it comes at more risk.
Indeed.
The flip side of that is that if there is too much PvP, people running PvE content will find themselves not ending up with the rewards from it too often. This will simply mean players won't run PvE as often (or will run it in other games).
This is a balancing act that Intrepid need to perform in order to simply make the game function.
Too little PvP and things don't work - too much PvP and things don't work.
I would disagree only for the fact that all gear progression stems from doing pve as you clearly pointed out to me in my murder pit thread. Meaning they will have to either quit the game or be forced to take the risk to go out and get materials for gear. Sure there might be ways to stay within a safe spot and make profit that can be used to purchase gear, I just don't see it yet.
Basically, I don't believe the game would ever reach a point where the pvp would hamper the pve so much that people wouldnt do pve, as that is the only way to level, progress gear, craft, gather etc. Pvp is glued onto most of these aspects and should be expected.
To be clear, I am not saying these people would expect no PvP, just that there is a point where if they are losing the rewards for their efforts too often, they absolutely will stop putting in that effort.
And yes, players in this situation absolutely will quit the game.
If you are a solo harvester and 3 of the last 5 times you went out for an hour or more you came back with nothing other than a repair bill, you are not going to remain a solo harvester in Ashes for long. If it was once, or maybe even twice out of the last 5 times you went out, you could take that - but there is a point where too much PvP will kill the game.
Well to be fair, the game is designed around group play, so at that point maybe the solo harvester should guild/group/friend up. Trust me when I say I fully understand the frustration of fishing by myself only to have a bunch of zombie swarming rejects come along and rip me a new one, and unlike ashes I lose *everything* I have. Many times has this happened to me. What did I do? I joined one of the most powerful guilds on the server and now if some gankers come into our zone we mass up and completely ruin their day.
The game will have solo activities, harvesting is one that Steven has talked about.
Joining a top end guild is not an appropriate answer to this for everyone. If everyone joined guilds, there would still be a guild that is the bottom of the pecking order. No matter who moves around trying to find a better situation, there will always be people at the bottom of that order.
The game needs to function for the people at that bottom in order for it to function for anyone.
PvP is not the only thing designed around group play, literally every aspect of the game is. Crafting, raiding, grinding, the economy, etc. The game allows for solo play for sure but should not build around making solo play more accessible. Rather, it should promote group game play. Which I feel it does that more so than it does crapping on solo players. They are making a choice to play alone, and they could also make a choice to join a competent guild that will help them out. My example doesn't have to be the baseline, you just need a group of friends that can protect you and make the experience more enjoyable.
In my opinion, a solo player should be less effective at the game than a group of players. In all aspects.
Raiding is designed around group play (by definition), but crafting, grinding and the economy (which would include harvesting) are not.
While you do need to interact with others in regards to crafting and the economy, interacting with players is not the same thing as designing content around groups (which is what you suggested). If crafting were designed around group play, you would need multiple people present to craft an item, rather than simply needing materials from other professions to make items.
Designing for interaction is not the same as designing for a group.
Now, there is the obvious need to move materials around to different nodes, which is obviously a group activity. However, it is not required that the crafter, the processor nor the harvester move said materials. All that is required is that they are moved.
I totally agree, that should be the case in every aspect of the game.
However, your previous point where you said that solo harvester should be expected to get a friend for protection is basically you saying solo gameplay shouldn't exist at all. Needing a friend for protection means you are no longer solo harvesting, and if it is required it means that harvesting basic raw materials is now an organized group activity.
I agree that a solo player should be less effective, but you are basically saying they should have zero effectiveness (not existing = zero effectiveness). This is clearly not ideal.
My point can be summed up as follows; I believe solo harvesters should exist in Ashes, as they are the baseline of solo play. In order for solo harvesters to exist, they need to retain ~70%+ of their harvests, on agragate, over time. If the level of PvP in the game sees them losing more than 30%, they are are unlikely to stay in the game, and this is bad for everyone. Based on this, I expect Intrepid to adjust the dials associated with various forms of PvP to influence player behavior so that the above is somewhat accurate.
Gathering is totally going to be a group activity. Look into spoiling(Another L2 mechanic)
"If you want to be able to get those mats from the boss, they're just not going to drop for anybody. They will only drop for a master gatherer who is capable of extracting those resources from the creature itself... The reason why we say there's a lot of interdependencies between the crafters of the world and the raiders of the world and our PvPers of the world is because we don't want to house the capability to attain these things all within the adventuring class. We want there to be an influence necessary from the craftsmen's guild to come in to either come and participate and spoil the boss and gather the goods or something along those lines."– Steven Sharif
I don't think end-game harvesters will be safe alone. There might be people who can no-life low to mid level nodes, and be safe because its not worth flagging to prevent them from gathering. I do think that anyone gathering anything with a higher value and long respawn counter will need to be able to hold their own in PvP and have an escort. Which is great because that promotes group play and socialization.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
However, such resources existing in this specific manner is - at this point - an assumption. We have no real way of knowing how rare harvested materials (as opposed to rare dropped materials) will work
Right now, one thing we do know for sure is that a good number of resources will be used at all levels of crafting, rather than simply being relegated to lower level irrelevance.
Once the game is live, this is likely to be things like wood or iron - basic things that are used as the foundation for other things.
It is highly likely that in order to make use of that one drop from that PvE content that you were talking about above, a player making a piece of armor from it would also need something like 200 generic iron to go along with that single dropped material. That would be the same iron that is used to make a level 3 sword - just that the low level item would use much less of it.
That iron is the material that most solo harvesters will be going after, along with other similar level agnostic materials.
If a solo harvester does stumble upon some rare materials (which itself is assuming they exist), and they opt to stand there harvesting them for a bit, it is on them if they are killed, and they have no one to complain to. They took an additional risk, and would have had to have known it was an additional risk. That additional risk didn't pay off.
However, that same player, when out harvesting those basic materials above rather than the rare materials, that is when they need to know they are going to bring in most of what they harvest.
I count it because it requires high level gatherers to harvest the full loot potential of the mobs.
Mostly agree, there was some speculation there on my part. I just learned that resources in the open world will not be tied to the node system. Nearly everything is, but I guess it makes sense that the natural world wont change. I just thought it gave access to mines or something.
Yeah that's basically SWG/L2, which is something I am excited about. It was also a key point in my over enchanting thread. (We need stuff like this to keep the economy going, otherwise it stagnates like WOW/FFXIV/ESO.)
[/quote]
We do know they exist, they will even be mobs themselves or defended by mobs.
"Some unique resources may be monsters in disguise or have monsters defending them"
Steven described it as going to harvest a flower and it turning out to be a monster.
I am still not seeing an argument where solo play of any kind is really going to be worth while. They seem to be designing the game in a way where solo play would be exceedingly harsh. Which is something I am happy for.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
It is perhaps worth pointing out that - as with your enchanting thread - what Steven has said in regards to materials in Ashes fits in exactly with what Archeage did. We know some more unique materials will exist.
What we don't know is what form they will take - will they be resources that a player is able to harvest as per regular harvested materials, or will they always require killing a mob of some sort. We don't know if these materials will spawn in dungeons (meaning groups are necessary to get to them, which means they are not applicable to our discussion here). We don't know if these resources will have a chance to spawn randomly within a cluster of more common resource nodes.
The point I was making is that we simply don't know what form rarer resources will spawn in the game. I mean, this may well be true. Thing is, the point I am making in relation to there being less PvP than some think (and more PvP than some others think) is not solely a case of solo play - it applies to all levels of the game. The solo example was used as it is the easiest to discuss.
As another example, if the game has so much PvP that guilds are unable to do what the players in those guilds want to do, then those guilds are not likely to last long. If every time you and your group of friends try to go to a dungeon you are beset by PvP that always distracts you from your actual goal, you are going to get pissed at the game eventually.
In this regard, it is similar to how too many daily quests/tasks can ruin a game by taking up all your time. The difference is, when it is PvP, you don't have the choice to opt out.
These things aren't issues in games like L2, because that is a PvP game. Ashes isn't, it is PvX. As such, players should rightly expect to be able to do the PvE portion of that PvX at times.
Again, this is not to say there shouldn't be PvP, and that those players shouldn't be subject to PvP - it is simply saying Intrepid have a balancing act on their hands to make it all work, and people at either extreme of the PvP/PvE spectrum will clearly not get the game they think Ashes will be.
That last point should go without saying, to be honest.
I think that is very likely to be common. There might be some people bouncing from guild to guild at the start trying to get settled into a successful group. I would wager that the best way to play AOC is just to be a well rounded player. Have a craft, be able to hold your own in PvP and PvE. Be understanding that the game is going to be ever changing, and you may loose or gain access to certain activities due to the node system. I don't think the game is going to be extremely accommodating when everything is in constant flux. It just has to be something that the player base excepts as a part of the node system. A once relatively peaceful zone may become a warzone over night.
I am not sure L2 ever actually called itself a PvP game. I think it got that title through reputation alone. I would bet the DEVs just created the karma system because Ultima Online's open world PvP was pure anarchy. L2 could be considered PvX too. Ultima Online was not trying to be a PvP game, they had some crazy RP systems like a simulated ecosystem at the start of the game.
The reason why I keep saying AoC will lean to the PvP sandbox side of the spectrum, is because all of the systems they have confirmed share DNA with with games that are now considered to be PvP sandbox games. I don't think many of the MMOs that are considered to be PvP MMOs started out with that goal. Otherwise they could have saved a lot of time and energy making a match based game. To me AOC looks like it is on the path to becoming the best PvP sandbox of my life.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.