It also annoyed me when I couldn't smack someone around who was farming the same area as me.
See, when this happens, I just take all of their mobs off of them.
Killing people isnt the only way to get them to leave an area. All killing them is doing is preventing them from achieving their goal - there are a number of ways you can do that without needing to resort to PvP.
Personally, I find it more satisfying to defeat someone without even needing to attack them, but I admit not everyone is good enough at PvE to do this.
It also annoyed me when I couldn't smack someone around who was farming the same area as me.
See, when this happens, I just take all of their mobs off of them.
Killing people isnt the only way to get them to leave an area. All killing them is doing is preventing them from achieving their goal - there are a number of ways you can do that without needing to resort to PvP.
Personally, I find it more satisfying to defeat someone without even needing to attack them, but I admit not everyone is good enough at PvE to do this.
See, when this happens, I just take all of their mobs off of them.
Killing people isnt the only way to get them to leave an area. All killing them is doing is preventing them from achieving their goal - there are a number of ways you can do that without needing to resort to PvP.
Personally, I find it more satisfying to defeat someone without even needing to attack them, but I admit not everyone is good enough at PvE to do this.
But sometimes people don't get the message even if you outfarm them. And while it doesn't necessarily prevent me from farming, I do find presence of other people in my farming room annoying, so having the opportunity to remove someone from the premises is great. And I'm completely fine with someone else trying to do the same to me if they feel the same way.
It also annoyed me when I couldn't smack someone around who was farming the same area as me.
See, when this happens, I just take all of their mobs off of them.
Killing people isnt the only way to get them to leave an area. All killing them is doing is preventing them from achieving their goal - there are a number of ways you can do that without needing to resort to PvP.
Personally, I find it more satisfying to defeat someone without even needing to attack them, but I admit not everyone is good enough at PvE to do this.
It's better than PvP.
The number of people that say shit like "I hate how PvE only games have no competition" - all that says to me is that these people dont want competition, they just want to pk others.
If you are in an area in any game, and there is someone you want to get to move along, there is a way to do it. It may take more skill and knowledge, but it is also far more effective - the player cant just come back with some friends to kill you.
It also annoyed me when I couldn't smack someone around who was farming the same area as me.
See, when this happens, I just take all of their mobs off of them.
Killing people isnt the only way to get them to leave an area. All killing them is doing is preventing them from achieving their goal - there are a number of ways you can do that without needing to resort to PvP.
Personally, I find it more satisfying to defeat someone without even needing to attack them, but I admit not everyone is good enough at PvE to do this.
It's better than PvP.
The number of people that say shit like "I hate how PvE only games have no competition" - all that says to me is that these people dont want competition, they just want to pk others.
If you are in an area in any game, and there is someone you want to get to move along, there is a way to do it. It may take more skill and knowledge, but it is also far more effective - the player cant just come back with some friends to kill you.
In this regard, PvP is for the unimaginative.
Thats a hilarious argument. "Its better to kills players by indirect means and not be able to be killed by those players directly as a result." If PvP is unimaginative, whatever this is called is just akin to people who get off on exploits in new game releases to get an edge on other players lmao
If we are talking about PvE experiences as far as server experiences? They were usually short lived because I got tired of fight NPC's and didn't want to rely only on instanced PvP as my only way to fight against other players. It also annoyed me when I couldn't smack someone around who was farming the same area as me.
What PvE do I enjoy? Exploration, crafting, building, collecting(sometimes), and maybe a few raids? Raiding was always a bit of a hassle for me because of the amount of time it takes but I did enjoy hanging out with friends and figuring out big bosses, and it was the best loot so I needed that for PvP; not crazy about doing them for loot but I have to respect the grind and it balances things out.
So if you don't mind, what games have you actually played, that had such boring NPC enemies?
Mostly I'm trying to get some data because if someone says 'I played X game but got bored of the PvE', it may not be 'PvE in general' that they find boring, and so far my data is leaning more toward 'confirming' that people who 'don't like PvE or don't care about it' only seem to play games with poor PvE.
So I'm looking for counterexamples of that, or clearer confirmations.
If we are talking about PvE experiences as far as server experiences? They were usually short lived because I got tired of fight NPC's and didn't want to rely only on instanced PvP as my only way to fight against other players. It also annoyed me when I couldn't smack someone around who was farming the same area as me.
What PvE do I enjoy? Exploration, crafting, building, collecting(sometimes), and maybe a few raids? Raiding was always a bit of a hassle for me because of the amount of time it takes but I did enjoy hanging out with friends and figuring out big bosses, and it was the best loot so I needed that for PvP; not crazy about doing them for loot but I have to respect the grind and it balances things out.
So if you don't mind, what games have you actually played, that had such boring NPC enemies?
Mostly I'm trying to get some data because if someone says 'I played X game but got bored of the PvE', it may not be 'PvE in general' that they find boring, and so far my data is leaning more toward 'confirming' that people who 'don't like PvE or don't care about it' only seem to play games with poor PvE.
So I'm looking for counterexamples of that, or clearer confirmations.
WoW, Everquest, Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Age of Conan, Rift, Blessed(or whatever its called now), albion online, ESO, LotR Online (was likely my favorite PVE experience simply because of the lore)
If we are talking about PvE experiences as far as server experiences? They were usually short lived because I got tired of fight NPC's and didn't want to rely only on instanced PvP as my only way to fight against other players. It also annoyed me when I couldn't smack someone around who was farming the same area as me.
What PvE do I enjoy? Exploration, crafting, building, collecting(sometimes), and maybe a few raids? Raiding was always a bit of a hassle for me because of the amount of time it takes but I did enjoy hanging out with friends and figuring out big bosses, and it was the best loot so I needed that for PvP; not crazy about doing them for loot but I have to respect the grind and it balances things out.
So if you don't mind, what games have you actually played, that had such boring NPC enemies?
Mostly I'm trying to get some data because if someone says 'I played X game but got bored of the PvE', it may not be 'PvE in general' that they find boring, and so far my data is leaning more toward 'confirming' that people who 'don't like PvE or don't care about it' only seem to play games with poor PvE.
So I'm looking for counterexamples of that, or clearer confirmations.
WoW, Everquest, Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Age of Conan, Rift, Blessed(or whatever its called now), albion online, ESO, LotR Online (was likely my favorite PVE experience simply because of the lore)
Noted, thank you much for data. As a final followup pair of questions:
Just Everquest, not EQ2, correct?
and
Did you find the PvE to be better in Guild Wars 1, or 2? Assuming you cared for either.
If we are talking about PvE experiences as far as server experiences? They were usually short lived because I got tired of fight NPC's and didn't want to rely only on instanced PvP as my only way to fight against other players. It also annoyed me when I couldn't smack someone around who was farming the same area as me.
What PvE do I enjoy? Exploration, crafting, building, collecting(sometimes), and maybe a few raids? Raiding was always a bit of a hassle for me because of the amount of time it takes but I did enjoy hanging out with friends and figuring out big bosses, and it was the best loot so I needed that for PvP; not crazy about doing them for loot but I have to respect the grind and it balances things out.
So if you don't mind, what games have you actually played, that had such boring NPC enemies?
Mostly I'm trying to get some data because if someone says 'I played X game but got bored of the PvE', it may not be 'PvE in general' that they find boring, and so far my data is leaning more toward 'confirming' that people who 'don't like PvE or don't care about it' only seem to play games with poor PvE.
So I'm looking for counterexamples of that, or clearer confirmations.
WoW, Everquest, Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Age of Conan, Rift, Blessed(or whatever its called now), albion online, ESO, LotR Online (was likely my favorite PVE experience simply because of the lore)
Noted, thank you much for data. As a final followup pair of questions:
Just Everquest, not EQ2, correct?
and
Did you find the PvE to be better in Guild Wars 1, or 2? Assuming you cared for either.
not EQ2. And I would say the PVE in GW2 was more appealing to me due to the events. But it was only for the first playthrough or 2, then it was just something to grind out and not really enjoy at all. The big bosses were basically the same case for me. And I gave up on the raiding after trying the first actual raid release and spent all of my time in WvW.
If we are talking about PvE experiences as far as server experiences? They were usually short lived because I got tired of fight NPC's and didn't want to rely only on instanced PvP as my only way to fight against other players. It also annoyed me when I couldn't smack someone around who was farming the same area as me.
What PvE do I enjoy? Exploration, crafting, building, collecting(sometimes), and maybe a few raids? Raiding was always a bit of a hassle for me because of the amount of time it takes but I did enjoy hanging out with friends and figuring out big bosses, and it was the best loot so I needed that for PvP; not crazy about doing them for loot but I have to respect the grind and it balances things out.
So if you don't mind, what games have you actually played, that had such boring NPC enemies?
Mostly I'm trying to get some data because if someone says 'I played X game but got bored of the PvE', it may not be 'PvE in general' that they find boring, and so far my data is leaning more toward 'confirming' that people who 'don't like PvE or don't care about it' only seem to play games with poor PvE.
So I'm looking for counterexamples of that, or clearer confirmations.
WoW, Everquest, Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Age of Conan, Rift, Blessed(or whatever its called now), albion online, ESO, LotR Online (was likely my favorite PVE experience simply because of the lore)
Noted, thank you much for data. As a final followup pair of questions:
Just Everquest, not EQ2, correct?
and
Did you find the PvE to be better in Guild Wars 1, or 2? Assuming you cared for either.
not EQ2. And I would say the PVE in GW2 was more appealing to me due to the events. But it was only for the first playthrough or 2, then it was just something to grind out and not really enjoy at all. The big bosses were basically the same case for me. And I gave up on the raiding after trying the first actual raid release and spent all of my time in WvW.
Data is noted. If there's anything you could/want to add about the Events in GW2 PvE, it's appreciated, but not necessary. Can assume I'll just throw it into the cruncher even if I don't respond to it.
It also annoyed me when I couldn't smack someone around who was farming the same area as me.
See, when this happens, I just take all of their mobs off of them.
Killing people isnt the only way to get them to leave an area. All killing them is doing is preventing them from achieving their goal - there are a number of ways you can do that without needing to resort to PvP.
I would like to add to the list a few options on top of PvP and competion (pulling/tagging). One common way is that people who are farming at the same area will group up. Therefore, sometimes the solution is cooperation. Some people can even handle these situations (diplomatic) by talking.
The number of people that say shit like "I hate how PvE only games have no competition" - all that says to me is that these people dont want competition, they just want to pk others.
If you are in an area in any game, and there is someone you want to get to move along, there is a way to do it. It may take more skill and knowledge, but it is also far more effective - the player cant just come back with some friends to kill you.
In this regard, PvP is for the unimaginative.
PvE only games (or ones that restrict PvP to arena's or whatever) obviously have competition but they mostly lack a personal connection or have a limited base of competition because people simply don't see it as competitive (call them "unimaginative"...I'd label that as boredom)
One case which includes a personal involvement is being better statistically or reactively than someone else, I've been in situations where people, myself included, have complimented a Tank for being better via faster and leading taunting, more reaction on changes etc and then in most cases DPS differences with other dps'ers in raid can hit the pride of people underperforming, in a single instance or throughout a guild's collective player knowledge.
In a lot of other instances though, players collecting more or completing more things is completely subjective, depending on difficulty levels and likeihood of success on average hours/days gained of experiencing whatever PvE in question.
If something for the average player takes 5 runs or 5 hours to get a proper understanding....Bob: "but Jack plays all day, I play for 2-3 hours most days", is Bob supposed to feel competitive with Jack? or are they two different caliburs because of time constraints? (much to most mmorpg's disadvantage, which I don't think you care about resolving).
Similarly with someone with the same time as Jack, "we're of the same cloth!", if they are pushing through content at an average pace...maybe one is pushing ahead a little, who knows, but then it gets completed, they share a little jab at one another...then life goes on.
Then in that kind of "softcore" world, of which a PvE only game is, through rng loot we have the skilled aspect of selling loot or resources for the right price...but there was little competition happening in the world in the first place, as everyone is allowed to frolic around unhindered...then there's the all day players driving prices through the dirt.
Anyway! Killing gorgeous looking creatures is a source of entertainment, it seems you're addicted to it but adding PvP elements can make for surprising fools and winners in a world where usually, nothing is really fair because of peoples own time commitments + you gotta suck D, geninuelly impress or look like a stud people want to be involved with and get that guild/clan collective together and hope to garner more wealth.
With RMT, Trading, close friendships etc etc + in games with much less bound resources/gear, area and resource control via PvP actually makes for more of an accessible playing field and depending on how good combat is, can be a more entertaining one...
But not in your mind obviously, we gotta really get together x amount of players and enjoy Boss mechanics and adds all day long...because we all think and enjoy the same things right? We also don't want to settle disputes quickly, that would be silly, we'd rather create some wacky lore about "in 3 months, I have collected more loot than Jack, thanks to my expertise of doing the x raid perfectly x amount of times! hoora!".
EDIT - not like there are much in the good way of PvP mmorpg's out there that garner pretty healthy competition, due to corperate greed but i'd say it's incredibly unimaginative to think that the concept can't do better or be a significantly improving and more involving than a dedicated and polished PvE only experience.
The number of people that say shit like "I hate how PvE only games have no competition" - all that says to me is that these people dont want competition, they just want to pk others.
If you are in an area in any game, and there is someone you want to get to move along, there is a way to do it. It may take more skill and knowledge, but it is also far more effective - the player cant just come back with some friends to kill you.
In this regard, PvP is for the unimaginative.
PvE only games (or ones that restrict PvP to arena's or whatever) obviously have competition but they mostly lack a personal connection or have a limited base of competition because people simply don't see it as competitive (call them "unimaginative"...I'd label that as boredom)
There isn't a *need* to compete in an MMO that doesnt have open world PvP, that is the difference.
If you are trying to compete with people that dont want to be involved in competition, then you are doing it wrong.
This is why too end guilds form, people that love to compete gravitate towards each other, compete on top end content both among themselves, and against other top end guilds.
The fact that you can only really.compete with people in such a game that want that competition is a good thing - unless your idea of a good time is ruining someone else's time.
@Noaani who's doing it wrong? There are tons of people who don't spend loads or any time on WoW or FF14 for a multitude of reasons.
All you're doing is solely entertaining the PvE co-op game, again, if games like these are so good then why do the majority of that playerbase only talk about the content and take huge breaks away from gameplay.
Top end guilds are super slim, the majority of players in most mmo's don't even bother with them, if this is your idea a world class mmorpg involving most of its dedicated population then you're simply an elitist enjoyer.
But now they are farming solo mobs with a small group, which I have never played a single game where that is efficient.
If they have a group of players, there would be better things for them to do.
They don't even need to keep farming that place. They just needed to remove you from that location. And unless this was happening in an open field and you saw that the friends left, or if you were after those particular mobs' drop and will keep coming back to that exact location - friends coming there and removing you would achieve the same goal as they would've in pvp.
Except with pvp on top of pve (in an RPS system) you have more variables. A warrior might be slow at farming than a mage, but he could be the class that beats mage in pvp so now he has more ways to compete with a player for a location. With only PvE as the main competitive tool, you don't have that kind of variety because your class will always suck in particular pvp against some other particular class.
And because of that kind of limitation, devs gotta make class-specific locations where some classes would be completely useless so the whole location is filled with the same people. And now you've achieved peak segregation in your game. Not only are people farming instances w/o interacting with other people, but they're even farming separate class-based locations and don't interact with a lot of people in the open world.
L2 went this way once it started casualizing its content. It was quite sad to see.
But now they are farming solo mobs with a small group, which I have never played a single game where that is efficient.
If they have a group of players, there would be better things for them to do.
They don't even need to keep farming that place. They just needed to remove you from that location. And unless this was happening in an open field and you saw that the friends left, or if you were after those particular mobs' drop and will keep coming back to that exact location - friends coming there and removing you would achieve the same goal as they would've in pvp.
Except with pvp on top of pve (in an RPS system) you have more variables. A warrior might be slow at farming than a mage, but he could be the class that beats mage in pvp so now he has more ways to compete with a player for a location. With only PvE as the main competitive tool, you don't have that kind of variety because your class will always suck in particular pvp against some other particular class.
And because of that kind of limitation, devs gotta make class-specific locations where some classes would be completely useless so the whole location is filled with the same people. And now you've achieved peak segregation in your game. Not only are people farming instances w/o interacting with other people, but they're even farming separate class-based locations and don't interact with a lot of people in the open world.
L2 went this way once it started casualizing its content. It was quite sad to see.
I'm now interested to hear if anyone has an experience with a game (either Flag PvP or PvE only) that doesn't match this. Elite can get close to this but the reasons for that are based on the core design of what 'farming' is there, so I don't feel it can be added to that discussion.
I'm used to this being handled by 'using subclass or build options to get an advantage at a location' or 'tuning down some of your unnecessary advantage to have a bigger advantage against a competitor, either in combat or 'methods of farming that are less efficient but more Versus. The devs usually still 'design areas where some mobs are the best target for your class.
This in itself seems moreso emergent from having basic pyramidal ecosystems for their areas and therefore having more of the bottom tier mobs than any other, but even if implementing an even split, seems like it could cause this. Anyone seen it?
All you're doing is solely entertaining the PvE co-op game, again, if games like these are so good then why do the majority of that playerbase only talk about the content and take huge breaks away from gameplay.
In terms of WoW, for the exact same reason L2 players play on old versions of the game.
In terms of WoW, for the exact same reason L2 players play on old versions of the game.
I'm not a WoW player, but I thought people just cleared its story and were mainly done with the game until the next expansion (same with ff14 afaik), while L2 people play on older updates exactly because we couldn't give 2 shits about the story, but we care about the social/pvp part of the game and that part is way better on the earlier versions. So unless I'm missing smth, these 2 are quite different reasonings.
In terms of WoW, for the exact same reason L2 players play on old versions of the game.
I'm not a WoW player, but I thought people just cleared its story and were mainly done with the game until the next expansion (same with ff14 afaik), while L2 people play on older updates exactly because we couldn't give 2 shits about the story, but we care about the social/pvp part of the game and that part is way better on the earlier versions. So unless I'm missing smth, these 2 are quite different reasonings.
Some do - a symptom of Blizzards glacial development speed. Most, however, lament the game not being what it used to be, and so give it a break for a while, as playing older versions isnt an option ( even WoW classic isnt an older version).
In games where the core of the game is kept largely the same, and where content is added at a pace similar to the pace it is defeated, the issues you are talking about that you mistakenly think are inherent to.all PvE games just straight up dont exist.
Basically, you are looking at issues specific to one or two games, and assuming those issues apply to an entire genre.
Basically, you are looking at issues specific to one or two games, and assuming those issues apply to an entire genre.
I feel like your EQ bias is showing, cause I don't think any other game is giving their players as much content as EQ(2) does/did. FF14 and WoW are considered the hugest PvE-based content mmos. Both of those take quite a while in-between their content updates. GW2 is also a pve content game and afaik that shit takes even longer (correct me if I'm wrong, those who know). I think ESO is the same? What other big name pve mmos are out there that have insane content update pace?
And I wasn't even saying that the whole genre is the same or whatever. It's just that I've heard from FF14 and WoW players (who are not collectors) that they mainly do story stuff and usually can even stop their subs for a while. Obviously that's not all the players in the game, especially with FF14 and its in-depth social gameplay, but purely from the standpoint of pve content I haven't heard about games that have EQ-type pace of updates.
If there are other mmos that do that - cool, happy for those players and hope Intrepid can keep the same pace for years and years. But those still feel like exceptions to the rule.
This is ofc subjective but latest WoW expansions, BfA and Shadowlands, are not in general considered as good and the stories have been weird and way too cosmic. Blizzard has desperately trying to implement new systems which players are not happy with. This has lead steadily decreasing playerbase and pushing players to play older versions of the game called Classics or jump on entirely new MMORPGs. Some players have enjoyed WoW Classic's (vanilla) more hardcorish approach and open world PvP. These old versions also offers a nostalgic trip to the past or opportunity to franchise fans to play the old versions they have missed back in the days.
Basically, you are looking at issues specific to one or two games, and assuming those issues apply to an entire genre.
I feel like your EQ bias is showing, cause I don't think any other game is giving their players as much content as EQ(2) does/did.
Does that count as a bias then? I mean, if they did it better than anyone else, that literally means it isnt a bias - it just means they did it better.
Rift also had fairly regular content updates for a few years after launch. The game went in to decline when those updates slowed down though - no surprise. The other thing that isnt a surprise is that Rift was run by the person that had previously run SoE, the EQ/EQ2 developer.
Also, a good chunk of Intrepids team are ex-EQ2 developers.
Does that count as a bias then? I mean, if they did it better than anyone else, that literally means it isnt a bias - it just means they did it better.
It shows the bias in the context of the argument. You're enamored with EQ (understandably so) and think that a lot of other games do thinks like they do, but from what I've heard - they don't. So your example of "just constantly add a ton of content into the game" is not as widespread as you want it to be.
Rift also had fairly regular content updates for a few years after launch. The game went in to decline when those updates slowed down though - no surprise. The other thing that isnt a surprise is that Rift was run by the person that had previously run SoE, the EQ/EQ2 developer.
Yeah, which just proves that EQ is an outlier for one reason or the other. If other games can't keep making a shitton of content for their game, while EQ's team can - there's gotta be a reason for that. Maybe it's management, maybe it's money, maybe it's both or smth else completely. But the fact remains the same, EQ is a good example of what an mmo's content release schedule should be, but not an example of the norm in the industry.
Also, a good chunk of Intrepids team are ex-EQ2 developers.
And I hope they'll implement underlying systemic features that allow them to keep pumping out all kinds of content within record times. And I even think that UE5 will help them with that. But we'll only know that for sure several months after release.
Does that count as a bias then? I mean, if they did it better than anyone else, that literally means it isnt a bias - it just means they did it better.
It shows the bias in the context of the argument. You're enamored with EQ (understandably so) and think that a lot of other games do thinks like they do, but from what I've heard - they don't. So your example of "just constantly add a ton of content into the game" is not as widespread as you want it to be.
Rift also had fairly regular content updates for a few years after launch. The game went in to decline when those updates slowed down though - no surprise. The other thing that isnt a surprise is that Rift was run by the person that had previously run SoE, the EQ/EQ2 developer.
Yeah, which just proves that EQ is an outlier for one reason or the other. If other games can't keep making a shitton of content for their game, while EQ's team can - there's gotta be a reason for that. Maybe it's management, maybe it's money, maybe it's both or smth else completely. But the fact remains the same, EQ is a good example of what an mmo's content release schedule should be, but not an example of the norm in the industry.
Also, a good chunk of Intrepids team are ex-EQ2 developers.
And I hope they'll implement underlying systemic features that allow them to keep pumping out all kinds of content within record times. And I even think that UE5 will help them with that. But we'll only know that for sure several months after release.
It's probably not an outlier, @NiKr, the problem is something different and unfortunately much more emergent.
Ashes is meant to be a challenging game, right?
People don't like challenging MMOs. They consider them 'too hardcore' and the games suffer, often quite quickly. The oldest ones manage, and of course nothing stands up to WoW's numbers, but in terms of 'overall engagement and enjoyment of the players', there are many many old MMOs, even really basic stuff that no one would play in this era, that people loved that added content or shifted their content around in much the same way.
Some of them closed down because they could no longer afford to output that content due to lack of subs or other monetization. Others are still going but have newer or 'easier' versions that get all the attention.
This is another situation where I find it hard to relate.
FFXI's amount of content is literally staggering, I don't know if it is on the EQ2 level but I've had people talk about 'nah there's no way that 300 PvE bosses/encounters are a thing' and I find myself thinking 'wait but I come from a game where I literally have a choice of two thousand things to do (and by this you can assume 80% are miniboss/Elite fights where we could lose) for fun and even potential 'progression' with my not-at-cap group' and another 2000 things to do for progression if we wanted to actually level to cap (long story, just consider it the equivalent of playing on a Private Server but not actually bothering to do even that).
I'm pretty sure I'm lowballing that 2000+2000 btw.
The problem is that FFXI was (note WAS) punishingly hard. To me, Ashes sounds like a candy store and I keep hoping it'll be harder (systems, not individual things to do).
I know four other games like this, though not on this level.
I ain't saying they're definitely not outliers, I'm saying that it sounds like there are 7-10 outliers.
If other games can't keep making a shitton of content for their game, while EQ's team can - there's gotta be a reason for that. Maybe it's management, maybe it's money, maybe it's both or smth else completely.
So, it isnt management.
While EQ2 was being developed, things were an absolute shit show. There was no over all leadership, and teams were haphazardly thrown together. When the game launched, there were no back end tools, no documentation, nothing to make adding new content easier.
The development team that was left spent more time during the first two development cycles creating back end tools for the game than creating content for the game. The expansions were good, but not great.
Then when the tools were finished, the next expansion literally blew everyone's expectations out of the water - even for an EQ family game. That was the expansion Bacon had a poster of behind him in his profile pic on the Intrepid website, rather than having the generic corporate headshot.
From what I can see, management wanted yearly expansions, but the developers knew the best way to do that going forward was to build tools to assist in building expansions. So they took time allocated to.expansions and created those tools.
In other words, the reason EQ2 was able to maintain this level of content is because of the developers they had as the game went live.
Ashes has many of those same developers, and the assumption that should be made is that they took this experience with them to Intrepid, and created similar tools for Ashes.
So, Ashes has the tools (UE5 at least) the knowledge, the ability and the experience to not just match, but to beat EQ2's content development pace.
As such, the baseline assumption for this game should be that it wont have the issues games like WoW have with player boredom, as the only way this could happen is if it is what Steven wants (and why would he want that?).
I'm glad to know there's more examples of this kind of content output. To me this only means that Ashes has more chances at succeeding, and at the end of the day that's the only thing I want. Hope it all works out and we can enjoy a great mmo for many years to come.
Does that count as a bias then? I mean, if they did it better than anyone else, that literally means it isnt a bias - it just means they did it better.
Also, a good chunk of Intrepids team are ex-EQ2 developers.
I watched snippets of a Josh Strife Haze and LazyPeon vid to get a grasp on this game and it looks like Ultima Online on roids but using a tab + a lvl system (and I very much enjoyed UO).
I can see why the game lost out, if you don't have close friends then much like UO it lacks focus on the game itself (FF14 being the disgusting polar opposite). The world and its quests are a huge canvas for players to share experiences but without a decent population there's not a lot to keep you firmly attached unless you're of the mindset of "I hella don't mind enjoying the game at my own pace".
Making a 3d world was a gamble at the time, that Blizzard and Lineage 2 shot out the park (L2 would not be recognised if it weren't for its 10/10 immersion via graphics+music), EQ2 looks and sounds like a game still trapped in the late 90's forced into a 3d world, who knows if it would of done better as a clean isometric camera angle to polish graphic and theme better.
My quick review of the game is that it is in dire need of an immersive element, it's a game with a lot of things you could ask for but made light of a concepts such as a straight arrowed story or a system which encourages players to get big and fight over PvE, towns, seiging or whatever at a faster pace without getting so choked into focusing on your own unique experience (which I'll stress would of perhaps been fine if there was a decent population).
Thing is you can keep going on about EQ2 but its a game that wasn't widely played and certainly not at the high levels that you're highlighting as great so it's really not fair at all when barely anyone can make a critique on it and that's exactly the same for me and @NiKr if we were to go on about higher level Lineage 2 system/player mechanics or just myself if I were to use dedicated UO play as a counter arguement (although it's easier for people to understand L2 system discussions as the game/objective was clear cut + it's the biggest example of a game with a healthy flag/corruption system).
I hope those EQ2 devs at Intrepid show the same content work rate as they did for a game with no right to compete alongside WoW because that to me sounds ridiculous. With good leadership and more experience attained I'm sure they will be a great asset.
Does that count as a bias then? I mean, if they did it better than anyone else, that literally means it isnt a bias - it just means they did it better.
Also, a good chunk of Intrepids team are ex-EQ2 developers.
I watched snippets of a Josh Strife Haze and LazyPeon vid to get a grasp on this game and it looks like Ultima Online on roids but using a tab + a lvl system (and I very much enjoyed UO).
I can see why the game lost out, if you don't have close friends then much like UO it lacks focus on the game itself (FF14 being the disgusting polar opposite). The world and its quests are a huge canvas for players to share experiences but without a decent population there's not a lot to keep you firmly attached unless you're of the mindset of "I hella don't mind enjoying the game at my own pace".
Making a 3d world was a gamble at the time, that Blizzard and Lineage 2 shot out the park (L2 would not be recognised if it weren't for its 10/10 immersion via graphics+music), EQ2 looks and sounds like a game still trapped in the late 90's forced into a 3d world, who knows if it would of done better as a clean isometric camera angle to polish graphic and theme better.
My quick review of the game is that it is in dire need of an immersive element, it's a game with a lot of things you could ask for but made light of a concepts such as a straight arrowed story or a system which encourages players to get big and fight over PvE, towns, seiging or whatever at a faster pace without getting so choked into focusing on your own unique experience (which I'll stress would of perhaps been fine if there was a decent population).
Thing is you can keep going on about EQ2 but its a game that wasn't widely played and certainly not at the high levels that you're highlighting as great so it's really not fair at all when barely anyone can make a critique on it and that's exactly the same for me and NiKr if we were to go on about higher level Lineage 2 system/player mechanics or just myself if I were to use dedicated UO play as a counter arguement (although it's easier for people to understand L2 system discussions as the game/objective was clear cut).
I hope those EQ2 devs at Intrepid show the same content work rate as they did for a game with no right to compete alongside WoW because that to me sounds ridiculous. With good leadership and more experience attained I'm sure they will be a great asset.
While not a bad take of the game, there are a few things to point out.
The first is that the game was developed at a time when single core processors were still king, and frequency was on a constant climb. The games engine was developed to run on a single core chip at about 8GHz - they wanted to future proof the engine and indeed at the games launch, no computer could run it at max quality. It just happened that instead of getting faster, CPU's went multi core instead.
This has, as far as I can tell, prevented them from being able to do a graphics update to the game, so it is very much stick with high end mid 2000's graphics. But the graphics were indeed good for the mid 2000's.
You are right in that you need others with you to enjoy the game, which is why I have not suggested it to any player for many years. It is still a great game if you have a guild looking for something to play together though.
As to it needing some immersive element, no. The game is what it is and still has the population to support annual expansions due specifically to the fact that it is indeed still the same game. The developers haven't tried to turn it in to something else like L2's developer did, or like WoW. The game is what it is, and will remain that until it does, and that is for the best.
However, creating a similar game now would need such an element, because games and gamers have moved on since 2004. However, the core of the game (which is content) is perfectly fine today still.
A part of the reason I talk about EQ2 is because I know a lot of players dont know the game well. A good number of people that left that game went on to try any number of other MMO's, and literally found nothing even close to as good, and literally gave up on the genre years ago. The game had actual millions of players, yet looking over MMO forums nos, you hardly see any - the above is why.
Comments
Killing people isnt the only way to get them to leave an area. All killing them is doing is preventing them from achieving their goal - there are a number of ways you can do that without needing to resort to PvP.
Personally, I find it more satisfying to defeat someone without even needing to attack them, but I admit not everyone is good enough at PvE to do this.
It's better than PvP.
The number of people that say shit like "I hate how PvE only games have no competition" - all that says to me is that these people dont want competition, they just want to pk others.
If you are in an area in any game, and there is someone you want to get to move along, there is a way to do it. It may take more skill and knowledge, but it is also far more effective - the player cant just come back with some friends to kill you.
In this regard, PvP is for the unimaginative.
Thats a hilarious argument. "Its better to kills players by indirect means and not be able to be killed by those players directly as a result." If PvP is unimaginative, whatever this is called is just akin to people who get off on exploits in new game releases to get an edge on other players lmao
So if you don't mind, what games have you actually played, that had such boring NPC enemies?
Mostly I'm trying to get some data because if someone says 'I played X game but got bored of the PvE', it may not be 'PvE in general' that they find boring, and so far my data is leaning more toward 'confirming' that people who 'don't like PvE or don't care about it' only seem to play games with poor PvE.
So I'm looking for counterexamples of that, or clearer confirmations.
WoW, Everquest, Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Age of Conan, Rift, Blessed(or whatever its called now), albion online, ESO, LotR Online (was likely my favorite PVE experience simply because of the lore)
Noted, thank you much for data. As a final followup pair of questions:
Just Everquest, not EQ2, correct?
and
Did you find the PvE to be better in Guild Wars 1, or 2? Assuming you cared for either.
not EQ2. And I would say the PVE in GW2 was more appealing to me due to the events. But it was only for the first playthrough or 2, then it was just something to grind out and not really enjoy at all. The big bosses were basically the same case for me. And I gave up on the raiding after trying the first actual raid release and spent all of my time in WvW.
Data is noted. If there's anything you could/want to add about the Events in GW2 PvE, it's appreciated, but not necessary. Can assume I'll just throw it into the cruncher even if I don't respond to it.
I would like to add to the list a few options on top of PvP and competion (pulling/tagging). One common way is that people who are farming at the same area will group up. Therefore, sometimes the solution is cooperation. Some people can even handle these situations (diplomatic) by talking.
PvE only games (or ones that restrict PvP to arena's or whatever) obviously have competition but they mostly lack a personal connection or have a limited base of competition because people simply don't see it as competitive (call them "unimaginative"...I'd label that as boredom)
One case which includes a personal involvement is being better statistically or reactively than someone else, I've been in situations where people, myself included, have complimented a Tank for being better via faster and leading taunting, more reaction on changes etc and then in most cases DPS differences with other dps'ers in raid can hit the pride of people underperforming, in a single instance or throughout a guild's collective player knowledge.
In a lot of other instances though, players collecting more or completing more things is completely subjective, depending on difficulty levels and likeihood of success on average hours/days gained of experiencing whatever PvE in question.
If something for the average player takes 5 runs or 5 hours to get a proper understanding....Bob: "but Jack plays all day, I play for 2-3 hours most days", is Bob supposed to feel competitive with Jack? or are they two different caliburs because of time constraints? (much to most mmorpg's disadvantage, which I don't think you care about resolving).
Similarly with someone with the same time as Jack, "we're of the same cloth!", if they are pushing through content at an average pace...maybe one is pushing ahead a little, who knows, but then it gets completed, they share a little jab at one another...then life goes on.
Then in that kind of "softcore" world, of which a PvE only game is, through rng loot we have the skilled aspect of selling loot or resources for the right price...but there was little competition happening in the world in the first place, as everyone is allowed to frolic around unhindered...then there's the all day players driving prices through the dirt.
Anyway! Killing gorgeous looking creatures is a source of entertainment, it seems you're addicted to it but adding PvP elements can make for surprising fools and winners in a world where usually, nothing is really fair because of peoples own time commitments + you gotta suck D, geninuelly impress or look like a stud people want to be involved with and get that guild/clan collective together and hope to garner more wealth.
With RMT, Trading, close friendships etc etc + in games with much less bound resources/gear, area and resource control via PvP actually makes for more of an accessible playing field and depending on how good combat is, can be a more entertaining one...
But not in your mind obviously, we gotta really get together x amount of players and enjoy Boss mechanics and adds all day long...because we all think and enjoy the same things right? We also don't want to settle disputes quickly, that would be silly, we'd rather create some wacky lore about "in 3 months, I have collected more loot than Jack, thanks to my expertise of doing the x raid perfectly x amount of times! hoora!".
EDIT - not like there are much in the good way of PvP mmorpg's out there that garner pretty healthy competition, due to corperate greed but i'd say it's incredibly unimaginative to think that the concept can't do better or be a significantly improving and more involving than a dedicated and polished PvE only experience.
Indeed they could.
But now they are farming solo mobs with a small group, which I have never played a single game where that is efficient.
If they have a group of players, there would be better things for them to do.
If you are trying to compete with people that dont want to be involved in competition, then you are doing it wrong.
This is why too end guilds form, people that love to compete gravitate towards each other, compete on top end content both among themselves, and against other top end guilds.
The fact that you can only really.compete with people in such a game that want that competition is a good thing - unless your idea of a good time is ruining someone else's time.
All you're doing is solely entertaining the PvE co-op game, again, if games like these are so good then why do the majority of that playerbase only talk about the content and take huge breaks away from gameplay.
Top end guilds are super slim, the majority of players in most mmo's don't even bother with them, if this is your idea a world class mmorpg involving most of its dedicated population then you're simply an elitist enjoyer.
Except with pvp on top of pve (in an RPS system) you have more variables. A warrior might be slow at farming than a mage, but he could be the class that beats mage in pvp so now he has more ways to compete with a player for a location. With only PvE as the main competitive tool, you don't have that kind of variety because your class will always suck in particular pvp against some other particular class.
And because of that kind of limitation, devs gotta make class-specific locations where some classes would be completely useless so the whole location is filled with the same people. And now you've achieved peak segregation in your game. Not only are people farming instances w/o interacting with other people, but they're even farming separate class-based locations and don't interact with a lot of people in the open world.
L2 went this way once it started casualizing its content. It was quite sad to see.
I'm now interested to hear if anyone has an experience with a game (either Flag PvP or PvE only) that doesn't match this. Elite can get close to this but the reasons for that are based on the core design of what 'farming' is there, so I don't feel it can be added to that discussion.
I'm used to this being handled by 'using subclass or build options to get an advantage at a location' or 'tuning down some of your unnecessary advantage to have a bigger advantage against a competitor, either in combat or 'methods of farming that are less efficient but more Versus. The devs usually still 'design areas where some mobs are the best target for your class.
This in itself seems moreso emergent from having basic pyramidal ecosystems for their areas and therefore having more of the bottom tier mobs than any other, but even if implementing an even split, seems like it could cause this. Anyone seen it?
Some do - a symptom of Blizzards glacial development speed. Most, however, lament the game not being what it used to be, and so give it a break for a while, as playing older versions isnt an option ( even WoW classic isnt an older version).
In games where the core of the game is kept largely the same, and where content is added at a pace similar to the pace it is defeated, the issues you are talking about that you mistakenly think are inherent to.all PvE games just straight up dont exist.
Basically, you are looking at issues specific to one or two games, and assuming those issues apply to an entire genre.
And I wasn't even saying that the whole genre is the same or whatever. It's just that I've heard from FF14 and WoW players (who are not collectors) that they mainly do story stuff and usually can even stop their subs for a while. Obviously that's not all the players in the game, especially with FF14 and its in-depth social gameplay, but purely from the standpoint of pve content I haven't heard about games that have EQ-type pace of updates.
If there are other mmos that do that - cool, happy for those players and hope Intrepid can keep the same pace for years and years. But those still feel like exceptions to the rule.
Rift also had fairly regular content updates for a few years after launch. The game went in to decline when those updates slowed down though - no surprise. The other thing that isnt a surprise is that Rift was run by the person that had previously run SoE, the EQ/EQ2 developer.
Also, a good chunk of Intrepids team are ex-EQ2 developers.
It's probably not an outlier, @NiKr, the problem is something different and unfortunately much more emergent.
Ashes is meant to be a challenging game, right?
People don't like challenging MMOs. They consider them 'too hardcore' and the games suffer, often quite quickly. The oldest ones manage, and of course nothing stands up to WoW's numbers, but in terms of 'overall engagement and enjoyment of the players', there are many many old MMOs, even really basic stuff that no one would play in this era, that people loved that added content or shifted their content around in much the same way.
Some of them closed down because they could no longer afford to output that content due to lack of subs or other monetization. Others are still going but have newer or 'easier' versions that get all the attention.
This is another situation where I find it hard to relate.
FFXI's amount of content is literally staggering, I don't know if it is on the EQ2 level but I've had people talk about 'nah there's no way that 300 PvE bosses/encounters are a thing' and I find myself thinking 'wait but I come from a game where I literally have a choice of two thousand things to do (and by this you can assume 80% are miniboss/Elite fights where we could lose) for fun and even potential 'progression' with my not-at-cap group' and another 2000 things to do for progression if we wanted to actually level to cap (long story, just consider it the equivalent of playing on a Private Server but not actually bothering to do even that).
I'm pretty sure I'm lowballing that 2000+2000 btw.
The problem is that FFXI was (note WAS) punishingly hard. To me, Ashes sounds like a candy store and I keep hoping it'll be harder (systems, not individual things to do).
I know four other games like this, though not on this level.
I ain't saying they're definitely not outliers, I'm saying that it sounds like there are 7-10 outliers.
So, it isnt management.
While EQ2 was being developed, things were an absolute shit show. There was no over all leadership, and teams were haphazardly thrown together. When the game launched, there were no back end tools, no documentation, nothing to make adding new content easier.
The development team that was left spent more time during the first two development cycles creating back end tools for the game than creating content for the game. The expansions were good, but not great.
Then when the tools were finished, the next expansion literally blew everyone's expectations out of the water - even for an EQ family game. That was the expansion Bacon had a poster of behind him in his profile pic on the Intrepid website, rather than having the generic corporate headshot.
From what I can see, management wanted yearly expansions, but the developers knew the best way to do that going forward was to build tools to assist in building expansions. So they took time allocated to.expansions and created those tools.
In other words, the reason EQ2 was able to maintain this level of content is because of the developers they had as the game went live.
Ashes has many of those same developers, and the assumption that should be made is that they took this experience with them to Intrepid, and created similar tools for Ashes.
So, Ashes has the tools (UE5 at least) the knowledge, the ability and the experience to not just match, but to beat EQ2's content development pace.
As such, the baseline assumption for this game should be that it wont have the issues games like WoW have with player boredom, as the only way this could happen is if it is what Steven wants (and why would he want that?).
I watched snippets of a Josh Strife Haze and LazyPeon vid to get a grasp on this game and it looks like Ultima Online on roids but using a tab + a lvl system (and I very much enjoyed UO).
I can see why the game lost out, if you don't have close friends then much like UO it lacks focus on the game itself (FF14 being the disgusting polar opposite). The world and its quests are a huge canvas for players to share experiences but without a decent population there's not a lot to keep you firmly attached unless you're of the mindset of "I hella don't mind enjoying the game at my own pace".
Making a 3d world was a gamble at the time, that Blizzard and Lineage 2 shot out the park (L2 would not be recognised if it weren't for its 10/10 immersion via graphics+music), EQ2 looks and sounds like a game still trapped in the late 90's forced into a 3d world, who knows if it would of done better as a clean isometric camera angle to polish graphic and theme better.
My quick review of the game is that it is in dire need of an immersive element, it's a game with a lot of things you could ask for but made light of a concepts such as a straight arrowed story or a system which encourages players to get big and fight over PvE, towns, seiging or whatever at a faster pace without getting so choked into focusing on your own unique experience (which I'll stress would of perhaps been fine if there was a decent population).
Thing is you can keep going on about EQ2 but its a game that wasn't widely played and certainly not at the high levels that you're highlighting as great so it's really not fair at all when barely anyone can make a critique on it and that's exactly the same for me and @NiKr if we were to go on about higher level Lineage 2 system/player mechanics or just myself if I were to use dedicated UO play as a counter arguement (although it's easier for people to understand L2 system discussions as the game/objective was clear cut + it's the biggest example of a game with a healthy flag/corruption system).
I hope those EQ2 devs at Intrepid show the same content work rate as they did for a game with no right to compete alongside WoW because that to me sounds ridiculous. With good leadership and more experience attained I'm sure they will be a great asset.
While not a bad take of the game, there are a few things to point out.
The first is that the game was developed at a time when single core processors were still king, and frequency was on a constant climb. The games engine was developed to run on a single core chip at about 8GHz - they wanted to future proof the engine and indeed at the games launch, no computer could run it at max quality. It just happened that instead of getting faster, CPU's went multi core instead.
This has, as far as I can tell, prevented them from being able to do a graphics update to the game, so it is very much stick with high end mid 2000's graphics. But the graphics were indeed good for the mid 2000's.
You are right in that you need others with you to enjoy the game, which is why I have not suggested it to any player for many years. It is still a great game if you have a guild looking for something to play together though.
As to it needing some immersive element, no. The game is what it is and still has the population to support annual expansions due specifically to the fact that it is indeed still the same game. The developers haven't tried to turn it in to something else like L2's developer did, or like WoW. The game is what it is, and will remain that until it does, and that is for the best.
However, creating a similar game now would need such an element, because games and gamers have moved on since 2004. However, the core of the game (which is content) is perfectly fine today still.
A part of the reason I talk about EQ2 is because I know a lot of players dont know the game well. A good number of people that left that game went on to try any number of other MMO's, and literally found nothing even close to as good, and literally gave up on the genre years ago. The game had actual millions of players, yet looking over MMO forums nos, you hardly see any - the above is why.