Once again, that kind of thing can work in a PvP game. In a PvE game, however, developers need to be better.
That scenario in a PvE game would see that PvE game fail. Immediately.
To keep the combination of the two discussions going I'll continue my example from the other thread for this situation. Now I dunno whether my friends lied to me or not, but they said that in order to level up optimally, while also having a chance to get some nice gear, we'd need to run the same dungeon multiple times. There were other ways of doing things (and I used those), but they were so damn suboptimal that I got laughed at for doing them (mainly quests and just some general mob farming outside of the dungeon).
So while the game did present you with a choice, it was kind of a false one, unless you were completely fine lagging way behind anyone who you played with.
And this was the most successful mmo in history, still on its rise (that is tbc times). Now iirc you've criticized WoW's design before, but this was mainly just an example of a game that goes against your opinion yet was super successful.
Or did I misunderstand and you meant that there should just be several ways of doing thing, no matter if they're not equally fast/lucrative/exciting?
So while the game did present you with a choice, it was kind of a false one, unless you were completely fine lagging way behind anyone who you played with.
So, more bad game design.
You've been around these forums to know my thoughts on WoW. It is the Apple - or perhaps the Tesla - of MMO's. Its absolute shit if you look at it objectively. The only reason any of them sell is because people that have no idea what quality actually is keep talking about them (well, and Apple has its teenage customers literally bully other teenagers until they get the right chat bubble color).
When I say "shit developers", Blizzard are basically the benchmark.
An MMO should have exactly three leveling paths. There should be questing, there should be so grind, and there should be group grind. All three should see a character level up in about the same amount of time. Players taking each path will end up with slightly different skills in relation to the game, but the time to level up should be about the same.
If one path is vastly different to the others, then the developers fucked up.
An MMO should have exactly three leveling paths. There should be questing, there should be so grind, and there should be group grind. All three should see a character level up in about the same amount of time. Players taking each path will end up with slightly different skills in relation to the game, but the time to level up should be about the same.
If one path is vastly different to the others, then the developers fucked up.
Well then I hope Intrepid don't fuck up. And I'm glad you'll be there to tell them not to
Ashes of Creation is a big and complex game with many systems. Not everyone will love every system of Ashes of Creation and that is ok as long as we respect those with differing opinions and are well unto one another😌
Point me to one PvP enabled game where "respect" for other players was a thing players encountered regularly.
Hell, point me to any corner of the internet where this is the case.
Even though the ocean based system is what I expected to happen, most people didn't. This amounts to a change to the game to most people. To someone that was excited about naval content in Ashes, it amounts to a massive change - essentially rendering the game completely different to what they had envisioned.
When you consider the amount of time someone like Dygz has put in to the community (posting here, arguing here, answering questions, podcasts etc), and the money put in to the game already, to have such a drastic change to what he assumed the game to be after 5 years of being in the community is not something that should have happened.
Talking about people respecting each other in the face of that is tone deaf - and that is being generous (there are much worse things that it could be called).
How about, instead of Intrepid telling the community to respect each other, Intrepid starts respecting its community?
Announcements like this SHOULD NOT happen when this games community has been active as long as it has.
There is no excuse for it, and it is setting the bar for disrespect among the community - I mean, if the developer doesnt respect players, why would players respect players?
This post is pretty cringe, at what point did the dictate how open seas were going to work from a design point, this is open development, I understand as consumers this is not the usual to be apart of. But Things can be changed, things can be worked on and directions are made as development progresses.
If you saw things behind closed doors in other games they would make your head spin even more.
Nah, it would have been better if it was a part of the kickstarter.
I mean, naval content was a stretch goal of the kickstarter - it being all PvP all the time should have been mentioned there.
Edit to add; dont get me wrong, I assumed this would be the case. However, something as major as this (the corruption system not functioning in conjunction with an entire sphere of gameplay) shouldnt rely on assumptions.
What if there was some mechanic redesign that led Intrepid to believe that pvp in the seas would only work with ffa instead of a corruption-based system. And this redesign wasn't foreseen during kickstarter and was kind of a surprise for Intrepid themselves or just wasn't foreseen before proper QA testing.
Just as the Apocalypse allegedly showed that Intrepid had big backend problems for their planned combat, some kind of internal extensive testing of naval battles could've shown that only ffa would probably work. And that testing was only done somewhat recently because naval battles were the latest thing to develop.
I'm not justifying the change itself or saying that Intrepid were completely in the right, but I could definitely see ways of how the development could've gone in the direction I described and the only choices were either the one we got or no naval pvp at all (or at least a super trashy one). And the change that we've got is way closer to AoC's design than no pvp.
This is the correct thought, as well as wanting different elements of gameplay for people more than likely as multiple reasons can come up.
Point on mention it in the Kickstarter is actually silly, this is akin to someone yelling tell me all exact gameplay designs in kickstarter. That isn't what it is for, AoC is clearly a PvX game that doesn't mean PvE with some pvp sprinkled in. Just as there are strong pve there will be strong pvp content as well (or we would hope strong on both fronts).
Also trying to compare the land and sea content as equals I also feel is silly when most the content should be taking place on land.
Honestly this is disrespect to Vaknar, guy is just doing his job.
@NiKr I'll ask you what does Noaani know about the development besides what we are shown. It is a pretty naïve and consumer term "At this point in development"
What if there was some mechanic redesign that led Intrepid to believe that pvp in the seas would only work with ffa instead of a corruption-based system. And this redesign wasn't foreseen during kickstarter and was kind of a surprise for Intrepid themselves or just wasn't foreseen before proper QA testing.
Feels to me more likely that this is the result of not having an experienced Lead Game Designer on board for over a year.
I'm not justifying the change itself or saying that Intrepid were completely in the right, but I could definitely see ways of how the development could've gone in the direction I described and the only choices were either the one we got or no naval pvp at all (or at least a super trashy one). And the change that we've got is way closer to AoC's design than no pvp.
I don't know that there is a wrong or right.
Intrepid has time to make significant changes, so... we should expect to see significant changes.
When you only have 3 years to release, we should expect the design to stay close to the original vision presented in Kickstarter. When you have an open-ended release date, expect scope creep.
At the time of Kickstarter, Open Seas was a stretch goal.
Now that we have an expanded map with more water... Ashes can get closer to the Naval PvP showcased in ArcheAge - which, I'm sure, Steven enjoyed.
Ashes is a PvP-centric game - that requires PvPers to do some PvE.
Why would I say "feels to me" if someone at Intrepid actually told me?
And, why would it matter if my buddy did tell me that?
not sure, maybe so he doesn't get in trouble? that is why i asked, you are the only person with a friend there, Ombwah i think you said his name was... and only one saying you think there is a problem with the current staff...
Why would I say "feels to me" if someone at Intrepid actually told me?
And, why would it matter if my buddy did tell me that?
not sure, that is why i asked, you are the only person with a friend there, Ombwah i think you said his name was... and only one saying you think there is a problem with the current staff...
Why would I say "feels to me" if someone at Intrepid actually told me?
And, why would it matter if my buddy did tell me that?
not sure, maybe so he doesn't get in trouble? that is why i asked, you are the only person with a friend there, Ombwah i think you said his name was... and only one saying you think there is a problem with the current staff...
just curious.
Nah, he's not the only one. Mostly, the people who point it out don't do so all that often. Anyone can go look at the Intrepid "Careers" page, and see that same "Senior Systems Designer" posting that's been up since Jeff Bard left over a year ago.
Jeff was on every livestream. We haven't even heard the name of a replacement. There's been a lot of "Still hiring people! Please apply! Tell your friends to apply!", though.
There's really no insider knowledge required.
4
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
not sure, maybe so he doesn't get in trouble? that is why i asked, you are the only person with a friend there, Ombwah i think you said his name was... and only one saying you think there is a problem with the current staff...
just curious.
Intrepid currently does not have a Lead Game Designer. Steven is basically trying to fill-in for that role.
I don't need a buddy on staff to tell me that.
And "problem" is your word; not mine.
They post a job posting with highlighted positions that they are trying to fill on their twitter every month. Consistently. Sometimes twice a month. Lead Systems Designer. Lead Economic Designer among other things are always there. Always highlighted. These are two core positions that would have had a big say in the open seas change as they are directly related and would have told Steven how to present it to everyone. Without them it went about as well as it could have. The fact that he's making such decisions without these core positions feels very strange to me. But at some point you need to make decisions to go forward.
@Dygz I personally do not believe corruption will be enough of a deterrent to prevent griefing, so open seas auto flag or not, it makes no difference to me. Has there been a detailed explanation as to how corruption will prevent murder box outcomes?
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Ultimately, how well Corruption works as a deterrent will be examined in Alpha 2.
People who have played Lineage II expect it to work sufficiently because Karma worked well there and Corruption is a slightly harsher form of Karma.
Some PvPers feel that the current description of Corruption is too harsh, so...
We will just have to see how it actually feels for everyone, but...
The penalties are supposed to be annoying enough that most people will only rarely PK Non-Combatants.
Ultimately, how well Corruption works as a deterrent will be examined in Alpha 2.
People who have played Lineage II expect it to work sufficiently because Karma worked well there and Corruption is a slightly harsher form of Karma.
Some PvPers feel that the current description of Corruption is too harsh, so...
We will just have to see how it actually feels for everyone, but...
The penalties are supposed to be annoying enough that most people will only rarely PK Non-Combatants.
Ok, when you guys do try, have one guild PVEing a raid boss....have another guild show up and just poke away at the PVEing guild, and the raid boss will wipe them eventually....no corruption, and xp debt gained by everyone who wiped...then PVP guild cleans up, no contest.... if the PVE guild does fight back, they have raid boss + PVP guild on them, and have now flagged themselves, so no corruption again.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited October 2022
Yeah, it would be normal death penalties for any Non-Combatants.
To me, Ashes will only have PvPer guilds.
Outside of a testing scenario, I don't understand why a guild would keep attacking a boss while ignoring other players who are attacking them.
Bosses are expected to be contested, so...
Best thing to do, even if you wanted to not bother much with the PvP combat, would be to attack back once to flag for half death penalties and then concentrate on the boss.
But, Ashes is really set up to support PvPers and encourage Combatant PvP. It's not really intending to support Non-Combatants much.
Ashes of Creation is a big and complex game with many systems. Not everyone will love every system of Ashes of Creation and that is ok as long as we respect those with differing opinions and are well unto one another😌
Point me to one PvP enabled game where "respect" for other players was a thing players encountered regularly.
Hell, point me to any corner of the internet where this is the case.
Even though the ocean based system is what I expected to happen, most people didn't. This amounts to a change to the game to most people. To someone that was excited about naval content in Ashes, it amounts to a massive change - essentially rendering the game completely different to what they had envisioned.
When you consider the amount of time someone like Dygz has put in to the community (posting here, arguing here, answering questions, podcasts etc), and the money put in to the game already, to have such a drastic change to what he assumed the game to be after 5 years of being in the community is not something that should have happened.
Talking about people respecting each other in the face of that is tone deaf - and that is being generous (there are much worse things that it could be called).
How about, instead of Intrepid telling the community to respect each other, Intrepid starts respecting its community?
Announcements like this SHOULD NOT happen when this games community has been active as long as it has.
There is no excuse for it, and it is setting the bar for disrespect among the community - I mean, if the developer doesnt respect players, why would players respect players?
This post is pretty cringe, at what point did the dictate how open seas were going to work from a design point, this is open development, I understand as consumers this is not the usual to be apart of. But Things can be changed, things can be worked on and directions are made as development progresses.
If you saw things behind closed doors in other games they would make your head spin even more.
Yeah, but you've only been a part of this community for a year or so.
Dygz has been here for 5 years.
5 years is far too long for something like this to not be known.
While things do indeed change in development, this isnt a change. This is the first piece of information we have received about naval combat. What that means is either Intrepid knew about it and didnt tell us, or they have literally not put any thought in to naval content (a kickstarter stretch goal from 5 years ago) at all until now.
Neither of these situations is acceptable. Neither of them suggest Intrepid hasnt fucked up.
If this were a change where we had info on naval content and saw that it had to change a bit over time, that would probably be somewhat acceptable. The problem is, it is their initial thought on it, not a change to it. Being their initial thought on it, we should have known about it back during the kickstarter, so people backing in order to reach that goal knew what they were getting.
Ashes of Creation is a big and complex game with many systems. Not everyone will love every system of Ashes of Creation and that is ok as long as we respect those with differing opinions and are well unto one another😌
Point me to one PvP enabled game where "respect" for other players was a thing players encountered regularly.
Hell, point me to any corner of the internet where this is the case.
Even though the ocean based system is what I expected to happen, most people didn't. This amounts to a change to the game to most people. To someone that was excited about naval content in Ashes, it amounts to a massive change - essentially rendering the game completely different to what they had envisioned.
When you consider the amount of time someone like Dygz has put in to the community (posting here, arguing here, answering questions, podcasts etc), and the money put in to the game already, to have such a drastic change to what he assumed the game to be after 5 years of being in the community is not something that should have happened.
Talking about people respecting each other in the face of that is tone deaf - and that is being generous (there are much worse things that it could be called).
How about, instead of Intrepid telling the community to respect each other, Intrepid starts respecting its community?
Announcements like this SHOULD NOT happen when this games community has been active as long as it has.
There is no excuse for it, and it is setting the bar for disrespect among the community - I mean, if the developer doesnt respect players, why would players respect players?
This post is pretty cringe, at what point did the dictate how open seas were going to work from a design point, this is open development, I understand as consumers this is not the usual to be apart of. But Things can be changed, things can be worked on and directions are made as development progresses.
If you saw things behind closed doors in other games they would make your head spin even more.
Yeah, but you've only been a part of this community for a year or so.
Dygz has been here for 5 years.
5 years is far too long for something like this to not be known.
While things do indeed change in development, this isnt a change. This is the first piece of information we have received about naval combat. What that means is either Intrepid knew about it and didnt tell us, or they have literally not put any thought in to naval content (a kickstarter stretch goal from 5 years ago) at all until now.
Neither of these situations is acceptable. Neither of them suggest Intrepid hasnt fucked up.
If this were a change where we had info on naval content and saw that it had to change a bit over time, that would probably be somewhat acceptable. The problem is, it is their initial thought on it, not a change to it. Being their initial thought on it, we should have known about it back during the kickstarter, so people backing in order to reach that goal knew what they were getting.
It is fully acceptable This is a PvX game, honestly does not give you the best look on saying what is acceptable or not for development in these terms. You aren't going to see every single design decision or idea they have at every moment. Nor does a kickstarter say how everything works in a game is designed the most true thing is it is a PvX game, and one should not be surprised in both pvp and pve.
Even if they had said something was going to work a certain way and changed it that is development and why most people don't have open development. Because suddenly you are saying "This is not acceptable" which sounds a bit entitled, granted no one knew how navel combat is going to be working in the first place.
Which is also pretty selfish is you talking about how long people have been around for. It really doesn't matter 1 year, 5 years, one month. Plenty of new people are going to come with their view points and everyone is just as valuable.
You assuming i've only been keeping up with AoC for one year is a pretty big assumption granted you not knowing anything about me and adds nothing to the conversation. It isn't an exclusive club based on time.
Which is also pretty selfish is you talking about how long people have been around for. It really doesn't matter 1 year, 5 years, one month. Plenty of new people are going to come with their view points and everyone is just as valuable.
Where did I say anyone's opinion was more or less valid because they had been here longer or shorter? This is just another in a long line of situations where you read things that aren't there. You really need to stop doing that - if I dont mention the word "opinion" in a post, why would you think I am talking about opinions?
You should know, as far as I am concerned, everyone's opinion is exactly as valid as that opinion warrants. That is the end of that specific point of discussion.
The reason I mentioned Dygz has been here so long is to point out that he has invested a lot of time in to this community. Lex is probably the only person with more time invested.
Dygz has specifically asked as many questions about PvP and corruption as any one person could ask, often directly to Steven, during interviews that Dygz himself conducted.
No where in all of that did Intrepid think to say "corruption doesnt apply to about half of the game world", even though they HAD to know that was the plan.
I never said they should share every decision with us. They just recently told us about CC not working on greens, and that's fine.
However, having a system that is specifically designed to prevent the game being a murder box (Steven's words, if you disagree, take it up with him, not me), and then many years later saying that this system only applies to half the game world - and an entire content type - is simply not acceptable.
It would be like Steven coming along now and saying that actually, PvE in dungeons is all going to be instanced. The open world we talked about, that is all just overland stuff. That would be unacceptable at this point in development, but is the exact same thing that happened with ocean corruption.
You are only arguing against my point because you like this change. The thing is, I dont even consider it a change, I was expecting it. My complaint is purely about how unacceptable it is to make announcements that so drastically change the game after people have spent so long in the community trying to get this information (which brings us back to me saying Dygz has been here for 5 years).
Which is also pretty selfish is you talking about how long people have been around for. It really doesn't matter 1 year, 5 years, one month. Plenty of new people are going to come with their view points and everyone is just as valuable.
Where did I say anyone's opinion was more or less valid because they had been here longer or shorter? This is just another in a long line of situations where you read things that aren't there. You really need to stop doing that - if I dont mention the word "opinion" in a post, why would you think I am talking about opinions?
You should know, as far as I am concerned, everyone's opinion is exactly as valid as that opinion warrants. That is the end of that specific point of discussion.
The reason I mentioned Dygz has been here so long is to point out that he has invested a lot of time in to this community. Lex is probably the only person with more time invested.
Dygz has specifically asked as many questions about PvP and corruption as any one person could ask, often directly to Steven, during interviews that Dygz himself conducted.
No where in all of that did Intrepid think to say "corruption doesnt apply to about half of the game world", even though they HAD to know that was the plan.
I never said they should share every decision with us. They just recently told us about CC not working on greens, and that's fine.
However, having a system that is specifically designed to prevent the game being a murder box (Steven's words, if you disagree, take it up with him, not me), and then many years later saying that this system only applies to half the game world - and an entire content type - is simply not acceptable.
It would be like Steven coming along now and saying that actually, PvE in dungeons is all going to be instanced. The open world we talked about, that is all just overland stuff. That would be unacceptable at this point in development, but is the exact same thing that happened with ocean corruption.
You are only arguing against my point because you like this change. The thing is, I dont even consider it a change, I was expecting it. My complaint is purely about how unacceptable it is to make announcements that so drastically change the game after people have spent so long in the community trying to get this information (which brings us back to me saying Dygz has been here for 5 years).
1. Do not bring up my date joining as use it as a contrast, no one is reading into thing you are effective assuming I've been keeping up into the game for a year. If that does not matter do not reference it in a post. It is that simple.
This is development, you can ask as many questions as you want the game is being made, that is that nature of it. You can easily look at it like they expanded the land more that hey originally planned and that added sea area is further bonus content to add more elements of PvP to a PvX game.
It does not turn AoC into a gank box, you simply can avoid the water, and take safe ways that will get you across the sea.
Thinking open sea content is going to be half the world to explore is a reach, it is going to be a open sea...Most the content is going to be on land. Unless they decide that the vast sea is going to be as well crafted with mobs everywhere and tons of places to explore. Though that doesn't sound that realistic.
Hence imo you trying to spin it as unacceptable is pretty cringe. If it was on land maybe you could argue it, but over added sea content that is going more than like be vast empty spots with not much to explore in, lets be a little genuine atleast. This is development, it takes many years, thing change back and forth over years this is a type of content that is not surprising for a PvX game that will have actual PvP.
Added PvP content in the game is not drastically changing the game that has a focus on both PvP and PvE. You are using far to strong a word. Surprising or unexpected might be fair, but you sayin unacceptable over this is not the right choice of words for a game in development.
And no it has nothing to do if I like the change or not, what I need to view is how things work overall, and is if the game is inline to what it has been advertised as which so far it has.
It's enough of a change to shift it from a balanced PvP/PvE game to a PvP-centric game for me.
All PvP-centric MMORPGs include some PvE.
You can definitely make that point, I honestly always felt it was more pvp centric but they had ways to avoid greifing and pvp in some form. Mainly i felt it was more pvp though (thought here is a chance i could be wrong) is my understanding of how guild and node wars generally work as a means to flag and kill people without gaining corruption.
There are a lot of systems that they will eventually explain and people will have to view and see them and have tier own thoughts on it. I haven't really seen anything that shows this won't have a focus on PvP. But I can' say much on the difficulty of pve until more is seen as well as balance.
It's enough of a change to shift it from a balanced PvP/PvE game to a PvP-centric game for me.
All PvP-centric MMORPGs include some PvE.
I feel You only perceive it is balanced because of the corruption system and having not tested it yet... maybe can go either way, but you havent experienced this type of PVP before, by the sounds of it, hence my earlier statements to Azharae-w/e... about PVPing more... vague description of PVP more by me... to understand why open seas pvp doesnt really matter.
You will probably see some antiPKer guilds, and there will probably be a lot more of those, who will cooperate to overcome the neckbeard PVP type guilds that grief.
Numbers will matter. Alliances between guilds will matter.
1. Do not bring up my date joining as use it as a contrast, no one is reading into thing you are effective assuming I've been keeping up into the game for a year. If that does not matter do not reference it in a post. It is that simple.
I bought up the fact Dygz has long been active in this community as a point to illustrate why he would be justified in being disappointed in Intrepid for not having mentioned it for that long. The more someone has invested a thing, the more they stand to lose if that thing doesnt pay out. If you have been a part of something for a year, you stand to lose less than someone that has been a part of the same thing for five years.
I'd you read any more than that in to the comment about when you joined vs when Dygz joined, then it was all in your head.
As to your continued irrelevant point about game development, wells it continues to be irrelevant.
There are a limited number of things that could have happened for us to arrive at the place we are now.
1, Intrepid put jo thought at all in to naval content until now.
2, Intrepid did put thought in to naval content, but had no immediate intention to have the ocean corruption free, and then had to change that for some undisclosed reason.
3, Intrepid did put thought in to it, knew the ocean would need to be corruption free, and just didnt tell anyone.
At this point in development, scenario 1 is outright unacceptable. It shows a total lack of organization at Intrepid, and is a sure sign that the game is in trouble (to the point I would have doubts as to it ever launching).
Scenario 2 is unrealistic. There would be no reason to need to change it for system/mechanics reasons (any such issues would be present in costal waters, as others have pointed out). The only way this could logically happen is if it was an option decision that Intrepid decided to make. If this is the case, they literally made the decision to alter a massive part of the game from what many players assumed it would be. This is the default that players are assuming has happened.
Scenario 3 would suggest Intrwpid dont give a shit about their community.
None of the above scenarios suggest Intrepid didnt fuck up in some way. What's worse is that their communication in regards to it has been shockingly bad. Not only did they fuck up, but they fucked up the fuck up and made it worse.
Now, unless you have another scenario that is reasonable and plausable as to how Intrepid could go 5 years without mentioning a MAJOR aspect of the game, an aspect that literally alters the entire concept of the game to many people, we have to assume one of these above scenarios is the case.
Based on that, no matter which of said scenarios turns out to be true, Intrepid fucked up.
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.
@Dygz bro I already showed you that battlegrounds have always been intended for the game. These are open world zones that auto flag you when you enter them. Let's just say the seas dont exist and the node ruins dont exist. What the hell were you expecting these battlegrounds to be?
NiKr I'll ask you what does Noaani know about the development besides what we are shown. It is a pretty naïve and consumer term "At this point in development"
I saw it as just Noaani's opinion on the matter. And even if I personally like the change, I was also quite shocked when Steven announced it because it is in fact a huge part of the world that has a completely different set of rules of existence now. And I definitely see how and why someone would be quite displeased with this change.
But I'd really have to see their plans for open seas content in order to really understand the reasoning behind the change. If they plan to have a ton of mobs in the water that a ship full of PKers can easily grind to remove their corruption and those mobs are in bumfuck nowhere, then, yeah, corruption at sea wouldn't really matter either way.
But if there's only a few bosses and a few fishing spots there (with maybe underwater treasures) - I see no real point in changing it to ffa pvp zone other than the "AA had it this way" one.
At which point we come to Dygz' supposition that this change came directly from Steven due to there being no Lead Designer to argue against said change. And I personally agree with Dygz' point because I remember quite a few moments during dev streams where Steven and Jeff had differing povs on things. And while Steven would often say "nah, this is how it's gonna be", the sheer fact that the povs were different would indicate to me that outside of dev streams there'd be a long discussion about that design point and Jeff might've just not wanted to undermine his boss in front of thousands of people by arguing against that point.
And now that the Lead Designer is gone we have Steven who keeps saying "this is how it's gonna be" and pretty much no one there to say no or to at least argue why it might be better to not change the design direction. Now, I agree with Steven's design for the most part, mainly because he comes from the games that I myself loved (or would've loved in case of early AA), but what I love is obviously far from what most people love so I think it's not the best situation when every design change follows my preferences
But as we all keep saying, we gotta test it all in alpha, otherwise this whole discussion is somewhat pointless, outside of the sheer fact that we show Intrepid that there's people who're dissatisfied with the change.
If you are going to give a hypothetical, give one that is at least reasonable, ideally even plausible
Here's an example of what he's saying directly from L2. There's a BiS set for mages. Its pieces can drop from a few bosses (with a good chunk of those being epic ones that have 2-7 day respawns, and all others having 24+-3h ones) and they can also be crafted. You need mats and recipes to craft them. And while mats have a few locations that you can farm, recipes come from literally 1 kind of a mob (it's 3 mobs but they come as a group and have a shared respawn). And the chance to drop the recipe is abysmal
This group of mobs has 3 spawn location in the entire game. Literally every mage on the server would be trying to get this recipe for themselves.
And there's several examples for this kind of interaction. Bosses are controlled by bigger guilds or have fucked up respawn times and mobs are so sought after that you'd have to fight dozens of players to even get a chance to get the loot from the mob, let alone dropping the recipe itself.
You'll obviously just call this bad design, but that's a real example of what Depraved was talking about.
Now, since the original question was "what would you do kn a PvE server if...", I'll reiterate my same point.
I would stop playing a game with shit developers.
Once again, that kind of thing can work in a PvP game. In a PvE game, however, developers need to be better.
That scenario in a PvE game would see that PvE game fail. Immediately.
Those goes back to what I said in the other thread - people that have only really played PvP simply do not understand PvE. Of course you aren't going to enjoy it if you dont understand it.
PvE at its core is far more complex than PvP. It has to be. Developers of games that rely on PvP use PvP for challenge and as a restriction. Your above example is such a case.
PvE developers have to provide that challenge for players, and have to come up with that reateuction. This REQUIEWS the game and its content to be more complex. Not just on an encounter basis, but in the structure of where mobs are placed, mob spawns, quest design, everything.
So again, in the above situation, I would simply stop playing the game because the developers simply have no idea what they are doing, they are developing the wrong type of content for the game they have (which we have established in this hypothetical question is PvE).
that sounds like one of those solo mmorpg lol.
ok so pveers like gathering, crafting, fighting mobs, trading, exploring and making friends. what if the devs decided to add scarcity in different areas to promote exploring, trading and player interaction? how is that bad if thats the experience they want for the player?
if they want the player to be able to get anything at any time, with no scarcity, then thats a solo rpg where you sometimes see another person and thats fine too. thats the experience the devs want for the player. one game isnt better than the other, they both have their market share. its like saying coke is better than pepsi or vice versa because of the formula they use...
Comments
So while the game did present you with a choice, it was kind of a false one, unless you were completely fine lagging way behind anyone who you played with.
And this was the most successful mmo in history, still on its rise (that is tbc times). Now iirc you've criticized WoW's design before, but this was mainly just an example of a game that goes against your opinion yet was super successful.
Or did I misunderstand and you meant that there should just be several ways of doing thing, no matter if they're not equally fast/lucrative/exciting?
You've been around these forums to know my thoughts on WoW. It is the Apple - or perhaps the Tesla - of MMO's. Its absolute shit if you look at it objectively. The only reason any of them sell is because people that have no idea what quality actually is keep talking about them (well, and Apple has its teenage customers literally bully other teenagers until they get the right chat bubble color).
When I say "shit developers", Blizzard are basically the benchmark.
An MMO should have exactly three leveling paths. There should be questing, there should be so grind, and there should be group grind. All three should see a character level up in about the same amount of time. Players taking each path will end up with slightly different skills in relation to the game, but the time to level up should be about the same.
If one path is vastly different to the others, then the developers fucked up.
This post is pretty cringe, at what point did the dictate how open seas were going to work from a design point, this is open development, I understand as consumers this is not the usual to be apart of. But Things can be changed, things can be worked on and directions are made as development progresses.
If you saw things behind closed doors in other games they would make your head spin even more.
This is the correct thought, as well as wanting different elements of gameplay for people more than likely as multiple reasons can come up.
Point on mention it in the Kickstarter is actually silly, this is akin to someone yelling tell me all exact gameplay designs in kickstarter. That isn't what it is for, AoC is clearly a PvX game that doesn't mean PvE with some pvp sprinkled in. Just as there are strong pve there will be strong pvp content as well (or we would hope strong on both fronts).
Also trying to compare the land and sea content as equals I also feel is silly when most the content should be taking place on land.
Honestly this is disrespect to Vaknar, guy is just doing his job.
@NiKr I'll ask you what does Noaani know about the development besides what we are shown. It is a pretty naïve and consumer term "At this point in development"
I don't know that there is a wrong or right.
Intrepid has time to make significant changes, so... we should expect to see significant changes.
When you only have 3 years to release, we should expect the design to stay close to the original vision presented in Kickstarter. When you have an open-ended release date, expect scope creep.
At the time of Kickstarter, Open Seas was a stretch goal.
Now that we have an expanded map with more water... Ashes can get closer to the Naval PvP showcased in ArcheAge - which, I'm sure, Steven enjoyed.
Ashes is a PvP-centric game - that requires PvPers to do some PvE.
Is that what your buddy who works there is telling you?
And, why would it matter if my buddy did tell me that?
not sure, maybe so he doesn't get in trouble? that is why i asked, you are the only person with a friend there, Ombwah i think you said his name was... and only one saying you think there is a problem with the current staff...
just curious.
IS this even important or really matter?
Nah, he's not the only one. Mostly, the people who point it out don't do so all that often. Anyone can go look at the Intrepid "Careers" page, and see that same "Senior Systems Designer" posting that's been up since Jeff Bard left over a year ago.
Jeff was on every livestream. We haven't even heard the name of a replacement. There's been a lot of "Still hiring people! Please apply! Tell your friends to apply!", though.
There's really no insider knowledge required.
I don't need a buddy on staff to tell me that.
And "problem" is your word; not mine.
People who have played Lineage II expect it to work sufficiently because Karma worked well there and Corruption is a slightly harsher form of Karma.
Some PvPers feel that the current description of Corruption is too harsh, so...
We will just have to see how it actually feels for everyone, but...
The penalties are supposed to be annoying enough that most people will only rarely PK Non-Combatants.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Corruption#Player_corruption
Ok, when you guys do try, have one guild PVEing a raid boss....have another guild show up and just poke away at the PVEing guild, and the raid boss will wipe them eventually....no corruption, and xp debt gained by everyone who wiped...then PVP guild cleans up, no contest.... if the PVE guild does fight back, they have raid boss + PVP guild on them, and have now flagged themselves, so no corruption again.
To me, Ashes will only have PvPer guilds.
Outside of a testing scenario, I don't understand why a guild would keep attacking a boss while ignoring other players who are attacking them.
Bosses are expected to be contested, so...
Best thing to do, even if you wanted to not bother much with the PvP combat, would be to attack back once to flag for half death penalties and then concentrate on the boss.
But, Ashes is really set up to support PvPers and encourage Combatant PvP. It's not really intending to support Non-Combatants much.
Yeah, but you've only been a part of this community for a year or so.
Dygz has been here for 5 years.
5 years is far too long for something like this to not be known.
While things do indeed change in development, this isnt a change. This is the first piece of information we have received about naval combat. What that means is either Intrepid knew about it and didnt tell us, or they have literally not put any thought in to naval content (a kickstarter stretch goal from 5 years ago) at all until now.
Neither of these situations is acceptable. Neither of them suggest Intrepid hasnt fucked up.
If this were a change where we had info on naval content and saw that it had to change a bit over time, that would probably be somewhat acceptable. The problem is, it is their initial thought on it, not a change to it. Being their initial thought on it, we should have known about it back during the kickstarter, so people backing in order to reach that goal knew what they were getting.
It is fully acceptable This is a PvX game, honestly does not give you the best look on saying what is acceptable or not for development in these terms. You aren't going to see every single design decision or idea they have at every moment. Nor does a kickstarter say how everything works in a game is designed the most true thing is it is a PvX game, and one should not be surprised in both pvp and pve.
Even if they had said something was going to work a certain way and changed it that is development and why most people don't have open development. Because suddenly you are saying "This is not acceptable" which sounds a bit entitled, granted no one knew how navel combat is going to be working in the first place.
Which is also pretty selfish is you talking about how long people have been around for. It really doesn't matter 1 year, 5 years, one month. Plenty of new people are going to come with their view points and everyone is just as valuable.
You assuming i've only been keeping up with AoC for one year is a pretty big assumption granted you not knowing anything about me and adds nothing to the conversation. It isn't an exclusive club based on time.
Where did I say anyone's opinion was more or less valid because they had been here longer or shorter? This is just another in a long line of situations where you read things that aren't there. You really need to stop doing that - if I dont mention the word "opinion" in a post, why would you think I am talking about opinions?
You should know, as far as I am concerned, everyone's opinion is exactly as valid as that opinion warrants. That is the end of that specific point of discussion.
The reason I mentioned Dygz has been here so long is to point out that he has invested a lot of time in to this community. Lex is probably the only person with more time invested.
Dygz has specifically asked as many questions about PvP and corruption as any one person could ask, often directly to Steven, during interviews that Dygz himself conducted.
No where in all of that did Intrepid think to say "corruption doesnt apply to about half of the game world", even though they HAD to know that was the plan.
I never said they should share every decision with us. They just recently told us about CC not working on greens, and that's fine.
However, having a system that is specifically designed to prevent the game being a murder box (Steven's words, if you disagree, take it up with him, not me), and then many years later saying that this system only applies to half the game world - and an entire content type - is simply not acceptable.
It would be like Steven coming along now and saying that actually, PvE in dungeons is all going to be instanced. The open world we talked about, that is all just overland stuff. That would be unacceptable at this point in development, but is the exact same thing that happened with ocean corruption.
You are only arguing against my point because you like this change. The thing is, I dont even consider it a change, I was expecting it. My complaint is purely about how unacceptable it is to make announcements that so drastically change the game after people have spent so long in the community trying to get this information (which brings us back to me saying Dygz has been here for 5 years).
1. Do not bring up my date joining as use it as a contrast, no one is reading into thing you are effective assuming I've been keeping up into the game for a year. If that does not matter do not reference it in a post. It is that simple.
This is development, you can ask as many questions as you want the game is being made, that is that nature of it. You can easily look at it like they expanded the land more that hey originally planned and that added sea area is further bonus content to add more elements of PvP to a PvX game.
It does not turn AoC into a gank box, you simply can avoid the water, and take safe ways that will get you across the sea.
Thinking open sea content is going to be half the world to explore is a reach, it is going to be a open sea...Most the content is going to be on land. Unless they decide that the vast sea is going to be as well crafted with mobs everywhere and tons of places to explore. Though that doesn't sound that realistic.
Hence imo you trying to spin it as unacceptable is pretty cringe. If it was on land maybe you could argue it, but over added sea content that is going more than like be vast empty spots with not much to explore in, lets be a little genuine atleast. This is development, it takes many years, thing change back and forth over years this is a type of content that is not surprising for a PvX game that will have actual PvP.
Added PvP content in the game is not drastically changing the game that has a focus on both PvP and PvE. You are using far to strong a word. Surprising or unexpected might be fair, but you sayin unacceptable over this is not the right choice of words for a game in development.
And no it has nothing to do if I like the change or not, what I need to view is how things work overall, and is if the game is inline to what it has been advertised as which so far it has.
All PvP-centric MMORPGs include some PvE.
You can definitely make that point, I honestly always felt it was more pvp centric but they had ways to avoid greifing and pvp in some form. Mainly i felt it was more pvp though (thought here is a chance i could be wrong) is my understanding of how guild and node wars generally work as a means to flag and kill people without gaining corruption.
There are a lot of systems that they will eventually explain and people will have to view and see them and have tier own thoughts on it. I haven't really seen anything that shows this won't have a focus on PvP. But I can' say much on the difficulty of pve until more is seen as well as balance.
I think you will make a secret alt and still play the game while telling everybody that you don't.
I feel You only perceive it is balanced because of the corruption system and having not tested it yet... maybe can go either way, but you havent experienced this type of PVP before, by the sounds of it, hence my earlier statements to Azharae-w/e... about PVPing more... vague description of PVP more by me... to understand why open seas pvp doesnt really matter.
You will probably see some antiPKer guilds, and there will probably be a lot more of those, who will cooperate to overcome the neckbeard PVP type guilds that grief.
Numbers will matter. Alliances between guilds will matter.
I bought up the fact Dygz has long been active in this community as a point to illustrate why he would be justified in being disappointed in Intrepid for not having mentioned it for that long. The more someone has invested a thing, the more they stand to lose if that thing doesnt pay out. If you have been a part of something for a year, you stand to lose less than someone that has been a part of the same thing for five years.
I'd you read any more than that in to the comment about when you joined vs when Dygz joined, then it was all in your head.
As to your continued irrelevant point about game development, wells it continues to be irrelevant.
There are a limited number of things that could have happened for us to arrive at the place we are now.
1, Intrepid put jo thought at all in to naval content until now.
2, Intrepid did put thought in to naval content, but had no immediate intention to have the ocean corruption free, and then had to change that for some undisclosed reason.
3, Intrepid did put thought in to it, knew the ocean would need to be corruption free, and just didnt tell anyone.
At this point in development, scenario 1 is outright unacceptable. It shows a total lack of organization at Intrepid, and is a sure sign that the game is in trouble (to the point I would have doubts as to it ever launching).
Scenario 2 is unrealistic. There would be no reason to need to change it for system/mechanics reasons (any such issues would be present in costal waters, as others have pointed out). The only way this could logically happen is if it was an option decision that Intrepid decided to make. If this is the case, they literally made the decision to alter a massive part of the game from what many players assumed it would be. This is the default that players are assuming has happened.
Scenario 3 would suggest Intrwpid dont give a shit about their community.
None of the above scenarios suggest Intrepid didnt fuck up in some way. What's worse is that their communication in regards to it has been shockingly bad. Not only did they fuck up, but they fucked up the fuck up and made it worse.
Now, unless you have another scenario that is reasonable and plausable as to how Intrepid could go 5 years without mentioning a MAJOR aspect of the game, an aspect that literally alters the entire concept of the game to many people, we have to assume one of these above scenarios is the case.
Based on that, no matter which of said scenarios turns out to be true, Intrepid fucked up.
But I'd really have to see their plans for open seas content in order to really understand the reasoning behind the change. If they plan to have a ton of mobs in the water that a ship full of PKers can easily grind to remove their corruption and those mobs are in bumfuck nowhere, then, yeah, corruption at sea wouldn't really matter either way.
But if there's only a few bosses and a few fishing spots there (with maybe underwater treasures) - I see no real point in changing it to ffa pvp zone other than the "AA had it this way" one.
At which point we come to Dygz' supposition that this change came directly from Steven due to there being no Lead Designer to argue against said change. And I personally agree with Dygz' point because I remember quite a few moments during dev streams where Steven and Jeff had differing povs on things. And while Steven would often say "nah, this is how it's gonna be", the sheer fact that the povs were different would indicate to me that outside of dev streams there'd be a long discussion about that design point and Jeff might've just not wanted to undermine his boss in front of thousands of people by arguing against that point.
And now that the Lead Designer is gone we have Steven who keeps saying "this is how it's gonna be" and pretty much no one there to say no or to at least argue why it might be better to not change the design direction. Now, I agree with Steven's design for the most part, mainly because he comes from the games that I myself loved (or would've loved in case of early AA), but what I love is obviously far from what most people love so I think it's not the best situation when every design change follows my preferences
But as we all keep saying, we gotta test it all in alpha, otherwise this whole discussion is somewhat pointless, outside of the sheer fact that we show Intrepid that there's people who're dissatisfied with the change.
that sounds like one of those solo mmorpg lol.
ok so pveers like gathering, crafting, fighting mobs, trading, exploring and making friends. what if the devs decided to add scarcity in different areas to promote exploring, trading and player interaction? how is that bad if thats the experience they want for the player?
if they want the player to be able to get anything at any time, with no scarcity, then thats a solo rpg where you sometimes see another person and thats fine too. thats the experience the devs want for the player. one game isnt better than the other, they both have their market share. its like saying coke is better than pepsi or vice versa because of the formula they use...