Never have I seen the tyranny of the majority do something good. In any case, money talks, so if the game needs to cater to PvE players to continue to exist we'll have to understand that something needs to be done. From all of the possibilities of catering to carebears I've heard so far, PvE servers is the only option that won't hurt the game for people who want what was promised in the Kickstarter. That's pretty clear to me, at least.
Intrepid would have to support 2 different games. On pvp servers you can have limited resources because the pvpers are fine with fighting for them. On pve servers there's no fighting so you gotta supply everyone with resources otherwise they'll complain about not being able to farm anything (cause time-hardcore players will always win out).
On pvp servers bosses can be open world because, again, pvpers will have fun fighting over them. On pve servers you'll need to put those bosses into instance, because there won't be enough bosses for everyone (mainly because time-hardcore peeps will just have those bosses on unusual respawn timers and gonna kill them within minutes w/o anyone contesting).
On pvp servers you have a wide range of ways to undermine big guilds in the open world, in hopes that you can trip them up or at least sow doubt within their ranks so that they crumble from the inside. And then you can fight against a weaker force on bosses and during sieges. On pve servers there's nothing you can do against a blob of players that amasses resources and has good pvpers within the blob that use those resources to completely demolish anyone who tries to go against them.
In order to appeal to both extremes of the spectrum Intrepid would need to have two different designs for the game and keep developing them at the same pace if they want to keep both sides happy. Alternatively they can just make one good game and push it as hard as they can for its target audience. It'll obviously be on a smaller scale than a pve-friendly version, but those who do play it will love it so much more.
Everyone who's place Mortal Online among his favourite MMOs doesn't worth listening to.
Ok buddy
Sorry for this, I'm become a bit to aggressive if subject of the discussion is open world PVP. I'm to many times seen how it kills a MMO. If you like Mortal Online it's totally fine, different people have different tastes in games, but you have to admit, Mortal Online is not suitable for majority of MMO players.
It is your fault.
Well yes, that's the reason i apologize.
I mean it is not the PvP which kills the game, but you. Is it that you apologize for?
September 12. 2022: Being naked can also be used to bring a skilled artisan to different freeholds... Don't summon family!
Everyone who's place Mortal Online among his favourite MMOs doesn't worth listening to.
Ok buddy
Sorry for this, I'm become a bit to aggressive if subject of the discussion is open world PVP. I'm to many times seen how it kills a MMO. If you like Mortal Online it's totally fine, different people have different tastes in games, but you have to admit, Mortal Online is not suitable for majority of MMO players.
It is your fault.
Well yes, that's the reason i apologize.
I mean it is not the PvP which kills the game, but you. Is it that you apologize for?
It is the PvP that kills the game.
It is also the people that go 'Even if you like PvP, as long as you don't like THIS SPECIFIC PVP THAT I LIKE, you're wrong and should gtfo'.
Absolutely, there are dozens of ways to cater to "PvE players". However, I'm yet to see another way to do it which doesn't affect the "PvP players" as collateral damage.
Keep in mind that the gloomy scenario I created was: "if the game needs to cater to PvE players to continue to exist". In other words, if Intrepid doesn't cater to the PvE audience, the game will inevitably shutdown.
Examples that would affect the game for everyone: lower the % of loot lost on death, add safe-on-death inventory slots, add even more debuffs to reds, add safe zones/no PvP zones, add level/gear score/etc. combat brackets, PvP toggled zones, PvP toggle, etc.
Examples that would only affect players who want to be affected by them: PvE servers, PvP-toggle servers (like NW lmao that was a success), etc.
You could argue that adding servers with different rulesets would actually affect PvP servers, at least indirectly, for example if players who aren't fans of PvP or just unhappy with their current servers start moving to the brand new PvE servers, and you'd be right: it's probably going to affect the existing PvP servers. However, I believe that it's better to create servers for the PvE audience (and keep the game alive) than to make changes to the game that directly affect everyone, including players that were happy with the way the game was "originally" designed.
Absolutely, there are dozens of ways to cater to "PvE players". However, I'm yet to see another way to do it which doesn't affect the "PvP players" as collateral damage.
Keep in mind that the gloomy scenario I created was: "if the game needs to cater to PvE players to continue to exist". In other words, if Intrepid doesn't cater to the PvE audience, the game will inevitably shutdown.
Examples that would affect the game for everyone: lower the % of loot lost on death, add safe-on-death inventory slots, add even more debuffs to reds, add safe zones, add level/gear score/etc. combat brackets, etc.
Examples that would only affect players who want to be affected by them: PvE servers, PvP-toggle servers, etc.
You could argue that adding servers with different rulesets would actually affect PvP servers, at least indirectly, for example if players who aren't fans of PvP or just unhappy with their current servers start moving to the brand new PvE servers, and you'd be right: it's probably going to affect the existing PvP servers. However, I believe that it's better to create servers for the PvE audience (and keep the game alive) than to make changes to the game that directly affect everyone, including players that were happy with the way the game was "originally" designed.
If the game has PvE servers, and this results in the majority of players playing on those, it would tell us one of three things.
1. Those players would probably not have put up with the PvP servers for too long anyway so that's the demographic that would have bled off from the standard sub numbers.
2. The systems work sufficiently with 'just PvE' that they're still fun
3. Some number of potentially PvP players found it to be in their best interest to switch (otherwise the PvP servers would still mostly thrive, which would also be great)
We actually have a model for this, because Elite gives you the choice of 'Open', 'Private Group', 'Solo' every time you even log in.
So you can get a MASSIVE amount of data about why EXACTLY players choose one or the other, since they must choose it repeatedly. They must form "Private PvE groups" that are only PvE by agreement. They similarly form groups that have "Players must play in Open Only" as their rules, and this is visibly enforceable because you can see 'which mode your group/friends logged in as'.
Their Reddit is a good place to farm data on 'what exactly makes players choose one or the other'.
It's not the open-world pvp - it's not the group-focused design or the lack of fast travel/convenience as some like to say.
I believe Ashes of Creation's biggest problem is going to be the loud voices that will increasingly try to change this game to cater to a different targeted audience. The PvE carebears, the solo-players, the PvP-arena-only players, those, that make a big portion of the MMORPG playerbase, are the real risk to the project. Every time I see @StevenSharif saying "Ashes won't be for everyone, and that's ok" this refills my confidence fuel tank in this project.
But I hope Steven and the team are ready for this, because it might only get worse as the game gets more traction, people will continue to give feedback and make content asking for changes that would end up hurting AoC, because a large portion of the mmorpg player base are under the assumption that if an MMO doesn't appeal to as many people as possible - the game will fail.
This is something we see everywhere, and it's also something Asmongold, a streamer that Steven really likes, says all the time, using New World (a bad example) as an example that people nowadays don't want a social experience like they use to back in the days, that changing the design adding teleports, removing open world PVP and making a casual, solo-friendly game is the way to go. They keep saying the MMORPG genre is "dying" but they want Ashes to be just like the other games in the genre.
I'd like to hereby voice my, and my community's support for Steven's vision, that ever since it was announced remained true to the PvX risk vs reward philosophy - I hope we, players that have no MMORPG to call home for the last decade, that came from Lineage, Archeage, SWG, Everquest, Eve, CoH, Ultima, and so many others - can get to experience AoC as it was promised - no matter how long it takes to release. If this game delivers, and it's good, we will be here, and we will buy every cosmetic in the cash shop or new t-shirt you release to make sure this game is successful.
i agree with you. ive been waiting for this game even before it began to exist. COE never happened and NW was meh
Never have I seen the tyranny of the majority do something good. In any case, money talks, so if the game needs to cater to PvE players to continue to exist we'll have to understand that something needs to be done. From all of the possibilities of catering to carebears I've heard so far, PvE servers is the only option that won't hurt the game for people who want what was promised in the Kickstarter. That's pretty clear to me, at least.
Intrepid would have to support 2 different games. On pvp servers you can have limited resources because the pvpers are fine with fighting for them. On pve servers there's no fighting so you gotta supply everyone with resources otherwise they'll complain about not being able to farm anything (cause time-hardcore players will always win out).
On pvp servers bosses can be open world because, again, pvpers will have fun fighting over them. On pve servers you'll need to put those bosses into instance, because there won't be enough bosses for everyone (mainly because time-hardcore peeps will just have those bosses on unusual respawn timers and gonna kill them within minutes w/o anyone contesting).
On pvp servers you have a wide range of ways to undermine big guilds in the open world, in hopes that you can trip them up or at least sow doubt within their ranks so that they crumble from the inside. And then you can fight against a weaker force on bosses and during sieges. On pve servers there's nothing you can do against a blob of players that amasses resources and has good pvpers within the blob that use those resources to completely demolish anyone who tries to go against them.
In order to appeal to both extremes of the spectrum Intrepid would need to have two different designs for the game and keep developing them at the same pace if they want to keep both sides happy. Alternatively they can just make one good game and push it as hard as they can for its target audience. It'll obviously be on a smaller scale than a pve-friendly version, but those who do play it will love it so much more.
Honestly, everything in this discussion is such a speculation. I just wait until alpha 2 or beta and then see what's up. If problem with open world PVP does exist, it always can be corrected in the future.
It's scary there is a lot of post-WoW mmo content creators, who had none or a little bit knowledge of AoC. They compare everything to modern MMO or classic WoW, saying that many mechanics will not work. And it will only grow
Well I think Steven should start to do interviews with big content creators and telling them what is his true vision and on what parts they have no knowledge and show them how it work... Or maybe Alpha 2 will show them...
English is not my first language, but i try to write properly.
If the game has PvE servers, and this results in the majority of players playing on those, it would tell us one of three things.
1. Those players would probably not have put up with the PvP servers for too long anyway so that's the demographic that would have bled off from the standard sub numbers.
2. The systems work sufficiently with 'just PvE' that they're still fun
3. Some number of potentially PvP players found it to be in their best interest to switch (otherwise the PvP servers would still mostly thrive, which would also be great)
Agreed, I understand that. However, in the scenario where you either cater to the PvE audience or the game dies a slowly but surely death, creating PvE servers it the easiest/least harmful (to the existing players) solution I can think of. The PvE servers would also be "fresh start" servers, which is very attractive on its own, even if owPvP would probably be non-existent. In any case, my point was simply that if Intrepid must cater to carebears, I believe PvE servers is better than altering the game altogether.
We actually have a model for this, because Elite gives you the choice of 'Open', 'Private Group', 'Solo' every time you even log in.
So you can get a MASSIVE amount of data about why EXACTLY players choose one or the other, since they must choose it repeatedly. They must form "Private PvE groups" that are only PvE by agreement. They similarly form groups that have "Players must play in Open Only" as their rules, and this is visibly enforceable because you can see 'which mode your group/friends logged in as'.
Their Reddit is a good place to farm data on 'what exactly makes players choose one or the other'.
I'm sorry, but you lost me there: what's "Elite"? Elite Dangerous? Regardless of the exact data we can probably extract from a variety of sources, I speculate that there are more "anti-PvP" than "anti-PvE" MMORPG players. For that reason, Intrepid has to nail owPvP as much as they need to nail combat. I am sure that Intrepid will be able to make owPvP good enough even for the people who despise PvP, but I have a feeling it's not going to be exactly like what (most?) of us expect and the lately "controversial" corruption will play a minor role in the grand scheme of things.
If the game has PvE servers, and this results in the majority of players playing on those, it would tell us one of three things.
1. Those players would probably not have put up with the PvP servers for too long anyway so that's the demographic that would have bled off from the standard sub numbers.
2. The systems work sufficiently with 'just PvE' that they're still fun
3. Some number of potentially PvP players found it to be in their best interest to switch (otherwise the PvP servers would still mostly thrive, which would also be great)
Agreed, I understand that. However, in the scenario where you either cater to the PvE audience or the game dies a slowly but surely death, creating PvE servers it the easiest/least harmful (to the existing players) solution I can think of. The PvE servers would also be "fresh start" servers, which is very attractive on its own, even if owPvP would probably be non-existent. In any case, my point was simply that if Intrepid must cater to carebears, I believe PvE servers is better than changing the game (in every server).
We actually have a model for this, because Elite gives you the choice of 'Open', 'Private Group', 'Solo' every time you even log in.
So you can get a MASSIVE amount of data about why EXACTLY players choose one or the other, since they must choose it repeatedly. They must form "Private PvE groups" that are only PvE by agreement. They similarly form groups that have "Players must play in Open Only" as their rules, and this is visibly enforceable because you can see 'which mode your group/friends logged in as'.
Their Reddit is a good place to farm data on 'what exactly makes players choose one or the other'.
I'm sorry, but you lost me there: what's "Elite"? Elite Dangerous? Regardless of the exact data we can probably extract from a variety of sources, I believe we can all agree that there are more "anti PvP" than "anti PvE" MMORPG players. For that reason, Ashes needs to nail owPvP as much as they need to nail combat. I am sure that Intrepid will be able to make owPvP good enough even for the people who despise PvP, but I have a feeling it's not going to be exactly like what (most?) of us expect and the lately "controversial" corruption will play a minor role in the grand scheme of things.
Ah yes, sorry, I actually didn't even realize that I didn't write out the full name.
My point is that there are actually quite a few 'Anti-PvP' players of Elite Dangerous that were willing to play anyway, and there have been explicit discussions about 'what would happen if they stopped offering the option and made everyone play in Open' and a non-trivial number of people there seemed to respond "I'll still play because I know where to be/how to deal with the situation'.
I mention this because the only thing that 'protects' people in Open Play in Elite Dangerous is "wanted status", which is basically similar to Corruption, and it doesn't do a great job of it at all, but because of the other gameplay factors, it seems that a substantial number of players would still have been willing to play it.
This is, again, in a game where people have the option to never PvP ever, to never SEE another player in ANY situation, and multiple options for 'PvE groups' (those DO get quite large though). So I consider it 'a game where people got to make their own personal PvE sub-worlds', where they can relatively easily be attacked and the system doesn't protect them much, and they still do this while NEVER intending to PvP or particularly fight back. This is why I don't think Dygz would have minded, for example. "Escaping" is an important skill in these situations that Dygz would probably work on, and 'not being in the mood to PvP' apparently doesn't mean 'not being in the mood to use one's skill to escape or avoid PvP'.
They just adjust their builds and do all the things people say you should otherwise do in Ashes. Or at least, they did a few years ago, lots of controversy since has made me not bother checking.
tl;dr PvE servers don't seem as good an idea to me as giving more options for interacting with PvP players on reasonable terms, since a lot of even 'PvE players' don't want them.
Never have I seen the tyranny of the majority do something good. In any case, money talks, so if the game needs to cater to PvE players to continue to exist we'll have to understand that something needs to be done. From all of the possibilities of catering to carebears I've heard so far, PvE servers is the only option that won't hurt the game for people who want what was promised in the Kickstarter. That's pretty clear to me, at least.
Yeah, who do you cater to and how do you cater to them all at the same time when some of the things the different sides want are not compatible. At the end of the day, I think you just cater to "players" and make a good, coherent game. As generic as that sounds.
It's not all about pvp and pve either. People are going to rage about other things. Lack of instances, lack of fast travel, regional storage/banking, group finder, addons, node destruction. If caravans are necessary to do to be competitive economically and progressionally, people gonna rage about that too. Everything. lol.
Maybe pve/pvp servers end up being a potential solution. I think that would be tragic though.
1
Options
HinotoriMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I'm gonna try to be as fucking loud as I can when giving feedback during alpha2 cause I'm sure there's gonna be thousands of pvers on Asmon's (and others') stream whining about the mechanics.
Rather then showing up with 5 people and spamming cc's on their heals and trying to have mobs wipe them so they can pick up their loot and avoid corruption risk.
You can be in favor of greens not being able to be CC'd, which would avoid the spam CC scenario, and to make the opening of fights against non combatants more fair, until they flag up to fight back. I am in favor of that. You can also be against the idea that reds can't use ANY CC, even damaging CCs, against greens who are actively fighting them. The two are not mutually exclusive. There are solutions that address both.
Not trying to turn this into another CC change thread. But you're talking to a guy, me, who's in favor of meaningful but not insane gear gaps, and a reasonably high-ish but not overwhelmingly high skill gap/ceiling in the combat system. I'm all about fairness and keeping the game accessible and competitive for large groups of people.
When I first read the CC change, the first thing I thought was great that fixes the CC spam scenario nonsense. Then I realized what else it meant. It's not a small deal, not a huge one either though, just kinda dumb if that's how it will apply to greens who attack reds. If that's the way it's gonna be then that's how it'll be though.
Back to what this thread is about, of course you want people making videos about your game, raising issues, of course Steven will interact with some of these videos and creators. And anything could happen. Game could stay the same, could change a little, or could change wildly based on how much he listens to certain people. He's going to be under immense, and I mean ungodly immense pressure to neutralize or remove OW pvp from the game. Maybe scary is a strong word. It's concerning.
Little secret for you. Many of the people who complain about Ashes' design are more afraid that it will be successful than afraid it will fail.
I do agree closer to release, the true PvE only server thread will show , the likes you have never seen before.
@Liniker Thinking back to older mmorpgs curious what kinds of content you think made good gameplay loop that made the experience enjoyable from start to end? Gameplay that made people excited to play every day and enjoy it that did not revolve around end game content?
I love lore, PvP, raiding, all that good stuff, but the thing that always kept me playing MMOs - is player-driven and guild content, games like SWG, DAoC, Mortal, or even sandboxy survival games like Ark, they give the community the tools to make player driven content
and when a game doesn't have this, like the theme box mmorpgs we have on the market, the only thing left to hold the MMO is the gameplay and the curated content that it's great for a while, but you end up getting bored and just go play something else while you wait for the next expansion
I think this is what will make Ashes so good, it has both, it has the meat and potatoes, it's not just a lazy sandbox, but it has enough curated content, the node system, world bosses, the legendary items, mounts, the castles and all that - but also give us the tools to have the player driven content, and even the drama that will result in sieges and wars and all that, for me, that is it.
100% agree with this and why a lot of people are looking forward to the game. It is going to offer a different experience with this in a dynamic player driven way and world (even if some dynamic elements are a bit faked). It will be a reason to play this game over other games as you won't get that experience anywhere else.
Play lost ark I was speed running waiting for next big update for content doingt he same things over and over again since the pvp in the game was bad. Just sit at town and teleport to next instanced dungeon, etc. I put 800 hours in it and it was meh without any memorable experiences, will not play it again had enough of that kind of game.
It's not the open-world pvp - it's not the group-focused design or the lack of fast travel/convenience as some like to say.
I believe Ashes of Creation's biggest problem is going to be the loud voices that will increasingly try to change this game to cater to a different targeted audience. The PvE carebears, the solo-players, the PvP-arena-only players, those, that make a big portion of the MMORPG playerbase, are the real risk to the project. Every time I see @StevenSharif saying "Ashes won't be for everyone, and that's ok" this refills my confidence fuel tank in this project.
But I hope Steven and the team are ready for this, because it might only get worse as the game gets more traction, people will continue to give feedback and make content asking for changes that would end up hurting AoC, because a large portion of the mmorpg player base are under the assumption that if an MMO doesn't appeal to as many people as possible - the game will fail.
This is something we see everywhere, and it's also something Asmongold, a streamer that Steven really likes, says all the time, using New World (a bad example) as an example that people nowadays don't want a social experience like they use to back in the days, that changing the design adding teleports, removing open world PVP and making a casual, solo-friendly game is the way to go. They keep saying the MMORPG genre is "dying" but they want Ashes to be just like the other games in the genre.
I'd like to hereby voice my, and my community's support for Steven's vision, that ever since it was announced remained true to the PvX risk vs reward philosophy - I hope we, players that have no MMORPG to call home for the last decade, that came from Lineage, Archeage, SWG, Everquest, Eve, CoH, Ultima, and so many others - can get to experience AoC as it was promised - no matter how long it takes to release. If this game delivers, and it's good, we will be here, and we will buy every cosmetic in the cash shop or new t-shirt you release to make sure this game is successful.
Thank You for saying what You said. I can see that this thread is branching off into different opinions about PvE/PvP like many other threads before it, but what You said is 100% spot on and should in my opinion be pinned because You could not be more right with what You say. Hope Steven's vision will preserve.
I'm gonna try to be as fucking loud as I can when giving feedback during alpha2 cause I'm sure there's gonna be thousands of pvers on Asmon's (and others') stream whining about the mechanics.
I propose we make an alpha 2 guild specifically for us players who want Ashes to stick to its current design philosophy and to improve it while shunning the carebear community and any other community focused on drastically changing the games design.
I propose we make an alpha 2 guild specifically for us players who want Ashes to stick to its current design philosophy and to improve it while shunning the carebear community and any other community focused on drastically changing the games design.
Kinda like how Legolas pledged his life to Frodo then literally never spoke to him again?
I propose we make an alpha 2 guild specifically for us players who want Ashes to stick to its current design philosophy and to improve it while shunning the carebear community and any other community focused on drastically changing the games design.
Kinda like how Legolas pledged his life to Frodo then literally never spoke to him again?
I propose we make an alpha 2 guild specifically for us players who want Ashes to stick to its current design philosophy and to improve it while shunning the carebear community and any other community focused on drastically changing the games design.
Kinda like how Legolas pledged his life to Frodo then literally never spoke to him again?
Shunned!
I would say that the true to design community are like the LoTR Peter Jackson trilogy. Then the murderhobos and hardcore PvPers pushing for the ability to grief are like the Hobbit Trilogy because action and CGI and too much bullcrap. And then the PVE Carebear community are The Rings of Power because they refuse to read the wiki and want to completely change everything.
I'm gonna try to be as fucking loud as I can when giving feedback during alpha2 cause I'm sure there's gonna be thousands of pvers on Asmon's (and others') stream whining about the mechanics.
I believe Ashes of Creation's biggest problem is going to be the loud voices that will increasingly try to change this game to cater to a different targeted audience. The PvE carebears, the solo-players, the PvP-arena-only players, those, that make a big portion of the MMORPG playerbase, are the real risk to the project. Every time I see @StevenSharif saying "Ashes won't be for everyone, and that's ok" this refills my confidence fuel tank in this project.
The carebears are the true griefers in all games, they are all in for the power grab through farming and accumulating.
They force the company to change the rules of the game for their own gain, the same game they used to amass mountains of inventory now will become a game that is actually a safety net for their mountains of inventory. This is how agressive carebears are, they are relentless try-hards of hoarding.
Only ganking them over and over help them remember that other people actually exist and they are playing a MMO... otherwise they will keep trapped in bot aspirancy while endlessly farming.
If these griefing carebears want to survive, they have to start recruiting PVPers, hiring PVPers, befriending PVPers... bring to your side people who actually can kill others:
- work together as it should be done in any MMO
- have a PVP squad in your guild
- gather intel about the area and the people who live there
- send a ping to the PVPers so they come and kill people
- the best content comes from you, not from a development company
Development companies create game mechanics and systems, it is up to you to build your own story!
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
The notion that pvers should be ganked over and over...Every type of player is subject to being ganked. Not just pve players. Neither group is signing up to be ganked over and over either.
Or that pve players should pay pvp players. I mean yeah the game design should give reason for certain groups to want to collaborate with and/or pay other groups at times for certain things. Not all the time, maybe not even ever for certain groups of people. One pvp group might pay another pvp group for help with a certain highly contested piece of content. That all should just happen organicly, and perhaps be very beneficial to engage in at times, but not like a requirement in general for people just to play the game.
I don't think the genocidal/enslavement rhetoric towards pvers is helpful lol. I'm hoping that the node system will create an environment where people are part of a larger group of node citizens/citizens from allied nodes, a faction basically, people that are on your side, both pvers and pvpers. And organic cooperation and collaboration should result from that, as well as from guilds and allied guilds.
I don't think this is a pver vs pvper game. The groups that war and compete against each other will be composed of both.
I'm gonna try to be as fucking loud as I can when giving feedback during alpha2 cause I'm sure there's gonna be thousands of pvers on Asmon's (and others') stream whining about the mechanics.
Can i join the fellowship
All are welcome to walk with us through the impending darkness ahead. We'll see the light again one day if we stay loyal to the cause.
I propose we make an alpha 2 guild specifically for us players who want Ashes to stick to its current design philosophy and to improve it while shunning the carebear community and any other community focused on drastically changing the games design.
Nah, we gotta take the high road. We listen to both sides and then prove them wrong through actions. If you made the extreme sides out to be Mordor - they'll behave like it.
I don't think the genocidal/enslavement rhetoric towards pvers is helpful lol. I'm hoping that the node system will create an environment where people are part of a larger group of node citizens/citizens from allied nodes, a faction basically, people that are on your side, both pvers and pvpers. And organic cooperation and collaboration should result from that, as well as from guilds and allied guilds.
I don't think this is a pver vs pvper game. The groups that war and compete against each other will be composed of both.
Exactly, the game survives on its community. If a good portion of the community can prove that the game can exist with owpvp w/o turning into a toxic grieffest - people will come and play the game.
FF14 is infamous for being kind to newbies and having an overall nice community. It's obviously easier for them to be nice considering that the game doesn't really push people against each other, but if we dare call ourselves true pvpers who have high skill then we gotta prove it by overcoming the innate toxicity of competitive games and come out on top. Otherwise we'd definitely be weaker than carebears.
AoC's biggest problem is going to be dumb design decisions that stifle, snuff out and or make people not do something that is integral to the game. That is the biggest problem. It doesn't matter how good someone might think a system is if it's overall bad for the game and it's population.
I just hope the game isn't gonna be like Lost Ark and stagnate at 200,000ish players. I enjoyed that game but it has such a dead community. P2W players are not the most social lol.
I'd like my massively multiplayer online game to actually be massive.
You only need 50k players in one server to have around 10k concurrent. You don't need 100000000 they won't play on the same server as you.
The size of a community is a lot more complex than raw numbers. I honestly don't know how to describe it, but there is just something about having more people that makes the game feel more alive. Even if your server is at max population, more people playing the game just feels so much better for some reason.
Comments
On pvp servers bosses can be open world because, again, pvpers will have fun fighting over them. On pve servers you'll need to put those bosses into instance, because there won't be enough bosses for everyone (mainly because time-hardcore peeps will just have those bosses on unusual respawn timers and gonna kill them within minutes w/o anyone contesting).
On pvp servers you have a wide range of ways to undermine big guilds in the open world, in hopes that you can trip them up or at least sow doubt within their ranks so that they crumble from the inside. And then you can fight against a weaker force on bosses and during sieges. On pve servers there's nothing you can do against a blob of players that amasses resources and has good pvpers within the blob that use those resources to completely demolish anyone who tries to go against them.
In order to appeal to both extremes of the spectrum Intrepid would need to have two different designs for the game and keep developing them at the same pace if they want to keep both sides happy. Alternatively they can just make one good game and push it as hard as they can for its target audience. It'll obviously be on a smaller scale than a pve-friendly version, but those who do play it will love it so much more.
I mean it is not the PvP which kills the game, but you. Is it that you apologize for?
It is the PvP that kills the game.
It is also the people that go 'Even if you like PvP, as long as you don't like THIS SPECIFIC PVP THAT I LIKE, you're wrong and should gtfo'.
The two of these things interact quite poorly.
Absolutely, there are dozens of ways to cater to "PvE players". However, I'm yet to see another way to do it which doesn't affect the "PvP players" as collateral damage.
Keep in mind that the gloomy scenario I created was: "if the game needs to cater to PvE players to continue to exist". In other words, if Intrepid doesn't cater to the PvE audience, the game will inevitably shutdown.
Examples that would affect the game for everyone: lower the % of loot lost on death, add safe-on-death inventory slots, add even more debuffs to reds, add safe zones/no PvP zones, add level/gear score/etc. combat brackets, PvP toggled zones, PvP toggle, etc.
Examples that would only affect players who want to be affected by them: PvE servers, PvP-toggle servers (like NW lmao that was a success), etc.
You could argue that adding servers with different rulesets would actually affect PvP servers, at least indirectly, for example if players who aren't fans of PvP or just unhappy with their current servers start moving to the brand new PvE servers, and you'd be right: it's probably going to affect the existing PvP servers. However, I believe that it's better to create servers for the PvE audience (and keep the game alive) than to make changes to the game that directly affect everyone, including players that were happy with the way the game was "originally" designed.
If the game has PvE servers, and this results in the majority of players playing on those, it would tell us one of three things.
1. Those players would probably not have put up with the PvP servers for too long anyway so that's the demographic that would have bled off from the standard sub numbers.
2. The systems work sufficiently with 'just PvE' that they're still fun
3. Some number of potentially PvP players found it to be in their best interest to switch (otherwise the PvP servers would still mostly thrive, which would also be great)
We actually have a model for this, because Elite gives you the choice of 'Open', 'Private Group', 'Solo' every time you even log in.
So you can get a MASSIVE amount of data about why EXACTLY players choose one or the other, since they must choose it repeatedly. They must form "Private PvE groups" that are only PvE by agreement. They similarly form groups that have "Players must play in Open Only" as their rules, and this is visibly enforceable because you can see 'which mode your group/friends logged in as'.
Their Reddit is a good place to farm data on 'what exactly makes players choose one or the other'.
i agree with you. ive been waiting for this game even before it began to exist. COE never happened and NW was meh
Honestly, everything in this discussion is such a speculation. I just wait until alpha 2 or beta and then see what's up. If problem with open world PVP does exist, it always can be corrected in the future.
Well I think Steven should start to do interviews with big content creators and telling them what is his true vision and on what parts they have no knowledge and show them how it work... Or maybe Alpha 2 will show them...
Agreed, I understand that. However, in the scenario where you either cater to the PvE audience or the game dies a slowly but surely death, creating PvE servers it the easiest/least harmful (to the existing players) solution I can think of. The PvE servers would also be "fresh start" servers, which is very attractive on its own, even if owPvP would probably be non-existent. In any case, my point was simply that if Intrepid must cater to carebears, I believe PvE servers is better than altering the game altogether.
I'm sorry, but you lost me there: what's "Elite"? Elite Dangerous? Regardless of the exact data we can probably extract from a variety of sources, I speculate that there are more "anti-PvP" than "anti-PvE" MMORPG players. For that reason, Intrepid has to nail owPvP as much as they need to nail combat. I am sure that Intrepid will be able to make owPvP good enough even for the people who despise PvP, but I have a feeling it's not going to be exactly like what (most?) of us expect and the lately "controversial" corruption will play a minor role in the grand scheme of things.
Ah yes, sorry, I actually didn't even realize that I didn't write out the full name.
My point is that there are actually quite a few 'Anti-PvP' players of Elite Dangerous that were willing to play anyway, and there have been explicit discussions about 'what would happen if they stopped offering the option and made everyone play in Open' and a non-trivial number of people there seemed to respond "I'll still play because I know where to be/how to deal with the situation'.
I mention this because the only thing that 'protects' people in Open Play in Elite Dangerous is "wanted status", which is basically similar to Corruption, and it doesn't do a great job of it at all, but because of the other gameplay factors, it seems that a substantial number of players would still have been willing to play it.
This is, again, in a game where people have the option to never PvP ever, to never SEE another player in ANY situation, and multiple options for 'PvE groups' (those DO get quite large though). So I consider it 'a game where people got to make their own personal PvE sub-worlds', where they can relatively easily be attacked and the system doesn't protect them much, and they still do this while NEVER intending to PvP or particularly fight back. This is why I don't think Dygz would have minded, for example. "Escaping" is an important skill in these situations that Dygz would probably work on, and 'not being in the mood to PvP' apparently doesn't mean 'not being in the mood to use one's skill to escape or avoid PvP'.
They just adjust their builds and do all the things people say you should otherwise do in Ashes. Or at least, they did a few years ago, lots of controversy since has made me not bother checking.
tl;dr PvE servers don't seem as good an idea to me as giving more options for interacting with PvP players on reasonable terms, since a lot of even 'PvE players' don't want them.
Yeah, who do you cater to and how do you cater to them all at the same time when some of the things the different sides want are not compatible. At the end of the day, I think you just cater to "players" and make a good, coherent game. As generic as that sounds.
It's not all about pvp and pve either. People are going to rage about other things. Lack of instances, lack of fast travel, regional storage/banking, group finder, addons, node destruction. If caravans are necessary to do to be competitive economically and progressionally, people gonna rage about that too. Everything. lol.
Maybe pve/pvp servers end up being a potential solution. I think that would be tragic though.
I do agree closer to release, the true PvE only server thread will show , the likes you have never seen before.
100% agree with this and why a lot of people are looking forward to the game. It is going to offer a different experience with this in a dynamic player driven way and world (even if some dynamic elements are a bit faked). It will be a reason to play this game over other games as you won't get that experience anywhere else.
Play lost ark I was speed running waiting for next big update for content doingt he same things over and over again since the pvp in the game was bad. Just sit at town and teleport to next instanced dungeon, etc. I put 800 hours in it and it was meh without any memorable experiences, will not play it again had enough of that kind of game.
Thank You for saying what You said. I can see that this thread is branching off into different opinions about PvE/PvP like many other threads before it, but what You said is 100% spot on and should in my opinion be pinned because You could not be more right with what You say. Hope Steven's vision will preserve.
Kinda like how Legolas pledged his life to Frodo then literally never spoke to him again?
Shunned!
lmao, but he still threw down for him!
I would say that the true to design community are like the LoTR Peter Jackson trilogy. Then the murderhobos and hardcore PvPers pushing for the ability to grief are like the Hobbit Trilogy because action and CGI and too much bullcrap. And then the PVE Carebear community are The Rings of Power because they refuse to read the wiki and want to completely change everything.
Can i join the fellowship
@Liniker those are the true words of a wise man.
The carebears are the true griefers in all games, they are all in for the power grab through farming and accumulating.
They force the company to change the rules of the game for their own gain, the same game they used to amass mountains of inventory now will become a game that is actually a safety net for their mountains of inventory. This is how agressive carebears are, they are relentless try-hards of hoarding.
Only ganking them over and over help them remember that other people actually exist and they are playing a MMO... otherwise they will keep trapped in bot aspirancy while endlessly farming.
If these griefing carebears want to survive, they have to start recruiting PVPers, hiring PVPers, befriending PVPers... bring to your side people who actually can kill others:
- work together as it should be done in any MMO
- have a PVP squad in your guild
- gather intel about the area and the people who live there
- send a ping to the PVPers so they come and kill people
- the best content comes from you, not from a development company
Development companies create game mechanics and systems, it is up to you to build your own story!
Or that pve players should pay pvp players. I mean yeah the game design should give reason for certain groups to want to collaborate with and/or pay other groups at times for certain things. Not all the time, maybe not even ever for certain groups of people. One pvp group might pay another pvp group for help with a certain highly contested piece of content. That all should just happen organicly, and perhaps be very beneficial to engage in at times, but not like a requirement in general for people just to play the game.
I don't think the genocidal/enslavement rhetoric towards pvers is helpful lol. I'm hoping that the node system will create an environment where people are part of a larger group of node citizens/citizens from allied nodes, a faction basically, people that are on your side, both pvers and pvpers. And organic cooperation and collaboration should result from that, as well as from guilds and allied guilds.
I don't think this is a pver vs pvper game. The groups that war and compete against each other will be composed of both.
I heard the "rabid buffalo" spot has an opening
All are welcome to walk with us through the impending darkness ahead. We'll see the light again one day if we stay loyal to the cause.
FF14 is infamous for being kind to newbies and having an overall nice community. It's obviously easier for them to be nice considering that the game doesn't really push people against each other, but if we dare call ourselves true pvpers who have high skill then we gotta prove it by overcoming the innate toxicity of competitive games and come out on top. Otherwise we'd definitely be weaker than carebears.
Back to your regularly scheduled forum.
The size of a community is a lot more complex than raw numbers. I honestly don't know how to describe it, but there is just something about having more people that makes the game feel more alive. Even if your server is at max population, more people playing the game just feels so much better for some reason.