Glorious Alpha Two Testers!

Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.

Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.

Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.

Another area perma flagged for PVP?

123468

Comments

  • JustVineJustVine Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Sathrago wrote: »
    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?

    Temporary conflict points? Battlegrounds were always going to be temporary sporadic events that you could steer around and avoid. Caravans same thing. That is very different from 'static permanent corruptionless zone that makes exploration in that zone always flagged'
    Node coffers: Single Payer Capitalism in action
  • Mag7spyMag7spy Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    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.

    1. Again do not bring up information that does not matter in relation to my time trying to make a point of your assumption of me being here for one year if it does not matter. It is not in anyone head it is your own words you have sated for whatever reason in attempt to push a point with false information.

    Its not hard to understand you are in the wrong here. Else you are free to enlighten me why you brought up the year you see on this profile and made that assumption of information and why it relates to this topic. Again your own words.

    2. This is open development you sound pretty entitled saying "At this point in development" this is development and open development a reason why you will not see this from other studios with comments like yours. They are developing the game in how they want to make it, deal with their challenges and create the content they are trying to make. But please you are free to enlighten me about all the systems in navel content and how they work if you have such a large understanding of their development and where they are, i certainly do not know how everything is going to be working together and what content will be there to do exactly.

    Their point of development is their concern, and their process to create the content and take the direction they feel is best as they make the game. This is not BETA, this is in-between alphas where they are making the actual content for the game where clearly it did not fully exist before, because you know its development so they need to make it and not in the late stages of development yet.

    Now if it was in the late stages of development and we were in betas and direction was done and feedback taken and used, sure you could make more of a point about it being this stage in development and id still find that potentially debatable unless we are talking about beta 2 or after.

    In fact BDO had you lose XP on death and changed that upon after releasing the game which is a pretty giant change.

    They have not "fucked up" this is development again, and their choice in direction they want to go, pvp is not new or sudden to the game. All of this falls in line with PvX. This is not them removing PvP content, this is not them creating barebones pve content with recycled mobs everywhere and no kinds of challenge what so ever.

    You are overexaggerating.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    You are overexaggerating.
    This article says that NW had its change from survival to what it is now during the alpha stage of the survival version
    https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/new-world-developer-interview

    And this change is considered one of the hugest fuckups in mmos (well, considered that by the pvp community obviously) because it did a 180. Now obviously Intrepid didn't do a full 180 quite yet, but changing half of the world's rules is quite close to that imo. And with the ruins mechanic change we're now setting a precedent and an exact direction ("2 points make a line" and all that) for the design of the game.

    I'm not saying that Steven's about to make Ashes a ffa pvp game, but the direction of the changes is definitely pointing there.
  • Mag7spyMag7spy Member, Alpha Two
    NiKr wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    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 :D

    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 is my point no one knows and he doesn't either, there is no reason why everyone needs to know every design detail. Else you get a reaction over everything with people disliking ideas or growing too attached to others and why there is no official document, that won't come out until the game is actually in its final stages of being done. This is development, this is not at the end of their development where you can say it is too late and they should be telling people all details with how everything works. They are already doing more than most by like 100x.

    With the game design point I don't have anything against that, though if that would have changed things I have a feeling maybe not. Would they have tried to explain things and detail their systems a bit more, I'm not sure I feel its still in the early phases of them testing things that may or may not be there, so its hard to say why when it might have some other kind of push back.

    It isn't really something they need to explain its just the game they are making and the game they will be testing. This is only my guuuuess but yes this game is Steven's baby so as a lead game designer you are going to have less kind of freedom as far as talking on the streams as there are certain things Steven will want and that is more than likely what will happen. But behind the scenes leads are very important of course, and more than likely they have a senior that is acting as a lead and keeping the team organized.

    So long story short, surprising yes that is fair. But saying this is unacceptable (que karen voice) that is a reach based on the type of the game and the current systems in place that he know about.
  • Mag7spyMag7spy Member, Alpha Two
    NiKr wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    You are overexaggerating.
    This article says that NW had its change from survival to what it is now during the alpha stage of the survival version
    https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/new-world-developer-interview

    And this change is considered one of the hugest fuckups in mmos (well, considered that by the pvp community obviously) because it did a 180. Now obviously Intrepid didn't do a full 180 quite yet, but changing half of the world's rules is quite close to that imo. And with the ruins mechanic change we're now setting a precedent and an exact direction ("2 points make a line" and all that) for the design of the game.

    I'm not saying that Steven's about to make Ashes a ffa pvp game, but the direction of the changes is definitely pointing there.

    This would be right about late in development technically and doing a full 180.

    Why i say technically
    1. No one spent money
    2. Its most likely debatable if this was early or late in development based on the game most likely needed another 2 years.
    3. Was under NDA and not open to the public
    4. Most likely made a better game in the end, as what it was before was most likely very trash (especially if you take into account they most likely had like no real pve content)


    I just can't see land and water content even remotely on the same wavelength as far as where the content you will be wanting to do most of the time. I also don't view it as a change in direction as you are going to have guild wars, node wars so you can already flag on people without corruption and they have battlegrounds. I feel people have more a PvE view point of AoC than realizing its PvX and pvp is a big part of it.

    Another note, these changes are nothing new to games so it is a bit naïve to be saying this is unacceptable for games. Nightingale was changed from MMORPG into a survival game during development. Overwatch was changed from a mmorpg into a team based fps from a mmorpg. If AoC was changed toth at extend with people having put money in the game id agree with it being unacceptable. IE if AoC became a battle royale
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    I just can't see land and water content even remotely on the same wavelength as far as where the content you will be wanting to do most of the time.
    Yeah, this is why I'm waiting for more info to have a final opinion on the change.
  • DepravedDepraved Member, Alpha Two
    converting the node ruins into a pvp area isnt a drastic change T____T
    it literally stays true to the design philosophies of the game, such as player agency and interaction, and risk vs reward. this is literally just content added that stays true to the design philosophies.
  • JustVineJustVine Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    NiKr wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    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 :D

    But as we all keep saying, we gotta test it all in alpha, otherwise this whole discussion is someone pointless, outside of the sheer fact that we show Intrepid that there's people who're dissatisfied with the change.

    I hope there are more people like you that don't feel a need to say anything because you have already said it. I don't always agree with you but I continue to appreciate your ability to see things from a perspective outside your own.
    Node coffers: Single Payer Capitalism in action
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Depraved wrote: »
    converting the node ruins into a pvp area isnt a drastic change T____T
    it literally stays true to the design philosophies of the game, such as player agency and interaction, and risk vs reward. this is literally just content added that stays true to the design philosophies.
    Yeah, it's obviously within the overall design direction, but, as Steven himself said, it was a change from whatever the previous design was. And while the change itself is fairly small compared to the open seas one, it's still a change towards more pvp, which was my point.

    Now what I'd love to get from Intrepid in these next few dev streams is any good info on the pve side of things. Yes, we've seen a few new mobs here and there, but what about AI, what about boss design, what about mob/boss abilities, etc etc etc. We're coming closer and closer to alpha2, but we've barely heard anything about their progress on their pve promises, namely the "<10% of players can clear this content" type of stuff. Are they even working on that right now?

    In other words, I want some counterbalance to all the pvp changes we've seen so far.
  • CROW3CROW3 Member, Alpha Two
    Change doesn't bother me that much, it's natural (& necessary) for a product of this size / complexity to evolve as it's developed. I'm just curious what the internal goal post is relative to FFA PvP.

    Is it an explicit 'Well we're not going to go here ___ x ____." ?

    What's the bridge too far for Steven, that they would reign it back in?



    AoC+Dwarf+750v3.png
  • Mag7spyMag7spy Member, Alpha Two
    NiKr wrote: »
    Depraved wrote: »
    converting the node ruins into a pvp area isnt a drastic change T____T
    it literally stays true to the design philosophies of the game, such as player agency and interaction, and risk vs reward. this is literally just content added that stays true to the design philosophies.
    Yeah, it's obviously within the overall design direction, but, as Steven himself said, it was a change from whatever the previous design was. And while the change itself is fairly small compared to the open seas one, it's still a change towards more pvp, which was my point.

    Now what I'd love to get from Intrepid in these next few dev streams is any good info on the pve side of things. Yes, we've seen a few new mobs here and there, but what about AI, what about boss design, what about mob/boss abilities, etc etc etc. We're coming closer and closer to alpha2, but we've barely heard anything about their progress on their pve promises, namely the "<10% of players can clear this content" type of stuff. Are they even working on that right now?

    In other words, I want some counterbalance to all the pvp changes we've seen so far.

    You keep farming like off me xD

    @CROW3 Ya i agree that is the most important thing in relation to content and how far its being pushed towards ffa pvp or not. Which means the content int he area and how often you are there matters as well. Ie if people are doing ocean content 15% or less it doesn't really impact the x-y amount of pvp.

    Also what is the end game game loop going to be like, and what is the amount of pvp around that being less or more. To many questions that we don't know and won't for awhile more than likely.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    You keep farming like off me xD
    B)
  • SathragoSathrago Member, Alpha Two
    edited October 2022
    JustVine wrote: »
    Sathrago wrote: »
    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?

    Temporary conflict points? Battlegrounds were always going to be temporary sporadic events that you could steer around and avoid. Caravans same thing. That is very different from 'static permanent corruptionless zone that makes exploration in that zone always flagged'

    Sorry but no I never once thought battlegrounds would be temporary. The way they were described to me sounded like wows wintergrasp. A zone that is always pvp enabled but at certain times objectives pop up for players to contend for. The event would be temporary but the zone would be perpetually pvp flagged.
    8vf24h7y7lio.jpg
    Commissioned at https://fiverr.com/ravenjuu
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Sathrago wrote: »
    Sorry but no I never once thought battlegrounds would be temporary. The way they were described to me sounded like wows wintergrasp. A zone that is always pvp enabled but at certain times objectives pop up for players to contend for. The event would be temporary but the zone would be perpetually pvp flagged.
    Steven himself called them "small skirmishes" that then lead to bigger longer fights, but even the bigger fights are all temporary (well, outside of open seas). And guild/node wars that could be linked to these battlegrounds are all opt-in by definition.
    https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Open_world_battlegrounds
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Sathrago wrote: »
    JustVine wrote: »
    Sathrago wrote: »
    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?

    Temporary conflict points? Battlegrounds were always going to be temporary sporadic events that you could steer around and avoid. Caravans same thing. That is very different from 'static permanent corruptionless zone that makes exploration in that zone always flagged'

    Sorry but no I never once thought battlegrounds would be temporary. The way they were described to me sounded like wows wintergrasp. A zone that is always pvp enabled but at certain times objectives pop up for players to contend for. The event would be temporary but the zone would be perpetually pvp flagged.

    Well, that's the Curse of Ambiguity.

    We all interpret it however makes the most sense to us.
    ♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited October 2022
    Sathrago wrote: »
    Sorry but no I never once thought battlegrounds would be temporary. The way they were described to me sounded like wows wintergrasp. A zone that is always pvp enabled but at certain times objectives pop up for players to contend for. The event would be temporary but the zone would be perpetually pvp flagged.
    Yeah, you keep ignoring Steven's descriptions of Battlegrounds:




    "My definition of what a battleground is- and it's non-traditional - it's not typically something that is defined in the same way in other MMORPGS, but I kind of view them as these small skirmishes that might lead up to a siege or to a war and they might have capture points during node and castle fights; and these PvP objectives may be more relevant for smaller groups than for giant raids; and you might have concurrently running objectives during a particular event where you have to dispatch groups simultaneously to go address these objectives in order to complete one particular type of event or one particular type of of success condition."

    I don't know how you listen to or read that and come away thinking that Ashes Battlegrounds are permanent like Wintergrasp. Steven's primary examples of Battlegrounds prior to the Open Seas announcement were Caravans and Node and Castle Sieges - all of which are temporary.
  • SathragoSathrago Member, Alpha Two
    edited October 2022
    I've looked through mutliple sources and I cannot find the spot where I began to think that this had always been the case. I have no reference. The only thing I can say is that im not sitting here lying to you for a win. I have always seen them as an area in the world that is persistently flagged with mobs and materials to farm that players will want, and there will at points be objectives that players can capture or complete for rewards or advantages.

    I will not deny that the particular wiki quote steven says here sounds like its only something used for node or castle sieges and only works during those times. Yet the open seas announcement reinforces my PoV. Not yours.
    8vf24h7y7lio.jpg
    Commissioned at https://fiverr.com/ravenjuu
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Sathrago wrote: »
    I've looked through mutliple sources and I cannot find the spot where I began to think that this had always been the case. I have no reference. The only thing I can say is that im not sitting here lying to you for a win. I have always seen them as an area in the world that is persistently flagged with mobs and materials to farm that players will want, and there will at points be objectives that players can capture or complete for rewards or advantages.
    I don't think a single mechanic in the game comes anywhere close to that though. So I really dunno where you got that assumption from.

    Ruins now miiiiight be close to that, but I don't think that mobs will be present anywhere in the ruins so that part's out the window. But ruins are also a thing that has just been announced and nothing like it was present in the design before them.

    Maybe you were mistaking battlegrounds for guild wars? Cause what you've described is somewhat similar to them? People will have some goals that happen in the open world, there'll be mobs, pvp between the warring guilds and the war goals can range from kills to the capture of some relic-type things. But even then, it's not a location (or "arena") that anyone can enter and be flagged for pvp. It's a process that involves just two guilds, so it doesn't really fit either.
  • SathragoSathrago Member, Alpha Two
    NiKr wrote: »
    Sathrago wrote: »
    I've looked through mutliple sources and I cannot find the spot where I began to think that this had always been the case. I have no reference. The only thing I can say is that im not sitting here lying to you for a win. I have always seen them as an area in the world that is persistently flagged with mobs and materials to farm that players will want, and there will at points be objectives that players can capture or complete for rewards or advantages.
    I don't think a single mechanic in the game comes anywhere close to that though. So I really dunno where you got that assumption from.

    Ruins now miiiiight be close to that, but I don't think that mobs will be present anywhere in the ruins so that part's out the window. But ruins are also a thing that has just been announced and nothing like it was present in the design before them.

    Maybe you were mistaking battlegrounds for guild wars? Cause what you've described is somewhat similar to them? People will have some goals that happen in the open world, there'll be mobs, pvp between the warring guilds and the war goals can range from kills to the capture of some relic-type things. But even then, it's not a location (or "arena") that anyone can enter and be flagged for pvp. It's a process that involves just two guilds, so it doesn't really fit either.

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ don't know.
    8vf24h7y7lio.jpg
    Commissioned at https://fiverr.com/ravenjuu
  • OkeydokeOkeydoke Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited October 2022
    I can see why Dygz is upset about the open sea change. Quitting over it is a bit ridiculous to me, but I'm me, and he's he. Or him.

    Imagine how a lot of New World players felt when a change was made that reduced open world pvp to literal grab ass outside Everfall gates, on many servers.

    Shit happens. What can ya do. Write your senator maybe. But I sympathize with Dygz because he's been here so long and has put a substantial amount of money into the game.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Depraved wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    NiKr wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    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
    0yaj9pek3bht.png

    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?
    It isnt.

    The thing is, in a PvE game, you get all those things for a purpose. Generally, that purpose is to be able to take on content that you were previously unable to take on.

    In a game like Ashes though - with what we know about it so far - that isnt going to be a thing. The purpose of getting gear is either to be better at PvP, or simply because that is what playing the game is.

    To someone like Dygz, that PvP aspect is pointless, it just isnt a factor. To him, getting those resources and such IS the game. It isnt about what he does with them, he doesnt want the resources to have them, he wants to get them because getting them is the game.

    Again, transitioning this into something you may understand, it would be like an arena ladder where you are just able to buy the top spot. That isnt the point, you participate in the arena FOR the arena, not for the rewards. Someone telling you to just buy the rewards does nothing other than show that said person has no clue.
  • Okeydoke wrote: »
    I can see why Dygz is upset about the open sea change. Quitting over it is a bit ridiculous to me, but I'm me, and he's he. Or him.

    Imagine how a lot of New World players felt when a change was made that reduced open world pvp to literal grab ass outside Everfall gates, on many servers.

    Shit happens. What can ya do. Write your senator maybe. But I sympathize with Dygz because he's been here so long and has put a substantial amount of money into the game.

    He is not going anywhere. He has a mission.
    If he genuinely would want to explore the seas, some players would try to help him. But he wants to make the game worse. I do not sympathize with his attitude.
    September 12. 2022: Being naked can also be used to bring a skilled artisan to different freeholds... Don't summon family!
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Strevi wrote: »
    Okeydoke wrote: »
    I can see why Dygz is upset about the open sea change. Quitting over it is a bit ridiculous to me, but I'm me, and he's he. Or him.

    Imagine how a lot of New World players felt when a change was made that reduced open world pvp to literal grab ass outside Everfall gates, on many servers.

    Shit happens. What can ya do. Write your senator maybe. But I sympathize with Dygz because he's been here so long and has put a substantial amount of money into the game.

    He is not going anywhere. He has a mission.
    If he genuinely would want to explore the seas, some players would try to help him. But he wants to make the game worse. I do not sympathize with his attitude.

    So, to be clear, you believe that Dygz is so important that his choosing not to play will make the game worse?

    I mean, you probably meant he won't leave forums, but why does it even matter?

    If the game would have to change to make people like Dygz happy enough to play, and you think that would make it worse, then you shouldn't care at all if they play or not.
    ♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish
  • StreviStrevi Member
    edited October 2022
    Azherae wrote: »
    Strevi wrote: »
    Okeydoke wrote: »
    I can see why Dygz is upset about the open sea change. Quitting over it is a bit ridiculous to me, but I'm me, and he's he. Or him.

    Imagine how a lot of New World players felt when a change was made that reduced open world pvp to literal grab ass outside Everfall gates, on many servers.

    Shit happens. What can ya do. Write your senator maybe. But I sympathize with Dygz because he's been here so long and has put a substantial amount of money into the game.

    He is not going anywhere. He has a mission.
    If he genuinely would want to explore the seas, some players would try to help him. But he wants to make the game worse. I do not sympathize with his attitude.

    So, to be clear,
    ...
    , then you shouldn't care at all if they play or not.
    It bothers me because I feel people like Dygz could create nice communities if they would embrace risk and adventure a bit more.
    But he does not seem interested to play. Probably was never his main goal.
    And if I have to chose, I prefer to see Dygz lose than see the game tuned down on the risk vs reward aspect.
    September 12. 2022: Being naked can also be used to bring a skilled artisan to different freeholds... Don't summon family!
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    In fact BDO had you lose XP on death and changed that upon after releasing the game which is a pretty giant change.

    They have not "fucked up" this is development again, and their choice in direction they want to go, pvp is not new or sudden to the game.
    This is an incredibly trivial change in comparison to the change we are talking about.

    Like, its less than a grain of sand on a beach, when the change we are concerned with here is an archipelago of many islands each with many beaches, each with many grains of sand.

    That right there was an exaggeration - but only slightly.

    The BDO change to xp is something that takes effect after the fact. You do the thing you want to do, and afterwards you maybe have some xp debt to work off. However, in BDO, this was removed, meaning players were less constrained than they were before, they had fewer systems in the game telling them what they can and can not do.

    The change to oceans in Ashes (that once again, I feel it worth pointing out that I assumed this is how it would be - I am not personally upset by it, I just fully understand why others would be, and consider the whole thing a failure by Intrepid) dormant remove constraints on all players, it takes constraints off some (those wanting open PvP) and simply places constraints on others (those wanting what little protection corruption offers).
  • VeeshanVeeshan Member, Alpha Two
    Abarat wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    For the most part, I can explore the areas I want to explore without being concerned much about AI.
    Eventually, I should be able to make it through any dungeon I wish to explore... if it's just AI.

    If players can successfully get to the end of ANY dungeon in AoC solo using stealth and avoiding combat the entire time... I will rage quit.
    Abarat wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    For the most part, I can explore the areas I want to explore without being concerned much about AI.
    Eventually, I should be able to make it through any dungeon I wish to explore... if it's just AI.

    If players can successfully get to the end of ANY dungeon in AoC solo using stealth and avoiding combat the entire time... I will rage quit.

    maybe steven can just give him a solo server where there no mobs or other players so he can explore lol that seesm to be what he wants lol
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Abarat wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    For the most part, I can explore the areas I want to explore without being concerned much about AI.
    Eventually, I should be able to make it through any dungeon I wish to explore... if it's just AI.

    If players can successfully get to the end of ANY dungeon in AoC solo using stealth and avoiding combat the entire time... I will rage quit.

    To be honest, in a game with open dungeons, I would expect this to be possible - if you are skilled at stealth (yes, being a good stealth player in an MMO is a skill).

    I have yet to see a game with open dungeons where I couldn't at least arrive at the end boss solo. In games with open raid dungeons, it is just as possible there as well.

    Now, obviously I haven't played every game, but I've played a lot of games with open dungeons.
  • akabearakabear Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    With @Abarat on this one. If the deep reaches of a major open dungeon can be successfully navigated by a solo player, then they are not a challenging dungeon. Few of the most challenging L2 dunegons could be traversed to the depths with success. Yes, some could if you were lucky, but stunned more than once, and you were toast!

    As for ocean pvp.. The seas were increased in size and volume and a pvp zone was created in the newly created middle.. .it is more an addition than a change.
  • DarkTidesDarkTides Member
    edited October 2022
    Fairweather friends! Please, let us bind ourselves together, and journey into the open seas, bringing love and kindness into the hearts of those who should do us harm, under a common banner!

    Long live <The Elven Twinkle>!
  • akabearakabear Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    what you talkin bout willis?
Sign In or Register to comment.