I consider PvX to have people flagged as Non-Combatant by default at the very least... and probably also include Corruption.
Otherwise, it's literally a flag proclaiming you're in the area to fight.
And it's not possible to flag to indicate you are there for PvE.
Your consideration of PvX is wrong. @Dolyem I gave my contribution on the first page of the second "oceans" topic.
Come on...
I consider PvX to have people flagged as Non-Combatant by default at the very least... and probably also include Corruption.
Otherwise, it's literally a flag proclaiming you're in the area to fight.
And it's not possible to flag to indicate you are there for PvE.
Your consideration of PvX is wrong. @Dolyem I gave my contribution on the first page of the second "oceans" topic.
Come on...
yes, but your most recent comments are just jabs at people. Just contribute to the conversation instead of being negative everytime @Dygz says something even if you disagree with it. I am not a fan of many things he has said but I still think he has every right to give input. The best thing you can do is give reasoning as to why you think what he says is incorrect, while not making it personal
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
You could state what your opinion is of the difference between a PvP MMO and a PvX MMO.
I did. First page of this original thread. I even explained as to why it may be difficult to have the PK system work when there is cannons, sails, ship hauls and players involved and how hitting a ship with a cannonball and how the announced change is a good thing for the flow if naval combats.
You could state what your opinion is of the difference between a PvP MMO and a PvX MMO.
I did. First page of this original thread. I even explained as to why it may be difficult to have the PK system work when there is cannons, sails, ship hauls and players involved and how hitting a ship with a cannonball and how the announced change is a good thing for the flow if naval combats.
Cool, so you repost it.
If someone is questioning you in regards to something you feel you have already stated, don't just assume that the person in question has read everything you have written. This is ESPECIALLY true if you are talking about a different thread.
We keep telling newcomers "search the forums before xyz..." yet I can see how, with all the answers burried after fluff and endless pages of irrelevant stuff, newcomers may as well just ignore the search button.
Carry on, recycle the same back and forth. Im done with Dygzs thread and his definitions and sense of betrayal by the devs in regards to the games designs.
If I recall it all started because you shot him down when he said he disagreed with the decision and was going to not play the game. But at this point you both look silly for the public back n forth jabs. Take it to your DMs. As for contributing to the discussion... Exclusively PVP has no world progression. Its entirely based on combat between players, having nothing to do with gathering, crafting, killing NPCs, etc. The only exceptions being those things in an objective event where those things are required to win a match between teams of players under specific winning conditions.
A PvX game requires you to do all sorts of PVE content to progress in game, while contending with other players also fighting for that content. Your participation in several events that could be considered PVE, or PVP, or both are all required, such as fighting over a world boss against a rival guild, attacking a competing node, escorting caravans, finishing content within a node to help progress it, taking materials from a neighboring node to diminish it. And so on.
In comparison, a PVE only game has zero direct player character conflict.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2022
Yeah, that would basically be an MMOFPS.
I’m not aware of any MMORPG with PvP that doesn’t have both PvP and PvE.
If you play WoW on a PvP server, that may as well be PvX by that definition.
Doesn’t sound like the Open Seas does much for world progression.
If I recall it all started because you shot him down when he said he disagreed with the decision and was going to not play the game. But at this point you both look silly for the public back n forth jabs. Take it to your DMs. As for contributing to the discussion... Exclusively PVP has no world progression. Its entirely based on combat between players, having nothing to do with gathering, crafting, killing NPCs, etc. The only exceptions being those things in an objective event where those things are required to win a match between teams of players under specific winning conditions.
A PvX game requires you to do all sorts of PVE content to progress in game, while contending with other players also fighting for that content. Your participation in several events that could be considered PVE, or PVP, or both are all required, such as fighting over a world boss against a rival guild, attacking a competing node, escorting caravans, finishing content within a node to help progress it, taking materials from a neighboring node to diminish it. And so on.
In comparison, a PVE only game has zero direct player character conflict.
I have a slightly different expectation of both PvP and PvX.
By your definition, most FPS games would be PvX as there are usually things like weapons or health packs you can pick up (which can be considered gathering). By this definition, a capture the flag match is PvX, as the flag is a part of the environment.
While you may argue that I am picking extreme examples, I am still picking examples that fit in with your above definition - which is why I personally think it isn't a great definition (you may, that's fine).
Based on that, a PvP game, to me, is where all activities are subject to PvP. Sure, there may be a world boss, but if that world boss is going to be killed by who ever PvP's best, then that world boss is PvP content. Players will put an emphasis on PvP, because if you don't win at PvP, you don't win at anything.
To me, a PvX game is one where players put equal (or near equal) emphasis on the PvP and PvE aspects of the game. As such, players need times to focus on PvP, and they also need times to focus on PvE.
If you always need to focus at least somewhat on PvP, then your game is PvP.
If I recall it all started because you shot him down when he said he disagreed with the decision and was going to not play the game. But at this point you both look silly for the public back n forth jabs. Take it to your DMs. As for contributing to the discussion... Exclusively PVP has no world progression. Its entirely based on combat between players, having nothing to do with gathering, crafting, killing NPCs, etc. The only exceptions being those things in an objective event where those things are required to win a match between teams of players under specific winning conditions.
A PvX game requires you to do all sorts of PVE content to progress in game, while contending with other players also fighting for that content. Your participation in several events that could be considered PVE, or PVP, or both are all required, such as fighting over a world boss against a rival guild, attacking a competing node, escorting caravans, finishing content within a node to help progress it, taking materials from a neighboring node to diminish it. And so on.
In comparison, a PVE only game has zero direct player character conflict.
I have a slightly different expectation of both PvP and PvX.
By your definition, most FPS games would be PvX as there are usually things like weapons or health packs you can pick up (which can be considered gathering). By this definition, a capture the flag match is PvX, as the flag is a part of the environment.
While you may argue that I am picking extreme examples, I am still picking examples that fit in with your above definition - which is why I personally think it isn't a great definition (you may, that's fine).
Based on that, a PvP game, to me, is where all activities are subject to PvP. Sure, there may be a world boss, but if that world boss is going to be killed by who ever PvP's best, then that world boss is PvP content. Players will put an emphasis on PvP, because if you don't win at PvP, you don't win at anything.
To me, a PvX game is one where players put equal (or near equal) emphasis on the PvP and PvE aspects of the game. As such, players need times to focus on PvP, and they also need times to focus on PvE.
If you always need to focus at least somewhat on PvP, then your game is PvP.
I actually addressed that with my exception The only exceptions being those things in an objective event where those things are required to win a match between teams of players under specific winning conditions. at its heart, those things are designed in that way to defeat other players.
And honestly I don't really disagree with you, but for most any game where you have fighting other players involved, that will heavily determine whether or not you will succeed in a game. The goal is to keep the playing field as level as possible when PvP occurs, in other words no P2W. I do agree and want a mostly balanced game of PVE and PVP. And with the corruption system on land, and no corruption at sea, while most of the core systems are on land, I honestly think this is pretty balanced and will consider it that until we all get to test it. And if it is way too PVP oriented to the point where it doesnt even feel like PVE is manageable I will support a change in it, but I really dont think its going to be as insane as everyone is making it out to be.
for most any game where you have fighting other players involved, that will heavily determine whether or not you will succeed in a game.
Indeed - which makes it PvP.
To me, this is why a PvX game needs instanced content - at least in some quantity. Without it, the winner is always the one that wins PvP, which means your game is just PvP.
for most any game where you have fighting other players involved, that will heavily determine whether or not you will succeed in a game.
Indeed - which makes it PvP.
To me, this is why a PvX game needs instanced content - at least in some quantity. Without it, the winner is always the one that wins PvP, which means your game is just PvP.
I think the corruption system as designed is quite good at balancing out the worlds of unchecked pvp and one that makes people think twice
for most any game where you have fighting other players involved, that will heavily determine whether or not you will succeed in a game.
Indeed - which makes it PvP.
To me, this is why a PvX game needs instanced content - at least in some quantity. Without it, the winner is always the one that wins PvP, which means your game is just PvP.
I think the corruption system as designed is quite good at balancing out the worlds of unchecked pvp and one that makes people think twice
I disagree.
In order for the corruption system to be a balancing factor here, it would need to provide players a situation where they can basically assume PvE is all they need to think about.
Any time PvE is important enough to think about, the rewards for interrupting that PvE are so great that the corruption system will have no impact at all on it.
In order for me to agree with you, Intrepid would need to announce that corruption gain around world bosses (or at least around some world bosses) will be 4 times higher than normal.
Since my expectation is (and this is one I have stated before) that PvP around world bosses will not be subject to corruption, I really can't agree with your take here.
Calling the open sea 24/7 PvP is disingenuous, there is a 0% chance you will need to PvP 100% of the time you are in the open sea.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2022
At this point, the PvX term is cute, but useless.
If I'm playing an MMORPG one of the first things I'm going to want to know is what type of server rulesets there are: PvP, PvP-Optional, PvE-Only.
I'll rank those on a scale of 2 - 0.
In Ashes, all the servers have the same ruleset: PvP-Optional
Where PvX has been used, by Steven, to suggest that PvP and PvE are equally balanced. So, on the above scale, Ashes would have had a PvP rating of 1.
What we have now is a game with no PvE-Only server.
Most of the game is PvP Rank 1: PvP Optional.
A significant chunk of the game has zones that are PvP Rank 2: Auto-Flag Combatant with no Corruption.
There are no zones that are PvP rank 0: No PvP.
Ashes basically has a PvP rank of 1.5. It is PvP-centric.
Whatever else meaning PvX might have is irrelevant after that.
It's not that the game needs players who focus on PvE as well as players who focus on PvP; rather it's that the game needs the PvPers (people who typically play on PvP servers and PvP-Optional servers) to also do PvE stuff.
Agreed, people should be fighting over content or doing it as it pops up, this game doesn't need to be turned into another instanced PvE fest game.
First thing is added instanced, then people complain you need more types, then people want to find groupss easier for it, then they want party finder to teleport them to dungeons, then they expect that for all the content going forward.
AoC needs to be AoC done in its own fun way while tackling the issues at hand and making sure there is enough content to support the player base on the server with a good gameplay loop. Moment you start adding instanced content for what people deem as "hard" the entire game goes down that path of instanced content.
At this point, the PvX term is cute, but useless.
If I'm playing an MMORPG one of the first things I'm going to want to know is what type of server rulesets there are: PvP, PvP-Optional, PvE-Only.
I'll rank those on a scale of 2 - 0.
In Ashes, all the servers have the same ruleset: PvP-Optional
Where PvX has been used, by Steven, to suggest that PvP and PvE are equally balanced. So, on the above scale, Ashes would have had a PvP rating of 1.
What we have now is a game with no PvE-Only server.
Most of the game is PvP Rank 1: PvP Optional.
A significant chunk of the game has zones that are PvP Rank 2: Auto-Flag Combatant with no Corruption.
There are no zones that are PvP rank 0: No PvP.
Ashes basically has a PvP rank of 1.5. It is PvP-centric.
Whatever else meaning PvX might have is irrelevant after that.
You need to look in terms of content for the gameplay loops that you will enjoy. Which would make more of a scale of 1-2 based on the content you do by how you are viewing things. If you are on the land it would be one to you, do you do that 90-95% of the time so it would stay at a 1.
If you are doing open sea stuff, wars, guild wars, sieges, battlegrounds, etc then you can say 2.
Overall I don't view it like that though you have pve content and you have pvp content they are mixed and working together so in my eyes it is simply PvX. Adding more PvP content even more so if its only isolated to a area that you don't need to do much in it is just move pvp content added to the PvX.
The sea content before as well most likely would have been lackluster based on the size of the world with more reason to use your mount then actually use your boat and lead to any kind of navel combat. Increasing the world size allowed them to do that which is a surprise and not something I'd say we are expecting. The size expanded so they could include that new kind of content more focused on the pvp side. So you could look at it as you aren't really missing anything as that is new areas they added to the game for people that enjoy that kind of content. Which of course it is optional and not forced on you to go there.
for most any game where you have fighting other players involved, that will heavily determine whether or not you will succeed in a game.
Indeed - which makes it PvP.
To me, this is why a PvX game needs instanced content - at least in some quantity. Without it, the winner is always the one that wins PvP, which means your game is just PvP.
I think the corruption system as designed is quite good at balancing out the worlds of unchecked pvp and one that makes people think twice
I disagree.
In order for the corruption system to be a balancing factor here, it would need to provide players a situation where they can basically assume PvE is all they need to think about.
Any time PvE is important enough to think about, the rewards for interrupting that PvE are so great that the corruption system will have no impact at all on it.
In order for me to agree with you, Intrepid would need to announce that corruption gain around world bosses (or at least around some world bosses) will be 4 times higher than normal.
Since my expectation is (and this is one I have stated before) that PvP around world bosses will not be subject to corruption, I really can't agree with your take here.
Wait, since when are world bosses not subject to corruption?
for most any game where you have fighting other players involved, that will heavily determine whether or not you will succeed in a game.
Indeed - which makes it PvP.
To me, this is why a PvX game needs instanced content - at least in some quantity. Without it, the winner is always the one that wins PvP, which means your game is just PvP.
I think the corruption system as designed is quite good at balancing out the worlds of unchecked pvp and one that makes people think twice
I disagree.
In order for the corruption system to be a balancing factor here, it would need to provide players a situation where they can basically assume PvE is all they need to think about.
Any time PvE is important enough to think about, the rewards for interrupting that PvE are so great that the corruption system will have no impact at all on it.
In order for me to agree with you, Intrepid would need to announce that corruption gain around world bosses (or at least around some world bosses) will be 4 times higher than normal.
Since my expectation is (and this is one I have stated before) that PvP around world bosses will not be subject to corruption, I really can't agree with your take here.
Wait, since when are world bosses not subject to corruption?
It has long been my expectation - just as it was with the ocean.
It hasn't been stated as the case as yet - but that is in part because we have heard basically nothing at all about PvE content. Placing world bosses in battleground areas fits in perfectly with what the game is (by definition, battlegrounds are PvP based events - open world bosses fit in to that description better than all ocean content fit in to that description), and will make those encounters far more interesting.
If you think about the game in that context, I am sure you will agree that instanced content becomes much more important.
for most any game where you have fighting other players involved, that will heavily determine whether or not you will succeed in a game.
Indeed - which makes it PvP.
To me, this is why a PvX game needs instanced content - at least in some quantity. Without it, the winner is always the one that wins PvP, which means your game is just PvP.
I think the corruption system as designed is quite good at balancing out the worlds of unchecked pvp and one that makes people think twice
I disagree.
In order for the corruption system to be a balancing factor here, it would need to provide players a situation where they can basically assume PvE is all they need to think about.
Any time PvE is important enough to think about, the rewards for interrupting that PvE are so great that the corruption system will have no impact at all on it.
In order for me to agree with you, Intrepid would need to announce that corruption gain around world bosses (or at least around some world bosses) will be 4 times higher than normal.
Since my expectation is (and this is one I have stated before) that PvP around world bosses will not be subject to corruption, I really can't agree with your take here.
Wait, since when are world bosses not subject to corruption?
It has long been my expectation - just as it was with the ocean.
It hasn't been stated as the case as yet - but that is in part because we have heard basically nothing at all about PvE content. Placing world bosses in battleground areas fits in perfectly with what the game is (by definition, battlegrounds are PvP based events - open world bosses fit in to that description better than all ocean content fit in to that description), and will make those encounters far more interesting.
If you think about the game in that context, I am sure you will agree that instanced content becomes much more important.
Ah I see. Well I said before I do prefer raids to be instanced. World bosses tend to create bad drama on servers, but who knows, maybe ashes is so big it won't be as much of a problem.
One suggestion I would have is that any inhabitants of nodes sharing a ZOI with a raid should get a slight buff over outsiders potentially. Call it a "familiar with the territory" buff. It would still likely create conflict amongst the nodes occupants but at least mega guilds would have a disadvantage hopping from raid to raid across the world trying to take all of the kills each time they pop up.
I still get the feeling that people are vastly overestimating the amount of players per server who will:
Be rich enough to even be in the open seas with a decent ship
The amount of content that will be there (especially PvE content)
The amount of people who will be there at any one time (people acting like stepping oar into the open sea is equal to instant ganking)
The interest from people to actually PK on sight just because of auto-flagging (some people still don't wanna risk losing their ship, or having to sail back out there to loot their own corpses/aquatic mules etc)
I'm very interested in this subject, as it does shake up the importance of certain ships and trade routes. It brings up questions.
The Northern part of the sea has a rather large island, so can we skim along the coast to remain in a non-PvP area?
I doubt he would allow that tbh going by his intention with it. that being said there be airships between metropolis too from my understanding so you will have a way to cross the ocean anyway although i doubt it will be allowed with resources.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2022
Ashes doesn't have a Non-PvP area, but...
Seems like it depends on what exactly counts as Open Sea.
Draakathbohr probably has shorline that does not count as Open Sea.
It's theoretically possible the island below Draakathbohr has shoreline that does not count as Open Sea, but it's also just as likely that it's still auto-flag Combatant there.
I'm not sure what instanced PvE will do. Whenever I've been on PvP Servers the most PvP has happened outside PvE Instances. Ashes will have the same issue because loot can be gained by those killed in PvP after the instanced raid. If we then go into Legendary Item Drops from instances rather than legendary resource drops then its even more unlikely PvE Instances will sit well. That also is not PvX, that is PvE Focus.
I still get the feeling that people are vastly overestimating the amount of players per server who will:
Be rich enough to even be in the open seas with a decent ship
Galleons have a crew of 40 - guilds will have multiple.
You are right about the lack of PvE content though. The point of being at sea will be mostly trade and attacking trade.
Right. large Guilds will. But if they want to spec into larger sizes for their Guild, they can't spec into naval proficiencies or other PvP bonuses. Remember the base player limit for a Guild is between 30 and 50.
And even if only Guilds can, that already reduces the amount of people there significantly. And they then need to be successful and rich enough to afford a Galleon.
Comments
Your consideration of PvX is wrong.
@Dolyem I gave my contribution on the first page of the second "oceans" topic.
Come on...
yes, but your most recent comments are just jabs at people. Just contribute to the conversation instead of being negative everytime @Dygz says something even if you disagree with it. I am not a fan of many things he has said but I still think he has every right to give input. The best thing you can do is give reasoning as to why you think what he says is incorrect, while not making it personal
Yeah, didn't you say that PvX is just another way of saying PvP.
Am I supposed to give reasoning for this?
@Dolyem
I did. First page of this original thread. I even explained as to why it may be difficult to have the PK system work when there is cannons, sails, ship hauls and players involved and how hitting a ship with a cannonball and how the announced change is a good thing for the flow if naval combats.
Cool, so you repost it.
If someone is questioning you in regards to something you feel you have already stated, don't just assume that the person in question has read everything you have written. This is ESPECIALLY true if you are talking about a different thread.
Carry on, recycle the same back and forth. Im done with Dygzs thread and his definitions and sense of betrayal by the devs in regards to the games designs.
If I recall it all started because you shot him down when he said he disagreed with the decision and was going to not play the game. But at this point you both look silly for the public back n forth jabs. Take it to your DMs. As for contributing to the discussion... Exclusively PVP has no world progression. Its entirely based on combat between players, having nothing to do with gathering, crafting, killing NPCs, etc. The only exceptions being those things in an objective event where those things are required to win a match between teams of players under specific winning conditions.
A PvX game requires you to do all sorts of PVE content to progress in game, while contending with other players also fighting for that content. Your participation in several events that could be considered PVE, or PVP, or both are all required, such as fighting over a world boss against a rival guild, attacking a competing node, escorting caravans, finishing content within a node to help progress it, taking materials from a neighboring node to diminish it. And so on.
In comparison, a PVE only game has zero direct player character conflict.
I’m not aware of any MMORPG with PvP that doesn’t have both PvP and PvE.
If you play WoW on a PvP server, that may as well be PvX by that definition.
Doesn’t sound like the Open Seas does much for world progression.
I have a slightly different expectation of both PvP and PvX.
By your definition, most FPS games would be PvX as there are usually things like weapons or health packs you can pick up (which can be considered gathering). By this definition, a capture the flag match is PvX, as the flag is a part of the environment.
While you may argue that I am picking extreme examples, I am still picking examples that fit in with your above definition - which is why I personally think it isn't a great definition (you may, that's fine).
Based on that, a PvP game, to me, is where all activities are subject to PvP. Sure, there may be a world boss, but if that world boss is going to be killed by who ever PvP's best, then that world boss is PvP content. Players will put an emphasis on PvP, because if you don't win at PvP, you don't win at anything.
To me, a PvX game is one where players put equal (or near equal) emphasis on the PvP and PvE aspects of the game. As such, players need times to focus on PvP, and they also need times to focus on PvE.
If you always need to focus at least somewhat on PvP, then your game is PvP.
I actually addressed that with my exception
The only exceptions being those things in an objective event where those things are required to win a match between teams of players under specific winning conditions. at its heart, those things are designed in that way to defeat other players.
And honestly I don't really disagree with you, but for most any game where you have fighting other players involved, that will heavily determine whether or not you will succeed in a game. The goal is to keep the playing field as level as possible when PvP occurs, in other words no P2W. I do agree and want a mostly balanced game of PVE and PVP. And with the corruption system on land, and no corruption at sea, while most of the core systems are on land, I honestly think this is pretty balanced and will consider it that until we all get to test it. And if it is way too PVP oriented to the point where it doesnt even feel like PVE is manageable I will support a change in it, but I really dont think its going to be as insane as everyone is making it out to be.
To me, this is why a PvX game needs instanced content - at least in some quantity. Without it, the winner is always the one that wins PvP, which means your game is just PvP.
I think the corruption system as designed is quite good at balancing out the worlds of unchecked pvp and one that makes people think twice
I disagree.
In order for the corruption system to be a balancing factor here, it would need to provide players a situation where they can basically assume PvE is all they need to think about.
Any time PvE is important enough to think about, the rewards for interrupting that PvE are so great that the corruption system will have no impact at all on it.
In order for me to agree with you, Intrepid would need to announce that corruption gain around world bosses (or at least around some world bosses) will be 4 times higher than normal.
Since my expectation is (and this is one I have stated before) that PvP around world bosses will not be subject to corruption, I really can't agree with your take here.
If I'm playing an MMORPG one of the first things I'm going to want to know is what type of server rulesets there are: PvP, PvP-Optional, PvE-Only.
I'll rank those on a scale of 2 - 0.
In Ashes, all the servers have the same ruleset: PvP-Optional
Where PvX has been used, by Steven, to suggest that PvP and PvE are equally balanced. So, on the above scale, Ashes would have had a PvP rating of 1.
What we have now is a game with no PvE-Only server.
Most of the game is PvP Rank 1: PvP Optional.
A significant chunk of the game has zones that are PvP Rank 2: Auto-Flag Combatant with no Corruption.
There are no zones that are PvP rank 0: No PvP.
Ashes basically has a PvP rank of 1.5. It is PvP-centric.
Whatever else meaning PvX might have is irrelevant after that.
It's not that the game needs players who focus on PvE as well as players who focus on PvP; rather it's that the game needs the PvPers (people who typically play on PvP servers and PvP-Optional servers) to also do PvE stuff.
First thing is added instanced, then people complain you need more types, then people want to find groupss easier for it, then they want party finder to teleport them to dungeons, then they expect that for all the content going forward.
AoC needs to be AoC done in its own fun way while tackling the issues at hand and making sure there is enough content to support the player base on the server with a good gameplay loop. Moment you start adding instanced content for what people deem as "hard" the entire game goes down that path of instanced content.
You need to look in terms of content for the gameplay loops that you will enjoy. Which would make more of a scale of 1-2 based on the content you do by how you are viewing things. If you are on the land it would be one to you, do you do that 90-95% of the time so it would stay at a 1.
If you are doing open sea stuff, wars, guild wars, sieges, battlegrounds, etc then you can say 2.
Overall I don't view it like that though you have pve content and you have pvp content they are mixed and working together so in my eyes it is simply PvX. Adding more PvP content even more so if its only isolated to a area that you don't need to do much in it is just move pvp content added to the PvX.
The sea content before as well most likely would have been lackluster based on the size of the world with more reason to use your mount then actually use your boat and lead to any kind of navel combat. Increasing the world size allowed them to do that which is a surprise and not something I'd say we are expecting. The size expanded so they could include that new kind of content more focused on the pvp side. So you could look at it as you aren't really missing anything as that is new areas they added to the game for people that enjoy that kind of content. Which of course it is optional and not forced on you to go there.
Wait, since when are world bosses not subject to corruption?
It has long been my expectation - just as it was with the ocean.
It hasn't been stated as the case as yet - but that is in part because we have heard basically nothing at all about PvE content. Placing world bosses in battleground areas fits in perfectly with what the game is (by definition, battlegrounds are PvP based events - open world bosses fit in to that description better than all ocean content fit in to that description), and will make those encounters far more interesting.
If you think about the game in that context, I am sure you will agree that instanced content becomes much more important.
Ah I see. Well I said before I do prefer raids to be instanced. World bosses tend to create bad drama on servers, but who knows, maybe ashes is so big it won't be as much of a problem.
One suggestion I would have is that any inhabitants of nodes sharing a ZOI with a raid should get a slight buff over outsiders potentially. Call it a "familiar with the territory" buff. It would still likely create conflict amongst the nodes occupants but at least mega guilds would have a disadvantage hopping from raid to raid across the world trying to take all of the kills each time they pop up.
I doubt he would allow that tbh going by his intention with it. that being said there be airships between metropolis too from my understanding so you will have a way to cross the ocean anyway although i doubt it will be allowed with resources.
Seems like it depends on what exactly counts as Open Sea.
Draakathbohr probably has shorline that does not count as Open Sea.
It's theoretically possible the island below Draakathbohr has shoreline that does not count as Open Sea, but it's also just as likely that it's still auto-flag Combatant there.
You are right about the lack of PvE content though. The point of being at sea will be mostly trade and attacking trade.
The idea is to move the PvP, not remove it.
Right. large Guilds will. But if they want to spec into larger sizes for their Guild, they can't spec into naval proficiencies or other PvP bonuses. Remember the base player limit for a Guild is between 30 and 50.
And even if only Guilds can, that already reduces the amount of people there significantly. And they then need to be successful and rich enough to afford a Galleon.