Personally, I don't have very high expectations for this game. I signed up to be sent an update on when this game is coming out to give it a try, even though the model they are following is not looking good.
''Experience an MMORPG where everything is permanently impactedby your actions – explore, trade, build, and let the world take form''
This language is commonly used in games that offer little to no content. Survival games, sand box games...whatever they're called, games based on little content...while there is a big focus on PVP. This game is even inventing some new ''category'' PVX you can read in this forums...which is like keep on adding on nonsense. The only games that are truly popular and have survived ''the test of time'' are Final Fantasy, Elder Scrolls Online, World of Warfcraft...and all those game have certain things in common. Imense PVE content, adding continuously new PVE content, a lot of group play, community...anything else is a recipe for empty servers within a couple of months just like New World...and all the rest.
If I were you, I'd prioritize my time based on my interests.
Personally, I don't have very high expectations for this game. I signed up to be sent an update on when this game is coming out to give it a try, even though the model they are following is not looking good.
''Experience an MMORPG where everything is permanently impactedby your actions – explore, trade, build, and let the world take form''
This language is commonly used in games that offer little to no content. Survival games, sand box games...whatever they're called, games based on little content...while there is a big focus on PVP. This game is even inventing some new ''category'' PVX you can read in this forums...which is like keep on adding on nonsense. The only games that are truly popular and have survived ''the test of time'' are Final Fantasy, Elder Scrolls Online, World of Warfcraft...and all those game have certain things in common. Imense PVE content, adding continuously new PVE content, a lot of group play, community...anything else is a recipe for empty servers within a couple of months just like New World...and all the rest.
You are not wrong at all with basically any of this.
PvP/PvX/sandbox games have so far been little more than an excuse for developers to just not give players content, but rather have players be each others content.
This is why there are no long term PvP MMO's with healthy populations (other than EVE, which is very much it's own thing).
I have been on these forums for many years, I have the post count to back that up.
In that time, my biggest over all message is simply that in order for Ashes to meet it's potential as a PvX game, it needs to have a PvE game that will see players with a preference for PvE come to this game rather than playing games that are exclusively PvE.
The game needs these players to PvE in order for there to be something for PvP players to PvP over. Without these primarily PvE players, Ashes will simply b e another one of a long line of short lived games that amount to little more than a PvP player circle jerk (on that note, you'll have to excuse George above me here - he wants this game to be a PvP only circle jerk).
Based on what I have seen from Steven, it is my belief that he agrees with the above general statement that the game needs to compete with PvE exclusive games in order to meet it's full potential.
This language is commonly used in games that offer little to no content. Survival games, sand box games...whatever they're called, games based on little content...while there is a big focus on PVP. This game is even inventing some new ''category'' PVX you can read in this forums...which is like keep on adding on nonsense. The only games that are truly popular and have survived ''the test of time'' are Final Fantasy, Elder Scrolls Online, World of Warfcraft...and all those game have certain things in common. Imense PVE content, adding continuously new PVE content, a lot of group play, community...anything else is a recipe for empty servers within a couple of months just like New World...and all the rest.
And yet there's countless Lineage 2 private servers, with at least a few hundred to a few thousand players on each, playing 2007-2010 versions of the game. And they play it because they enjoy the pvp and the community.
Oh and L2 is a pvx game, so Intrepid ain't inventing anything new there. It's just that L2's pve is kinda trash, but pretty much anything you do in L2 is tied to pve, and usually to do that pve you gotta go through pvp, hence PvX.
Now obviously those player numbers are not WoW/FF14-sized, but L2 is also a game from 2003 and is very very grindy so of course not that many people would want to play it. Ashes aims to have no grind (I'll believe that when I see that) and have a ton of casual-friendly stuff in the game, so I'd assume it'll have a few hundred thousand players, which in theory should be enough to sustain future development.
But if the idea of a community-based/led game is not interesting to you, I'd suggest waiting a few months after the release and seeing if by that point the game is still alive and whether it has something to offer you outside of purely community gameplay.
And yet there's countless Lineage 2 private servers, with at least a few hundred to a few thousand players on each, playing 2007-2010 versions of the game.
You say this as if it is a good thing, or a thing for a company to strive for.
Look at the original EQ. It came out four years before L2. It has a grind that makes L2 look like a childrens game. People play it on the companies servers. It is still getting expansions every year. It has a player count in the high five to low six figure range. Yet, despite this, it isn't even considered one of the major success stories of PvE MMO's.
But sure, lets look for private servers with three digit populations, running 12 - 15 year old content as being a mark of success.
You literally just listed the hallmark of a failed game and called it a success.
There are aspects of L2 that Intrepid would do well to capture. It's over all Western popularity and longevity (or lack thereof) are not among those things.
That is why Intrepid are placing more of a focus on PvE than L2 ever had - numbers don't lie, and PvE sells 10 times more than PvP in terms of MMO's in NA/EU.
You say this as if it is a good thing, or a thing for a company to strive for.
Nah, it was just an example of a pvx game based around purely community interaction that's still played even w/o any new content. I'm not saying it's successful, just saying that these kinds of games are viable too (with EVE being another example).
I haven't played EQ and haven't really researched anything about it. Has it changed a lot through its existence? Cause L2 died exactly because NCsoft not only disregarded their core playerbase by implementing a shitton of changes that people disliked, which led to "classic" private servers. And even when they implemented their own classic servers, they changed so much stuff in it and added a fucking autofarming function.
I'm assuming EQ didn't do any of that, which is why it's still as successful as it is.
I haven't played EQ and haven't really researched anything about it. Has it changed a lot through its existence?
Yes it has.
One prime example of change that the game went through was inventing and thus implementing the concept of instances in MMORPG's - several years after the game launched.
The reason the game still has a loyal player base after 25 years is simply because the game always has good PvE content - that is probably the only aspect of the game that has never changed.
Interestingly, the same can be said of EQ2. While the game is only 18 years old at this point, it too has a following that is significantly higher than any PvP based MMO from the entire decade that the game was released (with the potential exception of EVE).
EQ2 is another game that has changed a lot over the years - but has also stuck to the paradigm of always having good PvE content - and as such has always kept it's servers online, and always produced a full, paid expansion every year.
Again, numbers don't lie. PvE keeps MMORPG's active (EQ, EQ2, WoW, Rift, Aion, GW, GW2, ESO, FFXIV, LotRO, DDO, STO). A number of these games have no business even being live still - yet all are still turning a profit. PvP kills MMORPG's (L2, DAoC, Wildstar, Tera, WAR). Some actual good games in there, but PvP kills.
Obviously there are some exceptions to the above, EVE is still going strong as a PvP game, and while it had PvP, Age of Conan was a PvE focused game that failed somewhat.
However, if anyone were looking for a generalization, it is fairly easy to find.
Now, a lot of people on these forums are more interested in PvP than PvE. That's great, good for all of you guys.
One thing I assume we all have in common with each other though, is that we want Ashes to have a good long life - at least a decade of the servers being live - and not being a joke like Archeage currently is.
To anyone that actually wants this, all it takes is a simple look back at the genre from it's inception in the 1990's, a look at the longevity of each entry in said genre, a look at the content types of each game, and the conclusion is really obvious.
In order for any MMO to last a decade and not be a joke, it needs to have solid PvE. Sure, build PvP on top of that - the corruption system, sieges, wars - that's all great stuff. However, those things need to be layered on top of a PvE game that compared to contemporary PvE games.
Basically, all that PvP stuff that the PvP players want needs to be built on top of a PvE game - not built in place of a PvE game.
In order for any MMO to last a decade and not be a joke, it needs to have solid PvE. Sure, build PvP on top of that - the corruption system, sieges, wars - that's all great stuff. However, those things need to be layered on top of a PvE game that compared to contemporary PvE games.
Basically, all that PvP stuff that the PvP players want needs to be built on top of a PvE game - not built in place of a PvE game.
I definitely agree, but I see one super obvious problem in Ashes case. Most of its pve will be done through/after/before pvp. And no matter how good that pve is, if all the pvers hate pvp so much that they're ready to leave the game - they'll leave Ashes. L2's epic boss rooms were a semi-instance (the doors to them would open for some period of time and anyone could come in, but, once they closed, those who were inside had to beat the boss. If they wiped completely, the doors would open up again a bit later) and the game still died, as you said (though I do believe it wasn't due to pvp, but that's beside the point).
And from what I've seen AoC's bosses won't even have that kind of semi-instance (unless it gets added, which I think it might), so it'll be even harder to farm/defend them. And if we look at the successful examples you gave, all of them (afaik) let their players to just pve to their heart's content.
In other words, unless Intrepid completely change their core designs, Ashes won't survive for 10 years.
And no matter how good that pve is, if all the pvers hate pvp so much that they're ready to leave the game
This part isnt quite true.
In my experience, most PvE players are generally accepting of PvP. They will not play a game for PvP, but if the best PvE game requires some PvP, that's all good.
The thing is, that PvE needs to be the best there is.
The L2 bosses you talk about - sure, they existed, but they weren't fun content. You would do them because that is how you get better gear, not because they were enjoyable.
Good PvE sees players running the content for the pure enjoyment of the content.
As to your comment about instances in Ashes - Steven has specifically said that he views instancing as a tool to limit player numbers, and that using this tool to set a specific challenge for players is a valid use of instancing as a tool.
The game is set to have up to 20% of its content instanced. That is enough, if it is used well.
In my experience, most PvE players are generally accepting of PvP. They will not play a game for PvP, but if the best PvE game requires some PvP, that's all good.
And I hope Ashes manages to appeal to all of those people.
As to your comment about instances in Ashes - Steven has specifically said that he views instancing as a tool to limit player numbers, and that using this tool to set a specific challenge for players is a valid use of instancing as a tool.
The game is set to have up to 20% of its content instanced. That is enough, if it is used well.
And they also said that those 20% would probably be mainly story-related. And even outside of story-based instances, they won't be repeatable nor would they give BiS gear, so most wow/ff14 players would find themselves fighting other people for their gear. And afaik WoW went away from open world bosses exactly because they were too difficult to farm on pvp servers. And considering Steven's promises of "only 1% of players will be able to clear some content", I'd assume the pvp would only make that content near-impossible.
Now I'm wrong and Intrepid manages to make a game that appeals to both sides of the pvx spectrum and a ton of people play the game and we all live happily ever after, but just as you said, pvp mmos usually die. And they die quite fast.
I haven't read up on Wildstar, but from what I've heard it was a super high lvl pve game, yet you bundled it with the pvp crowd of dead games in your example. Did Wildstar have open world bosses with pvp for them or was it just the difficulty of content that led to its death? Cause both of those are supposedly present in Ashes, which only gives me more reasons to worry about the game's future.
And they also said that those 20% would probably be mainly story-related. And even outside of story-based instances, they won't be repeatable nor would they give BiS gear, so most wow/ff14 players would find themselves fighting other people for their gear.
There have been a few comments around this in the past.
At first, they said instanced content was for stories, and was not repeatable.
Steven has since said that he can see instancing as a tool being used by content developers to set a specific challenge for players.
They have also talked about raid dungeons that alter as you progress along - where if you do well on one encounter, the next encounter will be harder, and have better drops. I defy anyone to develop such a system in an environment where there isn't a hard cap on the number of players present, without making it trivial for players to abuse this mechanic.
Wildstar was a PvP first game. As far as PvP games go, it did have some fairly good PvE content. However, the top end PvE in Wildstar was about on par with mid range single group content in a PvE MMO (still leaving top end group, mid tier raid and top end raid content or equivalent missing from Wildstar). No one played Wildstar for the PvE content - you played it for PvP, and accepted the PvE.
Sure, some people that played Wildstar thought the content was hard, but that is only because it was PvP players taking on moderate PvE for the first time in their lives. They thought it was high end content because they didn't know any better.
Wildstar is the game to point to when you want to say that the PvE in a game like this needs to be on par with other full PvE games, as opposed to just ticking a box of having PvE content.
As a side note, playing a game for Pv1 and accepting PV2 is about the best a game developer can hope from players. You either get players to play for the PvP and accept the PvE, or you get players to play for the PvE and accept the PvP.
So far, no game has really managed this second option, though many have tried the first and failed.
One could argue that - since no game has managed that second option - Intrepid shouldn't bother trying to be the first. To this I say, that leaves Ashes as either a PvP game (with the short life that goes with that), or it leaves it as a PvE game.
I'd personally rather they try to be the first to make Ashes a game where players come for the PvE, and accept the PvP. This is especially true considering PvE players do have some MMO's out there that are worth playing (or, that some people think are worth playing), and PvP players don't (unless you consider Albion worth playing...).
This means that if the game has PvP, it will attract PvP players regardless.
All Intrepid then need to do is attract PvE players - and there is only one way to do that.
They have also talked about raid dungeons that alter as you progress along - where if you do well on one encounter, the next encounter will be harder, and have better drops. I defy anyone to develop such a system in an environment where there isn't a hard cap on the number of players present, without making it trivial for players to abuse this mechanic.
Yeah, that mechanic is also very interesting to me cause it will either be somewhat useless cause it's in an instanced dungeon that doesn't give BiS (unless they go back on that statement) or it's an impossible pvx fiesta that gets abused by all sides of the conflict.
Sure, some people that played Wildstar thought the content was hard, but that is only because it was PvP players taking on moderate PvE for the first time in their lives. They thought it was high end content because they didn't know any better.
All Intrepid then need to do is attract PvE players - and there is only one way to do that.
Yeah, I hope they can manage to develop it in the way the want and not give in to the obvious solution of "we'll just separate the pvpers and the pvers with instances". Though I really dunno how they can realistically do that.
Yeah, that mechanic is also very interesting to me cause it will either be somewhat useless cause it's in an instanced dungeon that doesn't give BiS (unless they go back on that statement) or it's an impossible pvx fiesta that gets abused by all sides of the conflict.
The gear doesnt need to be best in slot.
The thing with open world mobs is that it means best in slot gear is rare. Most players simply wont ever have a chance at getting it.
Some basic assumptions, followed by some math.
Assume there is one mob per metropolis area that drops best in slot items. Such mobs should spawn no more than once a week. Assume 3 best in slot drops per kill (I include the necessary components to craft a best in slot item here).
Since these mobs are tied to metropolis level nodes, there will bot always be 5 of them - let's just assume an average of 4.
This means there would be a total of 12 best in slot items enter the server per week, or 624 per year.
If we then assume 20,000 used characters per server, and 16 slots per character, this means we will see 624 besting slot items to be spread out over 240,000 item slots.
In games where best in slot items are to be found in instances, you aim for best on slot.
In games where best in slot is unreasonable as a goal, you aim for the best you can attain.
EQ2 had this. The best items in the game were from open world encounters, which spawned every 7 - 10 days. Best in slot items were so rare that some of them literally never even dropped on some servers.
Yet the game had a solid raiding community for at least the decade that I played. This is purely because there was enough instanced content to keep players content - most people didnt even concern themselves with that open world content at all.
If we take it back to the mechanic that Steven talked about with progression on raid mobs, since the only way I see that being viable is by using instances, that suggests a very specific way to do top end content in Ashes;
Each content area (metropolis, basicall) has one dungeon that uses the progression mechanic and contains 5 - 6 bosses, one open raid dungeon that contains perhaps 20 - 30 bisses on spawns ranging from every few hours to every few days (with tsome mechanics in place to ensure a minimum number of bosses), and perhaps 2 overland, open world bosses that drop best in slot items, and spawn weekly (or longer).
This gives people not wanting to PvP something to do (5 dungeons), but also has a content type that will encourage them to break out and do some PvP (open dungeons). It also has best in slot items only dropping from open world raid mobs - as should be the case - but leaves those not able or wanting to fight that fight with content to run and fight over.
This is not how *I* would implement top end content in Ashes. However, it is a method that fits in with what Intrepid have said on the topic, and would work at attracting PvE players to the game.
The only thing that worries me is the 2nd reference from this page. And that's september of 2021, so pretty close to the current stage of development (with a more recent reference talking about the no-BiS stuff). And Steven says that those instances are not something to farm repeatedly, so how exactly would those pve players have enough non-pvp content to enjoy the game?
If we assume one big instance per metro (with some pre-top gear as a one-time reward), there'll be 5 dungeons that top lvl people can do once as non-pvp content. And that's assuming that Intrepid somehow manages to create, at least, 4 different great dungeon (one per node type) on top of all the open world stuff they'd need to make. Otherwise you risk having same instanced dungeons with same bosses.
But then would that be enough content to do? Yes, leveling will be a big part of the game so the endgame of Ashes probably won't be as big as it is in smth like Lost Ark, where you get to the top lvl within a day and then just do random shit and grind instances for the evergrowing gear score.
But in the long run, the first few months of leveling will be nothing compared to years of playing at the top lvl (that is if the game survives that long). And with only a few one-off instances to clear, will people be satisfied with only pvp-based and purely artisanry-based stuff left over? I know I will because I love pvp way more than pve, but what about the potential hundreds of thousands of people that are more interested in pve.
I guess expansions could somewhat solve that issue, but then we get another problem. How do you use your studio's assets/developers? Do you go all-out on one-off instances or do you instead spend most of your time on the repeatable open world bosses that should not only be difficult and hard on their own, but also include the possibility of pvp happening around them within their design so that their farm is not completely impossible?
In other words, I really can't see too many pve people enjoying the game for too long. I understand that your EQ2 experience tells you otherwise, but I personally haven't heard of any newer gamers even talk about EQ(2), let alone playing it. So my theory is that the oldschoolers who played it from the early days are the ones who're still playing and enjoying its design. Same as with L2, just on a bigger scale because EQ itself was way more popular in the west. But from everything that I see online I'm really not sure that a lot of current gamers will enjoy Ashes in its current design.
Now, we obviously don't know if that design will even stay the same until release, and I might be completely wrong with my assessment of the current gamers, but right now I'd rather prepare myself for disappointment of either development (design completely changing or the game dying with the current one) than huff copium that it survives and stays relatively successful w/o ever going back on their core principles.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
PvE does not require instances.
There are a variety of PvE events - including Monster Horde events.
And, if Corruption works as intended, PvEers should still be able hunt in the open world and acquire resources for crafted BiS gear - with ganking being relatively rare.
But from everything that I see online I'm really not sure that a lot of current gamers will enjoy Ashes in its current design.
Well who knows for sure. Current gamers are ever evolving and changing. We do know that Steven has essentially made a 30-50 million dollar bet that there are enough current gamers who would like the current design of Ashes to make the game sustainable and profitable.
Mostly opinion from here on, because again who knows really. But a few things I see.
- The fps/tps battle royale craze has subsided a lot. There are many gamers who traditionally are shooter game players, who are looking for something more. They're looking for an mmo, they say it outright. And they're looking for an mmo with real, fleshed out, open world pvp, as well as good pve. Ashes will draw in a substantial amount of these types of players. Will they all stay long term? No, some unknown percentage of them will.
- Atlas, Ark, Rust, Albion Online, Archeage series, Darkfall series, Mortal Online series, DAOC, Warhammer Online, Black Desert Online, Conan Exiles, Lineage, Eve, Guild Wars 2, Crowfall(lol), just off the top of my head, there's even more. All of these games prove to varying extents that there's a market for more pvp focused mmos. But many of these games have major issues. Lack of funding, underdevelopment, major p2w, major bugs, TOO focused on pvp/too harsh, garbage/nonexistent pve content, bad graphics, bad performance, bad mechanics, bad monetization. That's been the plague of many pvp mmos, they're just not good at a very base level.
So if Intrepid actually makes a good one, that avoids the mistakes so many previous one's made, there is serious potential to rope all these players in, rope back in the players like me who love pvp mmo's but really don't even bother playing them anymore because in recent memory they've all been so badly made and mismanaged.
- And finally, (again all opinion/theory here), the typical WoW raider/pver players. This is my belief - there is some percentage of them who want something more. They've been playing WoW and all of it's copycat games for upwards of 18 years. Farm the mobs, farm the dungeons, farm the raids, watch the youtube guides, press the buttons, stand in the right spot. New Expansion. Do it all again, reskinned. 18 years of that. It's a core mmo game loop, certainly. And it will remain. But it would defy logic that some percentage of them are not looking for something different, spicier.
There are many places Intrepid can draw in players from. The market is PRIMED for a game like Ashes. Intrepid just needs to actually make Ashes a good game.
The only thing that worries me is the 2nd reference from this page. And that's september of 2021, so pretty close to the current stage of development (with a more recent reference talking about the no-BiS stuff). And Steven says that those instances are not something to farm repeatedly, so how exactly would those pve players have enough non-pvp content to enjoy the game?
My assumption with this is that the one time instances are story only instances (think ESO), and the other comments made about instances (and the assumptions we have talked about here) do not fall under that paradigm.
If you consider the variousmechanics involved (content scaling with progression, content altering with node type, single run story instances), it doesnt make sense to be talking about them all at the same time.
PvE does not require instances.
There are a variety of PvE events - including Monster Horde events.
And, if Corruption works as intended, PvEers should still be able hunt in the open world and acquire resources for crafted BiS gear - with ganking being relatively rare.
Any content that rewards best in slot gear will see every PvP player showing up in order to get it. Even if they have it, getting it to sell is valid, and more than enough of a reason to gain corruption.
There willbe more open PvP around content that drops best in slot items than anywhere else in the game, if corruption works as intended.
Even if we knew we would lose an item, swapping three items that are second best in slot for one that is best in slot is a valid trade. Corruption is straight up designed to make it worth gaining in large amounts in order to obtain best in slot gear.
All of these games prove to varying extents that there's a market for more pvp focused mmos. But many of these games have major issues. Lack of funding, underdevelopment, major p2w, major bugs, TOO focused on pvp/too harsh, garbage/nonexistent pve content, bad graphics, bad performance, bad mechanics, bad monetization. That's been the plague of many pvp mmos, they're just not good at a very base level.
There's a question of chicken and egg there. Was it the companies that screwed up those games with those "features" or was it the pvp games that required those "features" to survive on the market for longer than a month?
There willbe more open PvP around content that drops best in slot items than anywhere else in the game, if corruption works as intended.
Even if we knew we would lose an item, swapping three items that are second best in slot for one that is best in slot is a valid trade. Corruption is straight up designed to make it worth gaining in large amounts in order to obtain best in slot gear.
Yeah, I bet pvpers will spend a lot of time/resources removing their PK counts just so they can PK an extra few people during some upcoming raid just to secure their farm. We did that in L2 even though the penalty there is nowhere near AoC's. No one will care about immediate corruption penalties during the raid because they don't influence pve, so yeah, people will be pvp/pk-ing a ton around any BiS farm locations/mobs/bosses.
or was it the pvp games that required those "features" to survive on the market for longer than a month?
Pvp games don't require any of those features. I mean maybe, at the time, the developers of Archeage thought that their game required a p2w business model in order to reach max profitability. It's possible. They were proven wrong though lol, quite the opposite of that is what they needed.
Pvp games don't require any of those features. I mean maybe, at the time, the developers of Archeage thought that their game required a p2w business model in order to reach max profitability. It's possible. They were proven wrong though lol, quite the opposite of that is what they needed.
Even before AA, Lineage 2 shifted from sub model to a f2p with a ton of p2w shit, back in the day when WoW still sold like hotcakes and kept the sub. And I guess it made NCsoft so much money that any and all korean companies just decided to have that as a default. And acceptance of p2w shit in that culture also didn't help. At least from what I've heard recently, koreans are trying to push against p2w stuff, so maybe it'll at least reduce in the next few years.
And I really hope that Ashes succeeds with their monetization model and it'll show other companies that it can be done (though obviously execs won't care about that shit cause they just always want more).
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited May 2022
An MMORPG is not an MMOFPS.
Ashes drawing in FPS players would be a disaster.
All MMOs are not alike.
I'm literally an FPS player lol. And an mmo player. Steven has marketed the game to Summit1g and Shroud. JoshOG, another mainly fps player, spent like 16 hours straight playing Ashes Alpha 1 his first day.
We don't really have a choice in who wants to play what games. I was just saying that I sense a growing hunger in the fps crowd for a good mmo. My circle of fps friends were very interested in Atlas and New World. Both turned out to be major disappointments obviously, but the interest was there.
And finally, (again all opinion/theory here), the typical WoW raider/pver players. This is my belief - there is some percentage of them who want something more. They've been playing WoW and all of it's copycat games for upwards of 18 years. Farm the mobs, farm the dungeons, farm the raids, watch the youtube guides, press the buttons, stand in the right spot. New Expansion. Do it all again, reskinned. 18 years of that. It's a core mmo game loop, certainly. And it will remain. But it would defy logic that some percentage of them are not looking for something different, spicier.
Swap out the WoW specific aspects of this and replace it with EQ2, and this is me.
Most of the people I am still on touch with from my decade playing EQ2 do indeed want something a bit more than this. However, they want *more* than this, rather than wanting *other* than this.
A game with solid top end PvE, but where there is a required PvP element is literally exactly what they want.
Most of the people I know from back then were not interested in Archeage at all. Not because of the PvP, not because of the P2W, but because of the complete lack of PvE.
You will not attract this crowd in significant numbers without having PvE for them. However, the presence of PvP is not a deterrent at all.
Most of the people I know from back then were not interested in Archeage at all. Not because of the PvP, not because of the P2W, but because of the complete lack of PvE.
Yeah Archeage seemed more like an economic simulator to me than a pve progression game. You had to constantly make money in order to be able to afford RNG chances at upgrading your crafted gear. The best ways to make money were to fish, farm, craft and run trade packs.
Ashes is going to be an economic simulator too, which is awesome. But there's going to be dungeons, raids and world bosses. It definitely needs to be better than Archeage's pve. I don't think it will reach WoW or EQ levels of quantity and quality. But who knows, they could surprise us.
I don't think it will reach WoW or EQ levels of quantity and quality. But who knows, they could surprise us.
I don't think they will achieve that either.
I know for a fact they will not reach that at launch.
However, this does need to be their goal.
If Intrepid have this as a goal - and state it as such - people such as myself will see this and appreciate what it means. If this is then followed up by continual improvements of the quantity and quality of top end PvE each content cycle (quantity up to the point where players have something to run every night - there is no real need for more than that), then PvE players will mostly be happy with that. Those PvE players that are looking for something more will absolutely be happy with that.
As a point about PvE in Archeage - at launch there was literally one instanced encounter for level capped characters. If you had good enough gear to kill it, there was nothing at all that it would drop that was useful to you. Even if it did drop an item that you could use, items from dungeons were dead ends, whereas crafted items had upgrade paths.
So, at launch, not only was there a dismal lack of PvE content, but there was literally no point in running what content was there.
Then when they released the first major patch (adding Auroria), they added another dungeon. It too had no real drops worth going after, and the few drops that were in the zone still had that lack of upgrade path, making them not even worth selling (not that you could sell them, they were bound).
Then they added the Library, which at least gave people a reason to run that previous zone - there was a quest that required you to complete it 100 times in order to get a ring. Having to run a zone 100 times in order to get an update to a quest is not exactly the type of engaging content anyone wants.
So yeah, Archeage is not exactly much to look at for PvE. It had less PvE content at launch than I would consider suitable for an MMO tech demonstration, let alone for a released game.
It's economic aspects were great though. It's PvP was ok as well.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I'm literally an FPS player lol. And an mmo player. Steven has marketed the game to Summit1g and Shroud. JoshOG, another mainly fps player, spent like 16 hours straight playing Ashes Alpha 1 his first day.
We don't really have a choice in who wants to play what games. I was just saying that I sense a growing hunger in the fps crowd for a good mmo. My circle of fps friends were very interested in Atlas and New World. Both turned out to be major disappointments obviously, but the interest was there.
I would expect FPS folk to not enjoy Atlas or New World.
What you said is that FPS folk are looking for a new MMO. And I said that all MMOs are not alike.
"My rugby friends are looking for a new ball game so I'm going to tell them to come try volleyball."
There's going to be some crossover, certainly.
But, just because someone loves soccer does not mean they will also like golf simply because they are both ball games. We shouldn't be enticing soccer players to come play on the golf field with the expectation that they will be playing soccer there just because they are both ball games. They should come with the expectation that golf is different than soccer.
Similarly, FPS players, if they are going to try out Ashes, should be coming with the expectation that an RPG is different than an FPS - especially since Steven wants to bring the RPG back to MMORPG.
We don't need FPS players trying to play Ashes like it's an FPS, just as we wouldn't want American football players trying to play football on the soccer field whiewe are trying to play soccer.
Seems like a lot of cardboard categories. I think good games attract gamers of all stripes. I enjoy FPS and MMOs, I don’t expect an MMO to play like an FPS or visa versa. I think folks will adapt just fine if the game is good.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Games have categories for a reason.
As I said, there will be some crossover.
But, no, people don't simply adapt to games - which is why MMORPGs typically have separate PvP, PvE and RP servers. And it's also why people are skeptical about having all three play on the same servers.
It's especially why RPers still want to know how Steven plans on supporting them - because typically their RPing style gets disrupted when there aren't separate RP servers.
Back on the EQNext forums, the quickest way to get people temporary bans was for a PvPers to share what's necessary for everyone to play on the same server. Their suggestions would offend the PvEers and the PvEers would flip out.
Same thing when PvErs would suggest what's necessary for everyone to play on the same servers. Their suggestions would offend the PvPers and the PvPers would become incensed.
Similarly, in the early days of the Ashes forums, RPers would become furstrated and irate about the lack of support for RPing in Ashes. Especially frustrated when they asked Steven about support for RP and he would reply, "Taverns will have plenty of support for RP."
There are plenty of people who enjoy any type of video game, sure.
What you don't do is tell football players who are looking for a new location to play ball that they should come to the golf course. Just because that's a wide open location with grass and balls.
Usually, what binds all different activities into one category we call sports, is the competitive nature of it. The physicality aspect is there too, but we still call many cars/vehicles racing as motor sports. E-sports, the Olympics, professional leagues, what they all have in common is the competitive aspect, and often much more spectators than practitioners. Remove the competitive side of running and it goes from sport to fitness, or training. It's the difference between running a marathon vs. running 42.2 km.
Anyways, FPS games and MMORPG are not monolithic categories, there has been FPS MMO (Planetside) and FPS RPG (Fallout, Borderlands, etc.). The big difference between a pure FPS PvP only games such as Quake, Battlefield, Medal of Honor, and the likes and a typical MMO is not the gameplay itself. The difference is that pure PvP games (FPS, MOBAs, etc.) are structured around matches, and the objectives reset in between these matches. Typical PvE MMOs are built around the expectation (which is an illusion if you ask me) of a persistent game world and characters that can only improve (this an argument Noaani made many months ago and I think is often underestimate in the PvP vs PvE debates) and the PvP side, if there is one, is grafted on top of this. This is where AoC is atypical: the world is not completely persistent, players will have an influence in how it evolves over time. That lack of assured persistence should scare the PvEers more than a few random PvP encounters.
Comments
If I were you, I'd prioritize my time based on my interests.
PvP/PvX/sandbox games have so far been little more than an excuse for developers to just not give players content, but rather have players be each others content.
This is why there are no long term PvP MMO's with healthy populations (other than EVE, which is very much it's own thing).
I have been on these forums for many years, I have the post count to back that up.
In that time, my biggest over all message is simply that in order for Ashes to meet it's potential as a PvX game, it needs to have a PvE game that will see players with a preference for PvE come to this game rather than playing games that are exclusively PvE.
The game needs these players to PvE in order for there to be something for PvP players to PvP over. Without these primarily PvE players, Ashes will simply b e another one of a long line of short lived games that amount to little more than a PvP player circle jerk (on that note, you'll have to excuse George above me here - he wants this game to be a PvP only circle jerk).
Based on what I have seen from Steven, it is my belief that he agrees with the above general statement that the game needs to compete with PvE exclusive games in order to meet it's full potential.
Oh and L2 is a pvx game, so Intrepid ain't inventing anything new there. It's just that L2's pve is kinda trash, but pretty much anything you do in L2 is tied to pve, and usually to do that pve you gotta go through pvp, hence PvX.
Now obviously those player numbers are not WoW/FF14-sized, but L2 is also a game from 2003 and is very very grindy so of course not that many people would want to play it. Ashes aims to have no grind (I'll believe that when I see that) and have a ton of casual-friendly stuff in the game, so I'd assume it'll have a few hundred thousand players, which in theory should be enough to sustain future development.
But if the idea of a community-based/led game is not interesting to you, I'd suggest waiting a few months after the release and seeing if by that point the game is still alive and whether it has something to offer you outside of purely community gameplay.
Look at the original EQ. It came out four years before L2. It has a grind that makes L2 look like a childrens game. People play it on the companies servers. It is still getting expansions every year. It has a player count in the high five to low six figure range. Yet, despite this, it isn't even considered one of the major success stories of PvE MMO's.
But sure, lets look for private servers with three digit populations, running 12 - 15 year old content as being a mark of success.
You literally just listed the hallmark of a failed game and called it a success.
There are aspects of L2 that Intrepid would do well to capture. It's over all Western popularity and longevity (or lack thereof) are not among those things.
That is why Intrepid are placing more of a focus on PvE than L2 ever had - numbers don't lie, and PvE sells 10 times more than PvP in terms of MMO's in NA/EU.
I haven't played EQ and haven't really researched anything about it. Has it changed a lot through its existence? Cause L2 died exactly because NCsoft not only disregarded their core playerbase by implementing a shitton of changes that people disliked, which led to "classic" private servers. And even when they implemented their own classic servers, they changed so much stuff in it and added a fucking autofarming function.
I'm assuming EQ didn't do any of that, which is why it's still as successful as it is.
Well. Thanks for signing up and letting us all know we're doomed lol.
You can read more about the game here https://ashesofcreation.wiki/
One prime example of change that the game went through was inventing and thus implementing the concept of instances in MMORPG's - several years after the game launched.
The reason the game still has a loyal player base after 25 years is simply because the game always has good PvE content - that is probably the only aspect of the game that has never changed.
Interestingly, the same can be said of EQ2. While the game is only 18 years old at this point, it too has a following that is significantly higher than any PvP based MMO from the entire decade that the game was released (with the potential exception of EVE).
EQ2 is another game that has changed a lot over the years - but has also stuck to the paradigm of always having good PvE content - and as such has always kept it's servers online, and always produced a full, paid expansion every year.
Again, numbers don't lie. PvE keeps MMORPG's active (EQ, EQ2, WoW, Rift, Aion, GW, GW2, ESO, FFXIV, LotRO, DDO, STO). A number of these games have no business even being live still - yet all are still turning a profit. PvP kills MMORPG's (L2, DAoC, Wildstar, Tera, WAR). Some actual good games in there, but PvP kills.
Obviously there are some exceptions to the above, EVE is still going strong as a PvP game, and while it had PvP, Age of Conan was a PvE focused game that failed somewhat.
However, if anyone were looking for a generalization, it is fairly easy to find.
Now, a lot of people on these forums are more interested in PvP than PvE. That's great, good for all of you guys.
One thing I assume we all have in common with each other though, is that we want Ashes to have a good long life - at least a decade of the servers being live - and not being a joke like Archeage currently is.
To anyone that actually wants this, all it takes is a simple look back at the genre from it's inception in the 1990's, a look at the longevity of each entry in said genre, a look at the content types of each game, and the conclusion is really obvious.
In order for any MMO to last a decade and not be a joke, it needs to have solid PvE. Sure, build PvP on top of that - the corruption system, sieges, wars - that's all great stuff. However, those things need to be layered on top of a PvE game that compared to contemporary PvE games.
Basically, all that PvP stuff that the PvP players want needs to be built on top of a PvE game - not built in place of a PvE game.
And from what I've seen AoC's bosses won't even have that kind of semi-instance (unless it gets added, which I think it might), so it'll be even harder to farm/defend them. And if we look at the successful examples you gave, all of them (afaik) let their players to just pve to their heart's content.
In other words, unless Intrepid completely change their core designs, Ashes won't survive for 10 years.
This part isnt quite true.
In my experience, most PvE players are generally accepting of PvP. They will not play a game for PvP, but if the best PvE game requires some PvP, that's all good.
The thing is, that PvE needs to be the best there is.
The L2 bosses you talk about - sure, they existed, but they weren't fun content. You would do them because that is how you get better gear, not because they were enjoyable.
Good PvE sees players running the content for the pure enjoyment of the content.
As to your comment about instances in Ashes - Steven has specifically said that he views instancing as a tool to limit player numbers, and that using this tool to set a specific challenge for players is a valid use of instancing as a tool.
The game is set to have up to 20% of its content instanced. That is enough, if it is used well.
Now I'm wrong and Intrepid manages to make a game that appeals to both sides of the pvx spectrum and a ton of people play the game and we all live happily ever after, but just as you said, pvp mmos usually die. And they die quite fast.
I haven't read up on Wildstar, but from what I've heard it was a super high lvl pve game, yet you bundled it with the pvp crowd of dead games in your example. Did Wildstar have open world bosses with pvp for them or was it just the difficulty of content that led to its death? Cause both of those are supposedly present in Ashes, which only gives me more reasons to worry about the game's future.
At first, they said instanced content was for stories, and was not repeatable.
Steven has since said that he can see instancing as a tool being used by content developers to set a specific challenge for players.
They have also talked about raid dungeons that alter as you progress along - where if you do well on one encounter, the next encounter will be harder, and have better drops. I defy anyone to develop such a system in an environment where there isn't a hard cap on the number of players present, without making it trivial for players to abuse this mechanic.
Wildstar was a PvP first game. As far as PvP games go, it did have some fairly good PvE content. However, the top end PvE in Wildstar was about on par with mid range single group content in a PvE MMO (still leaving top end group, mid tier raid and top end raid content or equivalent missing from Wildstar). No one played Wildstar for the PvE content - you played it for PvP, and accepted the PvE.
Sure, some people that played Wildstar thought the content was hard, but that is only because it was PvP players taking on moderate PvE for the first time in their lives. They thought it was high end content because they didn't know any better.
Wildstar is the game to point to when you want to say that the PvE in a game like this needs to be on par with other full PvE games, as opposed to just ticking a box of having PvE content.
As a side note, playing a game for Pv1 and accepting PV2 is about the best a game developer can hope from players. You either get players to play for the PvP and accept the PvE, or you get players to play for the PvE and accept the PvP.
So far, no game has really managed this second option, though many have tried the first and failed.
One could argue that - since no game has managed that second option - Intrepid shouldn't bother trying to be the first. To this I say, that leaves Ashes as either a PvP game (with the short life that goes with that), or it leaves it as a PvE game.
I'd personally rather they try to be the first to make Ashes a game where players come for the PvE, and accept the PvP. This is especially true considering PvE players do have some MMO's out there that are worth playing (or, that some people think are worth playing), and PvP players don't (unless you consider Albion worth playing...).
This means that if the game has PvP, it will attract PvP players regardless.
All Intrepid then need to do is attract PvE players - and there is only one way to do that.
I see.
Yeah, I hope they can manage to develop it in the way the want and not give in to the obvious solution of "we'll just separate the pvpers and the pvers with instances". Though I really dunno how they can realistically do that.
The thing with open world mobs is that it means best in slot gear is rare. Most players simply wont ever have a chance at getting it.
Some basic assumptions, followed by some math.
Assume there is one mob per metropolis area that drops best in slot items. Such mobs should spawn no more than once a week. Assume 3 best in slot drops per kill (I include the necessary components to craft a best in slot item here).
Since these mobs are tied to metropolis level nodes, there will bot always be 5 of them - let's just assume an average of 4.
This means there would be a total of 12 best in slot items enter the server per week, or 624 per year.
If we then assume 20,000 used characters per server, and 16 slots per character, this means we will see 624 besting slot items to be spread out over 240,000 item slots.
In games where best in slot items are to be found in instances, you aim for best on slot.
In games where best in slot is unreasonable as a goal, you aim for the best you can attain.
EQ2 had this. The best items in the game were from open world encounters, which spawned every 7 - 10 days. Best in slot items were so rare that some of them literally never even dropped on some servers.
Yet the game had a solid raiding community for at least the decade that I played. This is purely because there was enough instanced content to keep players content - most people didnt even concern themselves with that open world content at all.
If we take it back to the mechanic that Steven talked about with progression on raid mobs, since the only way I see that being viable is by using instances, that suggests a very specific way to do top end content in Ashes;
Each content area (metropolis, basicall) has one dungeon that uses the progression mechanic and contains 5 - 6 bosses, one open raid dungeon that contains perhaps 20 - 30 bisses on spawns ranging from every few hours to every few days (with tsome mechanics in place to ensure a minimum number of bosses), and perhaps 2 overland, open world bosses that drop best in slot items, and spawn weekly (or longer).
This gives people not wanting to PvP something to do (5 dungeons), but also has a content type that will encourage them to break out and do some PvP (open dungeons). It also has best in slot items only dropping from open world raid mobs - as should be the case - but leaves those not able or wanting to fight that fight with content to run and fight over.
This is not how *I* would implement top end content in Ashes. However, it is a method that fits in with what Intrepid have said on the topic, and would work at attracting PvE players to the game.
If we assume one big instance per metro (with some pre-top gear as a one-time reward), there'll be 5 dungeons that top lvl people can do once as non-pvp content. And that's assuming that Intrepid somehow manages to create, at least, 4 different great dungeon (one per node type) on top of all the open world stuff they'd need to make. Otherwise you risk having same instanced dungeons with same bosses.
But then would that be enough content to do? Yes, leveling will be a big part of the game so the endgame of Ashes probably won't be as big as it is in smth like Lost Ark, where you get to the top lvl within a day and then just do random shit and grind instances for the evergrowing gear score.
But in the long run, the first few months of leveling will be nothing compared to years of playing at the top lvl (that is if the game survives that long). And with only a few one-off instances to clear, will people be satisfied with only pvp-based and purely artisanry-based stuff left over? I know I will because I love pvp way more than pve, but what about the potential hundreds of thousands of people that are more interested in pve.
I guess expansions could somewhat solve that issue, but then we get another problem. How do you use your studio's assets/developers? Do you go all-out on one-off instances or do you instead spend most of your time on the repeatable open world bosses that should not only be difficult and hard on their own, but also include the possibility of pvp happening around them within their design so that their farm is not completely impossible?
In other words, I really can't see too many pve people enjoying the game for too long. I understand that your EQ2 experience tells you otherwise, but I personally haven't heard of any newer gamers even talk about EQ(2), let alone playing it. So my theory is that the oldschoolers who played it from the early days are the ones who're still playing and enjoying its design. Same as with L2, just on a bigger scale because EQ itself was way more popular in the west. But from everything that I see online I'm really not sure that a lot of current gamers will enjoy Ashes in its current design.
Now, we obviously don't know if that design will even stay the same until release, and I might be completely wrong with my assessment of the current gamers, but right now I'd rather prepare myself for disappointment of either development (design completely changing or the game dying with the current one) than huff copium that it survives and stays relatively successful w/o ever going back on their core principles.
There are a variety of PvE events - including Monster Horde events.
And, if Corruption works as intended, PvEers should still be able hunt in the open world and acquire resources for crafted BiS gear - with ganking being relatively rare.
Well who knows for sure. Current gamers are ever evolving and changing. We do know that Steven has essentially made a 30-50 million dollar bet that there are enough current gamers who would like the current design of Ashes to make the game sustainable and profitable.
Mostly opinion from here on, because again who knows really. But a few things I see.
- The fps/tps battle royale craze has subsided a lot. There are many gamers who traditionally are shooter game players, who are looking for something more. They're looking for an mmo, they say it outright. And they're looking for an mmo with real, fleshed out, open world pvp, as well as good pve. Ashes will draw in a substantial amount of these types of players. Will they all stay long term? No, some unknown percentage of them will.
- Atlas, Ark, Rust, Albion Online, Archeage series, Darkfall series, Mortal Online series, DAOC, Warhammer Online, Black Desert Online, Conan Exiles, Lineage, Eve, Guild Wars 2, Crowfall(lol), just off the top of my head, there's even more. All of these games prove to varying extents that there's a market for more pvp focused mmos. But many of these games have major issues. Lack of funding, underdevelopment, major p2w, major bugs, TOO focused on pvp/too harsh, garbage/nonexistent pve content, bad graphics, bad performance, bad mechanics, bad monetization. That's been the plague of many pvp mmos, they're just not good at a very base level.
So if Intrepid actually makes a good one, that avoids the mistakes so many previous one's made, there is serious potential to rope all these players in, rope back in the players like me who love pvp mmo's but really don't even bother playing them anymore because in recent memory they've all been so badly made and mismanaged.
- And finally, (again all opinion/theory here), the typical WoW raider/pver players. This is my belief - there is some percentage of them who want something more. They've been playing WoW and all of it's copycat games for upwards of 18 years. Farm the mobs, farm the dungeons, farm the raids, watch the youtube guides, press the buttons, stand in the right spot. New Expansion. Do it all again, reskinned. 18 years of that. It's a core mmo game loop, certainly. And it will remain. But it would defy logic that some percentage of them are not looking for something different, spicier.
There are many places Intrepid can draw in players from. The market is PRIMED for a game like Ashes. Intrepid just needs to actually make Ashes a good game.
If you consider the variousmechanics involved (content scaling with progression, content altering with node type, single run story instances), it doesnt make sense to be talking about them all at the same time.
Any content that rewards best in slot gear will see every PvP player showing up in order to get it. Even if they have it, getting it to sell is valid, and more than enough of a reason to gain corruption.
There willbe more open PvP around content that drops best in slot items than anywhere else in the game, if corruption works as intended.
Even if we knew we would lose an item, swapping three items that are second best in slot for one that is best in slot is a valid trade. Corruption is straight up designed to make it worth gaining in large amounts in order to obtain best in slot gear.
Pvp games don't require any of those features. I mean maybe, at the time, the developers of Archeage thought that their game required a p2w business model in order to reach max profitability. It's possible. They were proven wrong though lol, quite the opposite of that is what they needed.
And I really hope that Ashes succeeds with their monetization model and it'll show other companies that it can be done (though obviously execs won't care about that shit cause they just always want more).
Ashes drawing in FPS players would be a disaster.
All MMOs are not alike.
We don't really have a choice in who wants to play what games. I was just saying that I sense a growing hunger in the fps crowd for a good mmo. My circle of fps friends were very interested in Atlas and New World. Both turned out to be major disappointments obviously, but the interest was there.
Swap out the WoW specific aspects of this and replace it with EQ2, and this is me.
Most of the people I am still on touch with from my decade playing EQ2 do indeed want something a bit more than this. However, they want *more* than this, rather than wanting *other* than this.
A game with solid top end PvE, but where there is a required PvP element is literally exactly what they want.
Most of the people I know from back then were not interested in Archeage at all. Not because of the PvP, not because of the P2W, but because of the complete lack of PvE.
You will not attract this crowd in significant numbers without having PvE for them. However, the presence of PvP is not a deterrent at all.
Yeah Archeage seemed more like an economic simulator to me than a pve progression game. You had to constantly make money in order to be able to afford RNG chances at upgrading your crafted gear. The best ways to make money were to fish, farm, craft and run trade packs.
Ashes is going to be an economic simulator too, which is awesome. But there's going to be dungeons, raids and world bosses. It definitely needs to be better than Archeage's pve. I don't think it will reach WoW or EQ levels of quantity and quality. But who knows, they could surprise us.
I know for a fact they will not reach that at launch.
However, this does need to be their goal.
If Intrepid have this as a goal - and state it as such - people such as myself will see this and appreciate what it means. If this is then followed up by continual improvements of the quantity and quality of top end PvE each content cycle (quantity up to the point where players have something to run every night - there is no real need for more than that), then PvE players will mostly be happy with that. Those PvE players that are looking for something more will absolutely be happy with that.
As a point about PvE in Archeage - at launch there was literally one instanced encounter for level capped characters. If you had good enough gear to kill it, there was nothing at all that it would drop that was useful to you. Even if it did drop an item that you could use, items from dungeons were dead ends, whereas crafted items had upgrade paths.
So, at launch, not only was there a dismal lack of PvE content, but there was literally no point in running what content was there.
Then when they released the first major patch (adding Auroria), they added another dungeon. It too had no real drops worth going after, and the few drops that were in the zone still had that lack of upgrade path, making them not even worth selling (not that you could sell them, they were bound).
Then they added the Library, which at least gave people a reason to run that previous zone - there was a quest that required you to complete it 100 times in order to get a ring. Having to run a zone 100 times in order to get an update to a quest is not exactly the type of engaging content anyone wants.
So yeah, Archeage is not exactly much to look at for PvE. It had less PvE content at launch than I would consider suitable for an MMO tech demonstration, let alone for a released game.
It's economic aspects were great though. It's PvP was ok as well.
What you said is that FPS folk are looking for a new MMO. And I said that all MMOs are not alike.
"My rugby friends are looking for a new ball game so I'm going to tell them to come try volleyball."
There's going to be some crossover, certainly.
But, just because someone loves soccer does not mean they will also like golf simply because they are both ball games. We shouldn't be enticing soccer players to come play on the golf field with the expectation that they will be playing soccer there just because they are both ball games. They should come with the expectation that golf is different than soccer.
Similarly, FPS players, if they are going to try out Ashes, should be coming with the expectation that an RPG is different than an FPS - especially since Steven wants to bring the RPG back to MMORPG.
We don't need FPS players trying to play Ashes like it's an FPS, just as we wouldn't want American football players trying to play football on the soccer field whiewe are trying to play soccer.
As I said, there will be some crossover.
But, no, people don't simply adapt to games - which is why MMORPGs typically have separate PvP, PvE and RP servers. And it's also why people are skeptical about having all three play on the same servers.
It's especially why RPers still want to know how Steven plans on supporting them - because typically their RPing style gets disrupted when there aren't separate RP servers.
Back on the EQNext forums, the quickest way to get people temporary bans was for a PvPers to share what's necessary for everyone to play on the same server. Their suggestions would offend the PvEers and the PvEers would flip out.
Same thing when PvErs would suggest what's necessary for everyone to play on the same servers. Their suggestions would offend the PvPers and the PvPers would become incensed.
Similarly, in the early days of the Ashes forums, RPers would become furstrated and irate about the lack of support for RPing in Ashes. Especially frustrated when they asked Steven about support for RP and he would reply, "Taverns will have plenty of support for RP."
There are plenty of people who enjoy any type of video game, sure.
What you don't do is tell football players who are looking for a new location to play ball that they should come to the golf course. Just because that's a wide open location with grass and balls.
Anyways, FPS games and MMORPG are not monolithic categories, there has been FPS MMO (Planetside) and FPS RPG (Fallout, Borderlands, etc.). The big difference between a pure FPS PvP only games such as Quake, Battlefield, Medal of Honor, and the likes and a typical MMO is not the gameplay itself. The difference is that pure PvP games (FPS, MOBAs, etc.) are structured around matches, and the objectives reset in between these matches. Typical PvE MMOs are built around the expectation (which is an illusion if you ask me) of a persistent game world and characters that can only improve (this an argument Noaani made many months ago and I think is often underestimate in the PvP vs PvE debates) and the PvP side, if there is one, is grafted on top of this. This is where AoC is atypical: the world is not completely persistent, players will have an influence in how it evolves over time. That lack of assured persistence should scare the PvEers more than a few random PvP encounters.