On Lineage 2 private server's forums always was sitting few humans, repesenting each big-guilds and tried to swear, find out who is cool and who is not. 95% of the players didn't know where to click on the site to enter the forum. That's what was L2 private servers.
Guess we had different experiences with the game then.
What if some servers would not have this permanent auto-flag?
I assume you will say that you could play on those servers.
It's quite a bit more likely. Yes.
I was already on the fence about playing and waiting to test whether Corruption deters non-consensual PvP satisfactorily in Alpha 2.
So... there has never been a guarantee that I would be playing Ashes after release.
But then, what if those servers would have different map? Like each of them some unique biomes?
Would it bother you that the other server which has permanent auto-flag has a biome yours don't have?
Seems like that is not a sufficient solution. It's still saying "Hey, Ashes has these cool areas to explore, but if you want to explore them, you will have to agree to be auto-flagged for PvP."
And, for me, my response is, "No, thanks. I'd rather just play some other game."
But, if my TheoryForge co-hosts were playing on a server like I might hang out with them in game from time to time.
This is what the tries to achieve.
To bring people togheter.
Some people will make friends, helping eachother to explore.
Others may already have.
If your TheoryForge co-hosts need you to help them, and you refuse, basically playing solo is more important for you than helping friends face the risks. They'll find other players.
If they cannot rely on you, noone else here should miss you, even if you are a nice person here on forums.
But yes, at a certain age, one might prefere to retire and chill fishing and enjoy the weather than fighting. Games are usually made for young people who can invest a lot of time and energy.
September 12. 2022: Being naked can also be used to bring a skilled artisan to different freeholds... Don't summon family!
True, actually pvp-players always not active on a forum threads in any game. It always was and, probably, will be.
L2's whole private server scene was held up by the fact that L2 players loved to sit on forums and flame each other, which then translated to the game and back to the forums.
EQ2 had this for a few years.
EQ2Flames was more popular than the official forums for quite a few years. EQ2 had a sharp decline after EQ2Flames had a decline.
Some of the flame threads on that forum were absolutely epic though.
I think the thing that is the most odd feeling to me is that people like Dygz are digging (no pun intended) in on the "I will not play this game" when we HAVE NOT EVEN PLAYED THE GAME YET.
To make it even more weird, he says he will happily test the game to check out systems he does not fully understand but is interested in, seems reasonable, good even.... but has somehow already made up his mind about what PVP will feel like when NO ONE (probably even Intrepid) knows what the final version will be.
It seems really odd that a person would invest so MUCH in a thing and then reject it before even really trying it.
it would be kinda like going to the Theory Forge youtube page and commenting that you will never watch their content, but you go there over and over and post your intentions to never watch again each week and then you engage in dialog and arguments about their content.
It feels to me like his behavior here is motivated by something other than a legit opinion.
I think the thing that is the most odd feeling to me is that people like Dygz are digging (no pun intended) in on the "I will not play this game" when we HAVE NOT EVEN PLAYED THE GAME YET.
To make it even more weird, he says he will happily test the game to check out systems he does not fully understand but is interested in, seems reasonable, good even.... but has somehow already made up his mind about what PVP will feel like when NO ONE (probably even Intrepid) knows what the final version will be.
It seems really odd that a person would invest so MUCH in a thing and then reject it before even really trying it.
It feels like a something other than a legit opinion.
it would be kinda like going to the Theory Forge youtube page and commenting that you will never watch their content, but you go there over and over and post your intentions to never watch again each week and then you engage in dialog and arguments about their content.
He hasn't made up his mind about what PVP will feel like. He has made up his mind about when Steven has told us PVP will happen. He's never said anything negative about what PVP combat will feel like, only about the incentive structure that determines when it will happen.
The other important point to note is that he did not invest in the thing that Ashes has recently changed into. The thing he invested in is the Ashes that he was explicitly told would not be this way. (Whether his interpretation was correct or not is not relevant.) Then he was told that it's no longer the thing he invested in. (Whether his original interpretation was correct is still not relevant.) He can't get his money (or time) back now, but he would never have invested at all in the thing that Ashes currently is. In short: He didn't invest in the thing he's rejecting. He invested in something that was (from his perspective) replaced by the thing he's rejecting.
At this point of course, he has already invested. He might as well stick around and represent his demographic: People who would have played "the Ashes that appeared to be promised until just recently" but who will probably not play the Ashes that is currently promised. If Steven didn't want him (and the class of player he represents) here, he should have been clearer up front. Overall though? Even though his presence may upset some people, nothing about Dygz's behavior is inconsistent.
The main point is that Open Seas PvP is a deal-breaker for him in terms of making a new investment: the long-term commitment of the hours and years involved in progressing in the final game. He might as well stick around and enjoy the Alphas and Betas he's already bought in to. It's not like he hates the rest of the game, and without his prior investment in it as a long-term commitment, it's easier to brush off the feeling "this game sucks long-term" and enjoy what's left.
He hasn't made up his mind about what PVP will feel like. He has made up his mind about when Steven has told us PVP will happen. He's never said anything negative about what PVP combat will feel like, only about the incentive structure that determines when it will happen.
I see Dygz has representation now... nice.
You also argue semantics. I did not mean what the actual fighting/combat in pvp will feel like, i mean what being in a pvp world will feel like.
My point is we have NOT PLAYED THE GAME. Not even for one second. As much as he misinterpreted what was said before, he could very well be misunderstanding what is happening now. Even if there are no misunderstanding, certainly things will change.
For example, how will Dygz explain his massive change of stance when he actually plays the launch version of the game? Will we hold him accountable for this misstatement?
He hasn't made up his mind about what PVP will feel like. He has made up his mind about when Steven has told us PVP will happen. He's never said anything negative about what PVP combat will feel like, only about the incentive structure that determines when it will happen.
I see Dygz has representation now... nice.
You also argue semantics. I did mean what the actual fighting/combat in pvp will feel like, i mean what being in a pvp world will feel like.
My point is we have NOT PLAYED THE GAME. Not even for one second. As much as he misinterpreted what was said before, he could very well be misunderstanding what is happening now. Even if there are no misunderstanding, certainly things will change.
There are a LOT of other PvP worlds people have lived in. "What various types of them feel like" isn't really news... Ashes of Creation went from one somewhat novel type, to an old, well known one.
People do already have some experience with the "Open Seas" style, and with the type of community that comes with it.
For example, how will Dygz explain his massive change of stance when he actually plays the launch version of the game? Will we hold him accountable for this misstatement?
If he ever does (which I doubt), he would probably do it by saying "I've had [this] experience, and it changed my perspective because...".
I certainly hope we don't fault people for changing their opinions when they learn new things or have new experiences. What a world that would be.
One person here has 6.5k comments and half of them are probaly him crying bout PvP in the game lol pretty much replies to any post that has anything to do with pvp complaining bout it :P
Come on now, Dygz is not in every pvp thread. Maybe every other one, but not every.
Wasn't the initial game design allowing PVP to occur at any moment, with player corruption as a means to prevent the game from becoming a murder box?
You guys were ok with this type of PvP?
Node Sieges...Limited Resources... Events that reduce access to resources.....caravans to transport resources....a system in place to fight over a caravan....
Wasn't the initial game design allowing PVP to occur at any moment, with player corruption as a means to prevent the game from becoming a murder box?
You guys were ok with this type of PvP?
Node Sieges...Limited Resources... Events that reduce access to resources.....caravans to transport resources....a system in place to fight over a caravan....
That design screams PVP to me, looooong ago.
they tend to ignore what they dont like then try and change the game by complaining bout it kinda like what happened with new world tbh :P
I dont blame them tbh because alot of the time it actually works for better or for worst usualy for the worst though tbh.
Wasn't the initial game design allowing PVP to occur at any moment, with player corruption as a means to prevent the game from becoming a murder box?
You guys were ok with this type of PvP?
Node Sieges...Limited Resources... Events that reduce access to resources.....caravans to transport resources....a system in place to fight over a caravan....
That design screams PVP to me, looooong ago.
Indeed it does, and that's the game Dygz invested in. He didn't invest in a non-PvP game. He invested in a game with "player corruption as a means to prevent the game from becoming a murder box". He put a lot of effort into verifying this, too. He was told there would be PvP events and objectives like sieges and caravans, but otherwise there would in fact be "player corruption as a means to prevent the game from becoming a murder box".
Ashes of Creation today is a game where "player corruption as a means to prevent the game from becoming a murder box" exists only in certain regions, even if those regions are the majority.
Not everyone cares about that difference, but you can't deny it's real.
Wasn't the initial game design allowing PVP to occur at any moment, with player corruption as a means to prevent the game from becoming a murder box?
You guys were ok with this type of PvP?
Node Sieges...Limited Resources... Events that reduce access to resources.....caravans to transport resources....a system in place to fight over a caravan....
That design screams PVP to me, looooong ago.
Indeed it does, and that's the game Dygz invested in. He didn't invest in a non-PvP game. He invested in a game with "player corruption as a means to prevent the game from becoming a murder box". He put a lot of effort into verifying this, too. He was told there would be PvP events and objectives like sieges and caravans, but otherwise there would in fact be "player corruption as a means to prevent the game from becoming a murder box".
Ashes of Creation today is a game where "player corruption as a means to prevent the game from becoming a murder box" exists only in certain regions, even if those regions are the majority.
Not everyone cares about that difference, but you can't deny it's real.
But you have guild and node wars, so you could use those to freely attack people. Though I feel that xp debt and potential drops should be removed from those kinds of battles. With it mainly be used to fight in a area and control it not about stealing drops from players.
@Dygz At the end of the day you can choose to never go in those areas. Its the exact same as choosing to not go into a caravan zone. Not to mention, when you decide to play the game you are accepting that you are always at risk of pvp. The only difference with battlegrounds is that players that choose to enter such a place are consenting to flagged pvp before there is a need for retaliation rather than after. If you do not like that, there's not much else to it. This has been clear the entire way through development that pvp is a core aspect of the game. You cannot avoid it entirely. That's just a fact you have to either live with or move on.
Steven did not mislead you, lie to you, or stretch anything.
Mislead is your word; not mine.
Again... Steven himself has stated, both with the Open Seas and with Node Ruins, that these are changes that occurred several months ago and not shared publicly before September 2022, so... that is not even debatable.
These are different than the answers he gave when I specifically asked him about PvP in 2018 to gauge whether or not I would play.
All I'm saying is that if he had given these answers then, my response would have been the same:
"Cool. I don't play games with those features, so I won't be playing Ashes, but... I'm still intrigued by the Nodes system and plan to be testing that when it becomes available."
We agree. I can choose never to go into those areas. But, I am first and foremost an explorer and... I don't play games where I can't explore the whole map without being auto-flagged for PvP.
I was already highly skeptical that Corruption would be a sufficient deterrent to non-consensual PvP, but people like Crow3 and Nikr have said that based on Lineage II, they believe it should be. And, while I remain skeptical, that can be tested in Alpha 2.
But... I don't need to test to know how I feel about a game having permanent zones that I can't explore unless I agree to be auto-flagged for PvP. I do not agree to that level of "pre-consent".
If anyone says to me, "But, you consented to PvP just by logging in..." I will rage quit. I don't give that consent.
So... easier for me to just not play.
PvP with the Corruption mechanic has been clear throughout the entire development.
Again, Caravans and Sieges are temporary and opt-in. You can be in the area of a Caravan or Siege as a Non-Combatant. You cannot be in the Open Seas as a Non-Combatant.
And, yes, I might choose to wait to re-explore the razed Node until after the auto-flagging there is off.
If the Open Seas was temporary auto-flag for a couple days per week and had the Courrption mechanic in play for several days per week, I would be OK with that....
Assuming Corruption actually is a sufficient deterrent to non-consensual PvP.
But...again... you can watch me ask Steven if the PvP in Ashes is like EvE Online... and tell him I'm specifically asking because I don't play games like EvE... and you can see him dodge and weave as he explains why PvP in Ashes is not like EvE: "It is different. My hopes with regard to our battle is that it is meaningful. So, that means that it is a decision on behalf of the risk taker whether or not the reward is worthy of the risk. And then, additionally, as a player who might be on the receiving end of a PK, they are aware that this choice of an opponent directly impacts them probably more than it impacts the death of their character."
Punishment via Corruption and 4x death penalties.
I then ask him to compare Ashes PvP to ArcheAge.
Again, specifically because I chose not to play ArcheAge after watching their PvP naval battles.
Steven answers: "Well...Archeage... there really were very little penalties applied to character deaths..."
The Open Seas is permanent zone which auto-flags for the least amount of penalties for character deaths.
"You pretty much knew in any territory that you went to what the system of PvP mechanics were, whether it was a peace zone or a whether it was a PvP zone. So, that doesn't really relate well to what Ashes is trying to do. Because Ashes is an open world and there are no zoned (auto-)flagged PvP areas. Instead there is just the (Corruption) flagging system that relates."
So... here... as I try to get him to clearly state that Ashes has PvP zones similar to EvE and ArcheAge, two MMORPGs that I refuse to play, he replies that they are different because Ashes does not have permanent auto-flag PvP zones.
Now that I know Ashes does have a permanent auto-flag PvP zone, it falls into the same category as EvE and ArcheAge for me.
Again...Steven himself says that these are changes to what was said before, so... your claim that they aren't changes is false.
I'm not upset about the changes. But, permanent auto-flag PvP zone finally makes it clear for me that the PvP in Ashes is too similar to EvE and ArcheAge for my comfort.
Temporary PvP zone that lasts a couple days is probably fine for my comfort.
If anyone says to me, "But, you consented to PvP just by logging in..." I will rage quit. I don't give that consent.
So... easier for me to just not play.
Ah. I think I finally understand.
This incessant pronouncements that you will not play IS YOU RAGE QUITTING.
I understand, Dygz, and I am sorry. it is hard to have your heart broken.
It's a very good thing that the lootable ruins of a node turn to be an auto flag pvp, it would be really annoying to have people stealing stuff from you and not being able to fight them without consequences. It's necessary to have this kind of zones on auto combatant flag
Wasn't the initial game design allowing PVP to occur at any moment, with player corruption as a means to prevent the game from becoming a murder box?
You guys were ok with this type of PvP?
Node Sieges...Limited Resources... Events that reduce access to resources.....caravans to transport resources....a system in place to fight over a caravan....
That design screams PVP to me, looooong ago.
Indeed it does, and that's the game Dygz invested in. He didn't invest in a non-PvP game. He invested in a game with "player corruption as a means to prevent the game from becoming a murder box". He put a lot of effort into verifying this, too. He was told there would be PvP events and objectives like sieges and caravans, but otherwise there would in fact be "player corruption as a means to prevent the game from becoming a murder box".
Ashes of Creation today is a game where "player corruption as a means to prevent the game from becoming a murder box" exists only in certain regions, even if those regions are the majority.
Not everyone cares about that difference, but you can't deny it's real.
I think you guys are worried over nothing. The original game design is far more PVP oriented than anything else that has come afterwards. If you PVPd more, you would understand.
Wasn't the initial game design allowing PVP to occur at any moment, with player corruption as a means to prevent the game from becoming a murder box?
You guys were ok with this type of PvP?
Node Sieges...Limited Resources... Events that reduce access to resources.....caravans to transport resources....a system in place to fight over a caravan....
That design screams PVP to me, looooong ago.
Indeed it does, and that's the game Dygz invested in. He didn't invest in a non-PvP game. He invested in a game with "player corruption as a means to prevent the game from becoming a murder box". He put a lot of effort into verifying this, too. He was told there would be PvP events and objectives like sieges and caravans, but otherwise there would in fact be "player corruption as a means to prevent the game from becoming a murder box".
Ashes of Creation today is a game where "player corruption as a means to prevent the game from becoming a murder box" exists only in certain regions, even if those regions are the majority.
Not everyone cares about that difference, but you can't deny it's real.
I think you guys are worried over nothing. The original game design is far more PVP oriented than anything else that has come afterwards. If you PVPd more, you would understand.
See, this MIGHT be a bad take.
Because this happens when you go 'this person who has this opinion can't possibly have had the same experiences/seek the same experiences as I do'.
Except it would be VERY difficult for me to PvP more. In MMOs perhaps, but given that nearly 80% of my time gaming is spent in PvP games and some of those are also 'matchmaking-less' MMOs (by the definitions of some, MMOFPS I guess), I'm not giving up the other 20%, I don't think.
Every 'you guys are worried over nothing' post makes me less confident that this is going to work. Because I LIKE it here, I LIKE what AoC is, and that response still makes me want to ditch it because it just indicates that those who believe it will have NO real answers (or concern for others) if it fails.
Are we going to go around claiming now that 'Ashes was always even more PvP and then got toned down'? Or are we talking about Lineage and claiming that Ashes is 'Lineage toned down'?
We have too many Lineage veterans around here to get away with that, I hope.
Ah. I think I finally understand.
This incessant pronouncements that you will not play IS YOU RAGE QUITTING.
I understand, Dygz, and I am sorry. it is hard to have your heart broken.
It's awkward when someone says they 'finally understand' then clearly demonstrate they lack understanding.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
you manually choose to enter the zone, its like terms and service pop up for games so you can hit the i agree button to enter or decline to not enter, so basicly you can agree enter for potential pvp or u can go around the ruins to opt out.
Right. So, in this case, I manually choose to opt-out of playing the game. Yes.
If there are areas in the game that I cannot explore without being auto-flagged for PvP, I just won't play.
Especially where there are unique bosses and unique rewards to entice people to explore there.
That makes Ashes a game that caters to PvPers without sufficient balance for players who typically play on PvE-Only servers.
Ah. I think I finally understand.
This incessant pronouncements that you will not play IS YOU RAGE QUITTING.
I understand, Dygz, and I am sorry. it is hard to have your heart broken.
It's awkward when someone says they 'finally understand' then clearly demonstrate they lack understanding.
I don't expect much from a child trying to bully a member of the community because they do not agree with them. It's embarassing.
you manually choose to enter the zone, its like terms and service pop up for games so you can hit the i agree button to enter or decline to not enter, so basicly you can agree enter for potential pvp or u can go around the ruins to opt out.
Right. So, in this case, I manually choose to opt-out of playing the game. Yes.
If there are areas in the game that I cannot explore without being auto-flagged for PvP, I just won't play. Especially where there are unique bosses and unique rewards to entice people to explore there.
That makes Ashes a game that caters to PvPers without sufficient balance for players who typically play on PvE-Only servers.
What if before reaching those unique bosses, you have to defeat some other bosses and they prove to be too difficult for you? Basically you might never even pass beyond 30% of the dungeon.
Is it the knowledge that a human controlled rather than an AI controlled character defeated you bothers you?
September 12. 2022: Being naked can also be used to bring a skilled artisan to different freeholds... Don't summon family!
you manually choose to enter the zone, its like terms and service pop up for games so you can hit the i agree button to enter or decline to not enter, so basicly you can agree enter for potential pvp or u can go around the ruins to opt out.
Right. So, in this case, I manually choose to opt-out of playing the game. Yes.
If there are areas in the game that I cannot explore without being auto-flagged for PvP, I just won't play. Especially where there are unique bosses and unique rewards to entice people to explore there.
That makes Ashes a game that caters to PvPers without sufficient balance for players who typically play on PvE-Only servers.
What if before reaching those unique bosses, you have to defeat some other bosses and they prove to be too difficult for you? Basically you might never even pass beyond 30% of the dungeon.
Is it the knowledge that a human controlled rather than an AI controlled character defeated you bothers you?
Yes, Dygz has said this before, and I am as usual butting in to back Dygz up on this.
Moreso that a Dev-Designed boss has a LIMIT, and a SYSTEM backing up that limit. PvP players do not have this, especially not in a non-Objective based PvP situation.
In a Siege if you lose to players, you lost to 'the number of players the game allowed to join the Siege'.
At sea, if you lose to players, there was no limit on that number. You could lose to 'One tank and 3000 mages spamming their basic wand attack'. I'm not arguing if this is fair or not, don't care. But it IS very different and for some, not enjoyable. Some PvP players don't even like this 'no-holds-barred' PvP.
you manually choose to enter the zone, its like terms and service pop up for games so you can hit the i agree button to enter or decline to not enter, so basicly you can agree enter for potential pvp or u can go around the ruins to opt out.
Right. So, in this case, I manually choose to opt-out of playing the game. Yes.
If there are areas in the game that I cannot explore without being auto-flagged for PvP, I just won't play. Especially where there are unique bosses and unique rewards to entice people to explore there.
That makes Ashes a game that caters to PvPers without sufficient balance for players who typically play on PvE-Only servers.
What if before reaching those unique bosses, you have to defeat some other bosses and they prove to be too difficult for you? Basically you might never even pass beyond 30% of the dungeon.
Is it the knowledge that a human controlled rather than an AI controlled character defeated you bothers you?
Yes, Dygz has said this before, and I am as usual butting in to back Dygz up on this.
Moreso that a Dev-Designed boss has a LIMIT, and a SYSTEM backing up that limit. PvP players do not have this, especially not in a non-Objective based PvP situation.
In a Siege if you lose to players, you lost to 'the number of players the game allowed to join the Siege'.
At sea, if you lose to players, there was no limit on that number. You could lose to 'One tank and 3000 mages spamming their basic wand attack'. I'm not arguing if this is fair or not, don't care. But it IS very different and for some, not enjoyable. Some PvP players don't even like this 'no-holds-barred' PvP.
There is a limit in the open sea too: there can be no more than 9997 players against Dygz. (if we don't count those waiting in the queue to login, while Dygz makes a short work with them)
September 12. 2022: Being naked can also be used to bring a skilled artisan to different freeholds... Don't summon family!
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The other important point to note is that he did not invest in the thing that Ashes has recently changed into. The thing he invested in is the Ashes that he was explicitly told would not be this way. (Whether his interpretation was correct or not is not relevant.) Then he was told that it's no longer the thing he invested in. (Whether his original interpretation was correct is still not relevant.) He can't get his money (or time) back now, but he would never have invested at all in the thing that Ashes currently is. In short: He didn't invest in the thing he's rejecting. He invested in something that was (from his perspective) replaced by the thing he's rejecting.
Well...
I invested to support former DayBreak devs working on systems I want in future MMORPGs, primarily Nodes.
Never mattered whether I actually played Ashes or whether Ashes ever releases.
I want it to be quicker and easier for these devs to implement systems similar to Nodes when they work on other MMORPGs, after they are finished with Ashes.
Also, stemming from EQNext, I'm curious to see how they are going to entice players who typically play on PvE-Only servers to play on the same servers as PvPers.
The solution for that was supposed to be Corruption. I'm skeptical that will be a viable solution, but certainly open to testing that.
But, if the game has permanent auto-flag PvP zones and no permanent PvE-Only zones -- that's too PvP-centric for my comfort. I don't need to test that to know.
And, again, I asked Steven about ArcheAge because I chose not to play ArcheAge because their naval combat was too PvP-heavy for my comfort.
As soon as I understand that Ashes has similar gameplay, I know Ashes is not a game I will enjoy exploring and leveling in.
I tried to get Steven to reveal that 4 years ago, so that the PvP mechanics would not be "vague".
The money I've spent on Ashes is fine. My invesment has been doing exactly what I hoped.
And more, since my pal, Ombwah, is now working for Intrepid.
The main point is that Open Seas PvP is a deal-breaker for him in terms of making a new investment: the long-term commitment of the hours and years involved in progressing in the final game. He might as well stick around and enjoy the Alphas and Betas he's already bought in to. It's not like he hates the rest of the game, and without his prior investment in it as a long-term commitment, it's easier to brush off the feeling "this game sucks long-term" and enjoy what's left.
Yeah, I mean... the only reason why change is even relevant is because it would have been a dealbreaker for me back when I asked Steven about EvE and ArcheAge. It's why I asked for those comparisons. And I think Steven realized it would be a dealbreaker - which is why he tried to skirt around the answer.
I'm not crying over the change... it's an amusing surprise because I tried to get him to say that 4 years ago.
It's kind of like guessing, "I think the secret ingredient in your recipe is nutmeg."
"Oh. No. It's different than nutmeg."
Then 4 years later, it's revealed that the secret ingredient is nutmeg and I'm all, "That's hysterical! Remember when I said I think it's utmeg and you said it wasn't!!?? LMFAO."
My stance seem weird to people who have not been a QA Tester as a pad job.
I worked in Activision QA for a couple of years. I've tested a bunch of games I don't play, like MechWarrior and Call of Duty.
Of course, I am going to support my dev friends by testing and giving feedback on stuff they work on.
Doesn't mean I will play their game once it releases.
Previously, Ombwah worked on Chronicles of Elyria. I invested in that game for similar reasons as Ashes, but... that game was way too hardcore and competitive for my comfort. And I spent about two years saying, "You know, you still haven't convinced me that this is a game I would want to play. There are some interesting systems I want to test, but... I don't understand what the appeal of this game is supposed to be.
It dosn't sound like fun.
2
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Wasn't the initial game design allowing PVP to occur at any moment, with player corruption as a means to prevent the game from becoming a murder box?
The orginal design has Corruption as a punishment for non-consensual PvP and no permanent zones with auto-flag to Combatant. Default in all zones is Non-Combatant.
This means that PKers have a harsh penalty for PKing (non-consensual player killing).
Where some people, like CROW3 will say you auto-consent by logging into the game so non-consensual is not a thing, I say we know that non-consensual PKing is a thing because it is punished with Corruption.
As soon as there are permanent zones with no Corruption, I agree with CROW3: You auto-consent to PKing by logging in.
And I won't play on a PvP server that has that ruleset.
Ashes only has one server ruleset for all servers. Which means I won't be playing Ashes.
You guys were ok with this type of PvP?
Node Sieges...Limited Resources... Events that reduce access to resources.....caravans to transport resources....a system in place to fight over a caravan....
I'm a PvP-sometimes player.
For those, you can be in those areas as a Non-Combatant, so... yes. Theoretically, I'm fine with those as long as Corruption works sufficiently for non-consensual PKing to be rare.
But, I would have to test that to know if it's actually rare enough for my comfort.
People like CROW3 and Nikr, who have played the Karma mechanic say that it should be.
But, I don't need to test to know how I respond to PvP servers that have permanent auto-flag PvP servers.
Comments
This is what the tries to achieve.
To bring people togheter.
Some people will make friends, helping eachother to explore.
Others may already have.
If your TheoryForge co-hosts need you to help them, and you refuse, basically playing solo is more important for you than helping friends face the risks. They'll find other players.
If they cannot rely on you, noone else here should miss you, even if you are a nice person here on forums.
But yes, at a certain age, one might prefere to retire and chill fishing and enjoy the weather than fighting. Games are usually made for young people who can invest a lot of time and energy.
you're obviously not among them. You're not even half way to 5k, let alone 6.5k.
EQ2 had this for a few years.
EQ2Flames was more popular than the official forums for quite a few years. EQ2 had a sharp decline after EQ2Flames had a decline.
Some of the flame threads on that forum were absolutely epic though.
I will probably not miss him. But I see others do.
To make it even more weird, he says he will happily test the game to check out systems he does not fully understand but is interested in, seems reasonable, good even.... but has somehow already made up his mind about what PVP will feel like when NO ONE (probably even Intrepid) knows what the final version will be.
It seems really odd that a person would invest so MUCH in a thing and then reject it before even really trying it.
it would be kinda like going to the Theory Forge youtube page and commenting that you will never watch their content, but you go there over and over and post your intentions to never watch again each week and then you engage in dialog and arguments about their content.
It feels to me like his behavior here is motivated by something other than a legit opinion.
He hasn't made up his mind about what PVP will feel like. He has made up his mind about when Steven has told us PVP will happen. He's never said anything negative about what PVP combat will feel like, only about the incentive structure that determines when it will happen.
The other important point to note is that he did not invest in the thing that Ashes has recently changed into. The thing he invested in is the Ashes that he was explicitly told would not be this way. (Whether his interpretation was correct or not is not relevant.) Then he was told that it's no longer the thing he invested in. (Whether his original interpretation was correct is still not relevant.) He can't get his money (or time) back now, but he would never have invested at all in the thing that Ashes currently is. In short: He didn't invest in the thing he's rejecting. He invested in something that was (from his perspective) replaced by the thing he's rejecting.
At this point of course, he has already invested. He might as well stick around and represent his demographic: People who would have played "the Ashes that appeared to be promised until just recently" but who will probably not play the Ashes that is currently promised. If Steven didn't want him (and the class of player he represents) here, he should have been clearer up front. Overall though? Even though his presence may upset some people, nothing about Dygz's behavior is inconsistent.
The main point is that Open Seas PvP is a deal-breaker for him in terms of making a new investment: the long-term commitment of the hours and years involved in progressing in the final game. He might as well stick around and enjoy the Alphas and Betas he's already bought in to. It's not like he hates the rest of the game, and without his prior investment in it as a long-term commitment, it's easier to brush off the feeling "this game sucks long-term" and enjoy what's left.
I see Dygz has representation now... nice.
You also argue semantics. I did not mean what the actual fighting/combat in pvp will feel like, i mean what being in a pvp world will feel like.
My point is we have NOT PLAYED THE GAME. Not even for one second. As much as he misinterpreted what was said before, he could very well be misunderstanding what is happening now. Even if there are no misunderstanding, certainly things will change.
For example, how will Dygz explain his massive change of stance when he actually plays the launch version of the game? Will we hold him accountable for this misstatement?
There are a LOT of other PvP worlds people have lived in. "What various types of them feel like" isn't really news... Ashes of Creation went from one somewhat novel type, to an old, well known one.
People do already have some experience with the "Open Seas" style, and with the type of community that comes with it.
If he ever does (which I doubt), he would probably do it by saying "I've had [this] experience, and it changed my perspective because...".
I certainly hope we don't fault people for changing their opinions when they learn new things or have new experiences. What a world that would be.
No im pretty confident he in every single one
You guys were ok with this type of PvP?
Node Sieges...Limited Resources... Events that reduce access to resources.....caravans to transport resources....a system in place to fight over a caravan....
That design screams PVP to me, looooong ago.
they tend to ignore what they dont like then try and change the game by complaining bout it
I dont blame them tbh because alot of the time it actually works for better or for worst usualy for the worst though tbh.
Indeed it does, and that's the game Dygz invested in. He didn't invest in a non-PvP game. He invested in a game with "player corruption as a means to prevent the game from becoming a murder box". He put a lot of effort into verifying this, too. He was told there would be PvP events and objectives like sieges and caravans, but otherwise there would in fact be "player corruption as a means to prevent the game from becoming a murder box".
Ashes of Creation today is a game where "player corruption as a means to prevent the game from becoming a murder box" exists only in certain regions, even if those regions are the majority.
Not everyone cares about that difference, but you can't deny it's real.
I will definitely not be shitting on Dygz after release.
But you have guild and node wars, so you could use those to freely attack people. Though I feel that xp debt and potential drops should be removed from those kinds of battles. With it mainly be used to fight in a area and control it not about stealing drops from players.
You won't, but you'll still be the sad little person you are. Go touch some grass.
Mislead is your word; not mine.
Again... Steven himself has stated, both with the Open Seas and with Node Ruins, that these are changes that occurred several months ago and not shared publicly before September 2022, so... that is not even debatable.
These are different than the answers he gave when I specifically asked him about PvP in 2018 to gauge whether or not I would play.
All I'm saying is that if he had given these answers then, my response would have been the same:
"Cool. I don't play games with those features, so I won't be playing Ashes, but... I'm still intrigued by the Nodes system and plan to be testing that when it becomes available."
We agree. I can choose never to go into those areas. But, I am first and foremost an explorer and... I don't play games where I can't explore the whole map without being auto-flagged for PvP.
I was already highly skeptical that Corruption would be a sufficient deterrent to non-consensual PvP, but people like Crow3 and Nikr have said that based on Lineage II, they believe it should be. And, while I remain skeptical, that can be tested in Alpha 2.
But... I don't need to test to know how I feel about a game having permanent zones that I can't explore unless I agree to be auto-flagged for PvP. I do not agree to that level of "pre-consent".
If anyone says to me, "But, you consented to PvP just by logging in..." I will rage quit. I don't give that consent.
So... easier for me to just not play.
PvP with the Corruption mechanic has been clear throughout the entire development.
Again, Caravans and Sieges are temporary and opt-in. You can be in the area of a Caravan or Siege as a Non-Combatant. You cannot be in the Open Seas as a Non-Combatant.
And, yes, I might choose to wait to re-explore the razed Node until after the auto-flagging there is off.
If the Open Seas was temporary auto-flag for a couple days per week and had the Courrption mechanic in play for several days per week, I would be OK with that....
Assuming Corruption actually is a sufficient deterrent to non-consensual PvP.
But...again... you can watch me ask Steven if the PvP in Ashes is like EvE Online... and tell him I'm specifically asking because I don't play games like EvE... and you can see him dodge and weave as he explains why PvP in Ashes is not like EvE:
"It is different. My hopes with regard to our battle is that it is meaningful. So, that means that it is a decision on behalf of the risk taker whether or not the reward is worthy of the risk. And then, additionally, as a player who might be on the receiving end of a PK, they are aware that this choice of an opponent directly impacts them probably more than it impacts the death of their character."
Punishment via Corruption and 4x death penalties.
I then ask him to compare Ashes PvP to ArcheAge.
Again, specifically because I chose not to play ArcheAge after watching their PvP naval battles.
Steven answers:
"Well...Archeage... there really were very little penalties applied to character deaths..."
The Open Seas is permanent zone which auto-flags for the least amount of penalties for character deaths.
"You pretty much knew in any territory that you went to what the system of PvP mechanics were, whether it was a peace zone or a whether it was a PvP zone. So, that doesn't really relate well to what Ashes is trying to do. Because Ashes is an open world and there are no zoned (auto-)flagged PvP areas. Instead there is just the (Corruption) flagging system that relates."
So... here... as I try to get him to clearly state that Ashes has PvP zones similar to EvE and ArcheAge, two MMORPGs that I refuse to play, he replies that they are different because Ashes does not have permanent auto-flag PvP zones.
Now that I know Ashes does have a permanent auto-flag PvP zone, it falls into the same category as EvE and ArcheAge for me.
Again...Steven himself says that these are changes to what was said before, so... your claim that they aren't changes is false.
I'm not upset about the changes. But, permanent auto-flag PvP zone finally makes it clear for me that the PvP in Ashes is too similar to EvE and ArcheAge for my comfort.
Temporary PvP zone that lasts a couple days is probably fine for my comfort.
Ah. I think I finally understand.
This incessant pronouncements that you will not play IS YOU RAGE QUITTING.
I understand, Dygz, and I am sorry. it is hard to have your heart broken.
I think you guys are worried over nothing. The original game design is far more PVP oriented than anything else that has come afterwards. If you PVPd more, you would understand.
See, this MIGHT be a bad take.
Because this happens when you go 'this person who has this opinion can't possibly have had the same experiences/seek the same experiences as I do'.
Except it would be VERY difficult for me to PvP more. In MMOs perhaps, but given that nearly 80% of my time gaming is spent in PvP games and some of those are also 'matchmaking-less' MMOs (by the definitions of some, MMOFPS I guess), I'm not giving up the other 20%, I don't think.
Every 'you guys are worried over nothing' post makes me less confident that this is going to work. Because I LIKE it here, I LIKE what AoC is, and that response still makes me want to ditch it because it just indicates that those who believe it will have NO real answers (or concern for others) if it fails.
Are we going to go around claiming now that 'Ashes was always even more PvP and then got toned down'? Or are we talking about Lineage and claiming that Ashes is 'Lineage toned down'?
We have too many Lineage veterans around here to get away with that, I hope.
It's awkward when someone says they 'finally understand' then clearly demonstrate they lack understanding.
If there are areas in the game that I cannot explore without being auto-flagged for PvP, I just won't play.
Especially where there are unique bosses and unique rewards to entice people to explore there.
That makes Ashes a game that caters to PvPers without sufficient balance for players who typically play on PvE-Only servers.
I don't expect much from a child trying to bully a member of the community because they do not agree with them. It's embarassing.
What if before reaching those unique bosses, you have to defeat some other bosses and they prove to be too difficult for you? Basically you might never even pass beyond 30% of the dungeon.
Is it the knowledge that a human controlled rather than an AI controlled character defeated you bothers you?
Yes, Dygz has said this before, and I am as usual butting in to back Dygz up on this.
Moreso that a Dev-Designed boss has a LIMIT, and a SYSTEM backing up that limit. PvP players do not have this, especially not in a non-Objective based PvP situation.
In a Siege if you lose to players, you lost to 'the number of players the game allowed to join the Siege'.
At sea, if you lose to players, there was no limit on that number. You could lose to 'One tank and 3000 mages spamming their basic wand attack'. I'm not arguing if this is fair or not, don't care. But it IS very different and for some, not enjoyable. Some PvP players don't even like this 'no-holds-barred' PvP.
There is a limit in the open sea too: there can be no more than 9997 players against Dygz. (if we don't count those waiting in the queue to login, while Dygz makes a short work with them)
I invested to support former DayBreak devs working on systems I want in future MMORPGs, primarily Nodes.
Never mattered whether I actually played Ashes or whether Ashes ever releases.
I want it to be quicker and easier for these devs to implement systems similar to Nodes when they work on other MMORPGs, after they are finished with Ashes.
Also, stemming from EQNext, I'm curious to see how they are going to entice players who typically play on PvE-Only servers to play on the same servers as PvPers.
The solution for that was supposed to be Corruption. I'm skeptical that will be a viable solution, but certainly open to testing that.
But, if the game has permanent auto-flag PvP zones and no permanent PvE-Only zones -- that's too PvP-centric for my comfort. I don't need to test that to know.
And, again, I asked Steven about ArcheAge because I chose not to play ArcheAge because their naval combat was too PvP-heavy for my comfort.
As soon as I understand that Ashes has similar gameplay, I know Ashes is not a game I will enjoy exploring and leveling in.
I tried to get Steven to reveal that 4 years ago, so that the PvP mechanics would not be "vague".
The money I've spent on Ashes is fine. My invesment has been doing exactly what I hoped.
And more, since my pal, Ombwah, is now working for Intrepid.
Yeah, I mean... the only reason why change is even relevant is because it would have been a dealbreaker for me back when I asked Steven about EvE and ArcheAge. It's why I asked for those comparisons. And I think Steven realized it would be a dealbreaker - which is why he tried to skirt around the answer.
I'm not crying over the change... it's an amusing surprise because I tried to get him to say that 4 years ago.
It's kind of like guessing, "I think the secret ingredient in your recipe is nutmeg."
"Oh. No. It's different than nutmeg."
Then 4 years later, it's revealed that the secret ingredient is nutmeg and I'm all, "That's hysterical! Remember when I said I think it's utmeg and you said it wasn't!!?? LMFAO."
My stance seem weird to people who have not been a QA Tester as a pad job.
I worked in Activision QA for a couple of years. I've tested a bunch of games I don't play, like MechWarrior and Call of Duty.
Of course, I am going to support my dev friends by testing and giving feedback on stuff they work on.
Doesn't mean I will play their game once it releases.
Previously, Ombwah worked on Chronicles of Elyria. I invested in that game for similar reasons as Ashes, but... that game was way too hardcore and competitive for my comfort. And I spent about two years saying, "You know, you still haven't convinced me that this is a game I would want to play. There are some interesting systems I want to test, but... I don't understand what the appeal of this game is supposed to be.
It dosn't sound like fun.
This means that PKers have a harsh penalty for PKing (non-consensual player killing).
Where some people, like CROW3 will say you auto-consent by logging into the game so non-consensual is not a thing, I say we know that non-consensual PKing is a thing because it is punished with Corruption.
As soon as there are permanent zones with no Corruption, I agree with CROW3: You auto-consent to PKing by logging in.
And I won't play on a PvP server that has that ruleset.
Ashes only has one server ruleset for all servers. Which means I won't be playing Ashes.
I'm a PvP-sometimes player.
For those, you can be in those areas as a Non-Combatant, so... yes. Theoretically, I'm fine with those as long as Corruption works sufficiently for non-consensual PKing to be rare.
But, I would have to test that to know if it's actually rare enough for my comfort.
People like CROW3 and Nikr, who have played the Karma mechanic say that it should be.
But, I don't need to test to know how I respond to PvP servers that have permanent auto-flag PvP servers.
Yep. Just not permanent auto-flag PvP zones.
That's an automatic deal-breaker for me.