Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options

PvE Server

How does a PvE server hurt the game exactly?

If you want open world PvP you just play on a PvP server.

The game can be designed the exact same way and nothing needs to change other than on a PvE server, open world PvP is just disabled. You'd still have areas where PvP is enabled, just not the entire map.
«134567

Comments

  • Options
    no.
  • Options
    The game is designed around pvp it literally wouldn’t work it’s not a case of choose to have no pvp the mechanics wouldn’t work without it.
  • Options
    go play a zen garden game if you want anything full pve
    PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
  • Options
    Cat QuiverCat Quiver Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    rlukz8f4qaj8.gif
  • Options
    I'm going to play on a pvp server either way, but I don't understand the vitriol against the idea of pve servers. If you're going to play on a pvp server it literally won't affect you at all that they exist. The game mechanics would work just fine without open world pvp. It wont have as competitive of an economy, and it will probably be less exciting, but some people would prefer it and that's fine. The kind of people who want to play on a pve server wont last in AoC as it stands anyways so it isn't going to affect population.

    Like I said I'm not going to play on a pve server even if they exist but some people seem way too angry about the idea. If adding pve servers helped the game keep more players and be more successful so that we can get more expansions, I'm all for it. It's not going to affect me at all.
  • Options
    The famous "How does it hurt the game" and the "Don't like it don't chose/use it"

    The game is designed around WPvP. How do you plan to compete for dungeons/world boss/ressources in PvE servers ?

    God, modern players are used to fully instanced themepark so they don't really understand how sandbox MMORPGs are working.
  • Options
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    go play a zen garden game if you want anything full pve

    I'll be playing on a PvP server, thanks for not reading the post.
  • Options
    Lust69 wrote: »
    The game is designed around pvp it literally wouldn’t work it’s not a case of choose to have no pvp the mechanics wouldn’t work without it.

    You still have PvP on PvE servers. Read the post again.
  • Options
    They will compete like they do on every pve mmo. Yea it will probably suck if you're not in a big guild and cant win a dps race for a boss, but again, you won't be playing there, so why does it offend you so much? Some players would rather deal with that than with pvp.
  • Options
    Andy wrote: »
    The famous "How does it hurt the game" and the "Don't like it don't chose/use it"

    The game is designed around WPvP. How do you plan to compete for dungeons/world boss/ressources in PvE servers ?

    God, modern players are used to fully instanced themepark so they don't really understand how sandbox MMORPGs are working.

    Why are there any safe zones at all? Why isn't PvP enabled 100% of the time? Why can't my guild mass murder people in cities?
  • Options
    AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    worddog wrote: »
    Andy wrote: »
    The famous "How does it hurt the game" and the "Don't like it don't chose/use it"

    The game is designed around WPvP. How do you plan to compete for dungeons/world boss/ressources in PvE servers ?

    God, modern players are used to fully instanced themepark so they don't really understand how sandbox MMORPGs are working.

    Why are there any safe zones at all? Why isn't PvP enabled 100% of the time? Why can't my guild mass murder people in cities?

    Your guild CAN do that.

    Nothing stops them now.
    Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
    
  • Options
    Azherae wrote: »
    worddog wrote: »
    Andy wrote: »
    The famous "How does it hurt the game" and the "Don't like it don't chose/use it"

    The game is designed around WPvP. How do you plan to compete for dungeons/world boss/ressources in PvE servers ?

    God, modern players are used to fully instanced themepark so they don't really understand how sandbox MMORPGs are working.

    Why are there any safe zones at all? Why isn't PvP enabled 100% of the time? Why can't my guild mass murder people in cities?

    Your guild CAN do that.

    Nothing stops them now.

    You need to siege a city to remove the safe zones, has that been changed?
  • Options
    AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    edited October 2022
    worddog wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    worddog wrote: »
    Andy wrote: »
    The famous "How does it hurt the game" and the "Don't like it don't chose/use it"

    The game is designed around WPvP. How do you plan to compete for dungeons/world boss/ressources in PvE servers ?

    God, modern players are used to fully instanced themepark so they don't really understand how sandbox MMORPGs are working.

    Why are there any safe zones at all? Why isn't PvP enabled 100% of the time? Why can't my guild mass murder people in cities?

    Your guild CAN do that.

    Nothing stops them now.

    You need to siege a city to remove the safe zones, has that been changed?

    What safe zones? Did something change?

    Cities haven't ever had safe zones, have they? Do you have a Wiki reference for this, or do I need to go look for it? (I don't mind looking, but if it's NOT there it obviously would take hours to confirm that unless there is a clear counter-statement)

    EDIT: Ok I found what you conflated.

    Safe Zones: Your OWN Player stall while selling, your OWN Freehold (which is outside the city, one per account, must be earned).
    Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
    
  • Options
    My recent post fits here too:

    I think is better to have the PvP and PvE players on the same server.

    Having PvE servers would force the developers to create content in a different way and try to be competitive with all the other great PvE mmos who focus on them as main audience. The rules of what make a PvE mmo good are dictated by a different audience and the developers who know how to milk them.
    The difference will not be just how the corruption is balanced.
    Caravan system will most likely fall apart.
    Sieges which destroy their homes will make no sense for them either. You do not attract PvE players with great content and still letting PvP sieges in game. NPC sieges maybe but tuned down so that players can still defend the node easily.
    Then you end up with a different game as I do not see a team of developers making PvE servers competitive with other MMOs and then keeping and working on the PvP game vision too.

    Then let's see what the mindset of those PvE players would be. What do they want?
    Is it obtaining the high level gear the purpose?
    To help them feel that they work on their objective of acquiring that and not wasting time running on the map, the AoC devs should add fast travel, ways to find a team with random players fast, even from other servers. Without PvP sieges, not having cross-realm interaction would be illogical. Why make player owned nodes if they do not fight each-other?
    Those cause all the problems with the server merges. PvE players have absolutely no reason to accept separate servers and forced server merges with all the consequences upon the market and guilds.
    Separate servers also prevent friends playing together if one starts later on an open server.

    AoC has the challenge that it tries to attract PvE players who still search for that PvE mindset: the purpose of what they do.
    And whatever their purpose is when they login, if the PvP-er can prevent them, is bad.

    AoC must highlight more on selling that it offers the game-play and not the traditional objectives PvE-ers get in other games
    To get people to interact with each other meaningfully – not just to conquer a raid boss, or to get some coin from a faceless auction house, but to maybe save a city. A city that all the local residents had a stake in. A city that the players had spent weeks or months developing the defense of that city, the attack on that city! Or building a world together as a community choosing our own fate with our friends. We believe that’s going to be a story far more memorable and far more meaningful to players than just about anything we can come up with.[19]

    And this objective, of working together to save the city must bring together both PvP-ers and PvE-ers.
    The corruption system feels not designed for this, because it mentions only green, purple and red and nothing about citizens of the same node.

    When players see PvP they assume other players close to them will kill them.
    And I assume that actually citizens will have a reason to protect each-other even if they are not in the same guild.
    But I do not see much concern on PvP-er side about this on this forum. They are only concerned that they lose the PvP aspect. What is the objective of the PvP? To loot the other player?

    If players want to be able to kill the citizens of their own node (for PvP reasons) or be able to harvest safely resources near another node (for PvE reasons), then I think the game fails to achieve it's main purpose and will face direct competition with the other MMOs more fiercely as it will not stand out from the crowd with anything specific.
    September 12. 2022: Being naked can also be used to bring a skilled artisan to different freeholds... Don't summon family!
  • Options
    worddog wrote: »
    Lust69 wrote: »
    The game is designed around pvp it literally wouldn’t work it’s not a case of choose to have no pvp the mechanics wouldn’t work without it.

    You still have PvP on PvE servers. Read the post again.

    what about caravans? You get attacked but it's not consensual.
  • Options
    Azherae wrote: »
    worddog wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    worddog wrote: »
    Andy wrote: »
    The famous "How does it hurt the game" and the "Don't like it don't chose/use it"

    The game is designed around WPvP. How do you plan to compete for dungeons/world boss/ressources in PvE servers ?

    God, modern players are used to fully instanced themepark so they don't really understand how sandbox MMORPGs are working.

    Why are there any safe zones at all? Why isn't PvP enabled 100% of the time? Why can't my guild mass murder people in cities?

    Your guild CAN do that.

    Nothing stops them now.

    You need to siege a city to remove the safe zones, has that been changed?

    What safe zones? Did something change?

    Cities haven't ever had safe zones, have they? Do you have a Wiki reference for this, or do I need to go look for it? (I don't mind looking, but if it's NOT there it obviously would take hours to confirm that unless there is a clear counter-statement)

    EDIT: Ok I found what you conflated.

    Safe Zones: Your OWN Player stall while selling, your OWN Freehold (which is outside the city, one per account, must be earned).

    Steven has explicitly talked about the existence of safe zones not in relation to player stalls or freeholds. So I'm assuming the Wiki doesn't have all the information.

    If we're really expecting Ashes to allow max level players to permanently spawn camp level 1 players, the game will objectively be unplayable.

    Even if you want open world PvP, there will always be places that open world PvP is disabled. Unless you want the game to actually just die and only play with like a small community that likes that really niche idea.
  • Options
    AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    worddog wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    worddog wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    worddog wrote: »
    Andy wrote: »
    The famous "How does it hurt the game" and the "Don't like it don't chose/use it"

    The game is designed around WPvP. How do you plan to compete for dungeons/world boss/ressources in PvE servers ?

    God, modern players are used to fully instanced themepark so they don't really understand how sandbox MMORPGs are working.

    Why are there any safe zones at all? Why isn't PvP enabled 100% of the time? Why can't my guild mass murder people in cities?

    Your guild CAN do that.

    Nothing stops them now.

    You need to siege a city to remove the safe zones, has that been changed?

    What safe zones? Did something change?

    Cities haven't ever had safe zones, have they? Do you have a Wiki reference for this, or do I need to go look for it? (I don't mind looking, but if it's NOT there it obviously would take hours to confirm that unless there is a clear counter-statement)

    EDIT: Ok I found what you conflated.

    Safe Zones: Your OWN Player stall while selling, your OWN Freehold (which is outside the city, one per account, must be earned).

    Steven has explicitly talked about the existence of safe zones not in relation to player stalls or freeholds. So I'm assuming the Wiki doesn't have all the information.

    If we're really expecting Ashes to allow max level players to permanently spawn camp level 1 players, the game will objectively be unplayable.

    Even if you want open world PvP, there will always be places that open world PvP is disabled. Unless you want the game to actually just die and only play with like a small community that likes that really niche idea.

    I'm just saying I would be glad to know what you mean/what quote you are referring to.

    I have never heard it, that's all. So I go with what exists in the game and what we were able to do in Alpha-1 and in Alpha-1 you could kill people in cities. If your point was about 'Safe Zones in general' I understand. But cities are NORMALLY Safe Zones (and I consider this realistic personally for lots of reasons so even as a PvP player I would not mind it, I'd personally just make it so that flagging in a city makes you instantly Red).

    To 'make it so Nodes aren't safe zones', to the point where you have to SPECIFY 'you can't be attacked in a city WHILE in your stall', seems intentional to me, so I would like to know what counterpoint, if any, Steven has ever said.
    Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
    
  • Options
    BlackBrony wrote: »
    worddog wrote: »
    Lust69 wrote: »
    The game is designed around pvp it literally wouldn’t work it’s not a case of choose to have no pvp the mechanics wouldn’t work without it.

    You still have PvP on PvE servers. Read the post again.

    what about caravans? You get attacked but it's not consensual.

    Caravans are optional, so you'd have to consent to PvP to start a caravan route. Some things would of course require PvP like caravans and sieges. PvE players still enjoy PvP just as much as people on PvP servers, they just don't enjoy being level 10 and getting spawn camped by a max level player for 6 hours.
  • Options
    Azherae wrote: »
    worddog wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    worddog wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    worddog wrote: »
    Andy wrote: »
    The famous "How does it hurt the game" and the "Don't like it don't chose/use it"

    The game is designed around WPvP. How do you plan to compete for dungeons/world boss/ressources in PvE servers ?

    God, modern players are used to fully instanced themepark so they don't really understand how sandbox MMORPGs are working.

    Why are there any safe zones at all? Why isn't PvP enabled 100% of the time? Why can't my guild mass murder people in cities?

    Your guild CAN do that.

    Nothing stops them now.

    You need to siege a city to remove the safe zones, has that been changed?

    What safe zones? Did something change?

    Cities haven't ever had safe zones, have they? Do you have a Wiki reference for this, or do I need to go look for it? (I don't mind looking, but if it's NOT there it obviously would take hours to confirm that unless there is a clear counter-statement)

    EDIT: Ok I found what you conflated.

    Safe Zones: Your OWN Player stall while selling, your OWN Freehold (which is outside the city, one per account, must be earned).

    Steven has explicitly talked about the existence of safe zones not in relation to player stalls or freeholds. So I'm assuming the Wiki doesn't have all the information.

    If we're really expecting Ashes to allow max level players to permanently spawn camp level 1 players, the game will objectively be unplayable.

    Even if you want open world PvP, there will always be places that open world PvP is disabled. Unless you want the game to actually just die and only play with like a small community that likes that really niche idea.

    I'm just saying I would be glad to know what you mean/what quote you are referring to.

    I have never heard it, that's all. So I go with what exists in the game and what we were able to do in Alpha-1 and in Alpha-1 you could kill people in cities. If your point was about 'Safe Zones in general' I understand. But cities are NORMALLY Safe Zones (and I consider this realistic personally for lots of reasons so even as a PvP player I would not mind it, I'd personally just make it so that flagging in a city makes you instantly Red).

    To 'make it so Nodes aren't safe zones', to the point where you have to SPECIFY 'you can't be attacked in a city WHILE in your stall', seems intentional to me, so I would like to know what counterpoint, if any, Steven has ever said.

    The only things I've heard him say:

    1. When a node is upgrading, players are teleported to a safe zone.
    2. When a green/purple player dies they respawn in a safe zone.

    Again, this is very vague and doesn't really mean much. But because he said safe zones exist, I just assumed they would want safe zones to be an important mechanic, and not just super specific things like player stalls.

    My hope is that this game doesn't pointlessly throw away 80% of the player base for no reason. I'm sorry but if you like instantly dying to a max level player while you're trying to level, that really doesn't make you a better person or even a hardcore gamer. That is a very niche experience that few people value.
  • Options
    AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    worddog wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    worddog wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    worddog wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    worddog wrote: »
    Andy wrote: »
    The famous "How does it hurt the game" and the "Don't like it don't chose/use it"

    The game is designed around WPvP. How do you plan to compete for dungeons/world boss/ressources in PvE servers ?

    God, modern players are used to fully instanced themepark so they don't really understand how sandbox MMORPGs are working.

    Why are there any safe zones at all? Why isn't PvP enabled 100% of the time? Why can't my guild mass murder people in cities?

    Your guild CAN do that.

    Nothing stops them now.

    You need to siege a city to remove the safe zones, has that been changed?

    What safe zones? Did something change?

    Cities haven't ever had safe zones, have they? Do you have a Wiki reference for this, or do I need to go look for it? (I don't mind looking, but if it's NOT there it obviously would take hours to confirm that unless there is a clear counter-statement)

    EDIT: Ok I found what you conflated.

    Safe Zones: Your OWN Player stall while selling, your OWN Freehold (which is outside the city, one per account, must be earned).

    Steven has explicitly talked about the existence of safe zones not in relation to player stalls or freeholds. So I'm assuming the Wiki doesn't have all the information.

    If we're really expecting Ashes to allow max level players to permanently spawn camp level 1 players, the game will objectively be unplayable.

    Even if you want open world PvP, there will always be places that open world PvP is disabled. Unless you want the game to actually just die and only play with like a small community that likes that really niche idea.

    I'm just saying I would be glad to know what you mean/what quote you are referring to.

    I have never heard it, that's all. So I go with what exists in the game and what we were able to do in Alpha-1 and in Alpha-1 you could kill people in cities. If your point was about 'Safe Zones in general' I understand. But cities are NORMALLY Safe Zones (and I consider this realistic personally for lots of reasons so even as a PvP player I would not mind it, I'd personally just make it so that flagging in a city makes you instantly Red).

    To 'make it so Nodes aren't safe zones', to the point where you have to SPECIFY 'you can't be attacked in a city WHILE in your stall', seems intentional to me, so I would like to know what counterpoint, if any, Steven has ever said.

    The only things I've heard him say:

    1. When a node is upgrading, players are teleported to a safe zone.
    2. When a green/purple player dies they respawn in a safe zone.

    Again, this is very vague and doesn't really mean much. But because he said safe zones exist, I just assumed they would want safe zones to be an important mechanic, and not just super specific things like player stalls.

    My hope is that this game doesn't pointlessly throw away 80% of the player base for no reason. I'm sorry but if you like instantly dying to a max level player while you're trying to level, that really doesn't make you a better person or even a hardcore gamer. That is a very niche experience that few people value.

    Yes, I'm aware, I don't necessarily agree with everything that Intrepid's designs lead to, either, I just want to make sure we're all giving feedback or 'arguing' from the correct stances.

    So far we don't expect there to be many safe zones. I think we weren't even sure if Freeholds were actually going to be safe zones for a while. That's how rare the concept was.
    Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
    
  • Options
    worddog wrote: »
    BlackBrony wrote: »
    worddog wrote: »
    Lust69 wrote: »
    The game is designed around pvp it literally wouldn’t work it’s not a case of choose to have no pvp the mechanics wouldn’t work without it.

    You still have PvP on PvE servers. Read the post again.

    what about caravans? You get attacked but it's not consensual.

    Caravans are optional, so you'd have to consent to PvP to start a caravan route. Some things would of course require PvP like caravans and sieges. PvE players still enjoy PvP just as much as people on PvP servers, they just don't enjoy being level 10 and getting spawn camped by a max level player for 6 hours.

    Caravans have the "same problem"
  • Options
    AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    BlackBrony wrote: »
    worddog wrote: »
    BlackBrony wrote: »
    worddog wrote: »
    Lust69 wrote: »
    The game is designed around pvp it literally wouldn’t work it’s not a case of choose to have no pvp the mechanics wouldn’t work without it.

    You still have PvP on PvE servers. Read the post again.

    what about caravans? You get attacked but it's not consensual.

    Caravans are optional, so you'd have to consent to PvP to start a caravan route. Some things would of course require PvP like caravans and sieges. PvE players still enjoy PvP just as much as people on PvP servers, they just don't enjoy being level 10 and getting spawn camped by a max level player for 6 hours.

    Caravans have the "same problem"

    Not exactly relative to MMOs as people are used to them.

    People pick up an MMO with an idea of 'thing they will do most of the time', 'thing they will do sometimes', 'thing they will do occasionally'.

    If you put a lot of PvP into the FIRST of those, and the player wasn't planning on that, they're MUCH more concerned than if it is in the second or third.

    More players put 'PvP' in the second slot than in the first slot.

    I think Ashes would need to reach the point where 'most players don't have to put PvP into the first slot' to match those players. But it doesn't need to cater to all the people who 'refuse to put it into the second slot too'.
    Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
    
  • Options
    TalentsTalents Member, Intrepid Pack
    I'll copy and paste my response to this from Reddit.

    Ok, here's a few reasons why opt-in would break the game.

    Firstly, the dungeons and raids are currently 80%+ open-world with the BiS gear and materials coming from open-world content rather than instanced. If they made PvP opt-in, then you'd just have 1000 people sitting in dungeons trying to snipe the bosses and mobs before the other 1000 people who are PvE only.

    Next, the economy. Take the example above of dungeons and raids being open-world, maybe your solution to the above point is making the dungeons instanced, but then they need to redesign all the loot drops since you can't just have people being able to enter an instanced area and kill their own version of these mobs and bosses otherwise it would increase the number of drops coming in to the game 100 fold. And because the large large majority of items in Ashes do not bind to your character, neither on pick up or equip, this means the market will be flooded with these items.

    Next is world bosses. World bosses are planned to drop some of the rarest items in the game, such as Flying Mount Eggs. But now without PvP, there's no contesting this stuff. It's just which group can deal the most damage and get lucky enough to get the drops instead of guilds contesting each other and earning the drops.

    Next is caravans. Why would anyone use a caravan when they can just run the materials from one end of the map to the other without the risk of losing any of the gatherables/processed goods when they die? Sure it might take longer, but most people would prefer to put on a stream or Netflix and run stuff across the map while chilling. You've now basically made caravans useless.
    nI17Ea4.png
  • Options
    Azherae wrote: »
    worddog wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    worddog wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    worddog wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    worddog wrote: »
    Andy wrote: »
    The famous "How does it hurt the game" and the "Don't like it don't chose/use it"

    The game is designed around WPvP. How do you plan to compete for dungeons/world boss/ressources in PvE servers ?

    God, modern players are used to fully instanced themepark so they don't really understand how sandbox MMORPGs are working.

    Why are there any safe zones at all? Why isn't PvP enabled 100% of the time? Why can't my guild mass murder people in cities?

    Your guild CAN do that.

    Nothing stops them now.

    You need to siege a city to remove the safe zones, has that been changed?

    What safe zones? Did something change?

    Cities haven't ever had safe zones, have they? Do you have a Wiki reference for this, or do I need to go look for it? (I don't mind looking, but if it's NOT there it obviously would take hours to confirm that unless there is a clear counter-statement)

    EDIT: Ok I found what you conflated.

    Safe Zones: Your OWN Player stall while selling, your OWN Freehold (which is outside the city, one per account, must be earned).

    Steven has explicitly talked about the existence of safe zones not in relation to player stalls or freeholds. So I'm assuming the Wiki doesn't have all the information.

    If we're really expecting Ashes to allow max level players to permanently spawn camp level 1 players, the game will objectively be unplayable.

    Even if you want open world PvP, there will always be places that open world PvP is disabled. Unless you want the game to actually just die and only play with like a small community that likes that really niche idea.

    I'm just saying I would be glad to know what you mean/what quote you are referring to.

    I have never heard it, that's all. So I go with what exists in the game and what we were able to do in Alpha-1 and in Alpha-1 you could kill people in cities. If your point was about 'Safe Zones in general' I understand. But cities are NORMALLY Safe Zones (and I consider this realistic personally for lots of reasons so even as a PvP player I would not mind it, I'd personally just make it so that flagging in a city makes you instantly Red).

    To 'make it so Nodes aren't safe zones', to the point where you have to SPECIFY 'you can't be attacked in a city WHILE in your stall', seems intentional to me, so I would like to know what counterpoint, if any, Steven has ever said.

    The only things I've heard him say:

    1. When a node is upgrading, players are teleported to a safe zone.
    2. When a green/purple player dies they respawn in a safe zone.

    Again, this is very vague and doesn't really mean much. But because he said safe zones exist, I just assumed they would want safe zones to be an important mechanic, and not just super specific things like player stalls.

    My hope is that this game doesn't pointlessly throw away 80% of the player base for no reason. I'm sorry but if you like instantly dying to a max level player while you're trying to level, that really doesn't make you a better person or even a hardcore gamer. That is a very niche experience that few people value.

    Yes, I'm aware, I don't necessarily agree with everything that Intrepid's designs lead to, either, I just want to make sure we're all giving feedback or 'arguing' from the correct stances.

    So far we don't expect there to be many safe zones. I think we weren't even sure if Freeholds were actually going to be safe zones for a while. That's how rare the concept was.

    Okay if that's the foundation we're working from, than that version of Ashes open world PvP sounds really bad in my opinion. I don't even think I'd want to play on a PvP server that unregulated. And I love PvP, like in Lost Ark I was top 500 before I quit and I didn't do any high level raiding.

    I love the idea of node sieges, but I assumed those would be instanced and everyone would have set date and time for when it occurs. If people are just having massive battlegrounds in the middle of a city at 3 am that sounds really stupid to me.
  • Options
    Talents wrote: »
    I'll copy and paste my response to this from Reddit.

    Ok, here's a few reasons why opt-in would break the game.

    Firstly, the dungeons and raids are currently 80%+ open-world with the BiS gear and materials coming from open-world content rather than instanced. If they made PvP opt-in, then you'd just have 1000 people sitting in dungeons trying to snipe the bosses and mobs before the other 1000 people who are PvE only.

    Next, the economy. Take the example above of dungeons and raids being open-world, maybe your solution to the above point is making the dungeons instanced, but then they need to redesign all the loot drops since you can't just have people being able to enter an instanced area and kill their own version of these mobs and bosses otherwise it would increase the number of drops coming in to the game 100 fold. And because the large large majority of items in Ashes do not bind to your character, neither on pick up or equip, this means the market will be flooded with these items.

    Next is world bosses. World bosses are planned to drop some of the rarest items in the game, such as Flying Mount Eggs. But now without PvP, there's no contesting this stuff. It's just which group can deal the most damage and get lucky enough to get the drops instead of guilds contesting each other and earning the drops.

    Next is caravans. Why would anyone use a caravan when they can just run the materials from one end of the map to the other without the risk of losing any of the gatherables/processed goods when they die? Sure it might take longer, but most people would prefer to put on a stream or Netflix and run stuff across the map while chilling. You've now basically made caravans useless.

    We're not talking about opt-in PvP

    Opt-in is absolutely horrible.

    You have either PvE or PvP SERVERS and they never change the rulesets for those servers.
  • Options
    AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    worddog wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    worddog wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    worddog wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    worddog wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    worddog wrote: »
    Andy wrote: »
    The famous "How does it hurt the game" and the "Don't like it don't chose/use it"

    The game is designed around WPvP. How do you plan to compete for dungeons/world boss/ressources in PvE servers ?

    God, modern players are used to fully instanced themepark so they don't really understand how sandbox MMORPGs are working.

    Why are there any safe zones at all? Why isn't PvP enabled 100% of the time? Why can't my guild mass murder people in cities?

    Your guild CAN do that.

    Nothing stops them now.

    You need to siege a city to remove the safe zones, has that been changed?

    What safe zones? Did something change?

    Cities haven't ever had safe zones, have they? Do you have a Wiki reference for this, or do I need to go look for it? (I don't mind looking, but if it's NOT there it obviously would take hours to confirm that unless there is a clear counter-statement)

    EDIT: Ok I found what you conflated.

    Safe Zones: Your OWN Player stall while selling, your OWN Freehold (which is outside the city, one per account, must be earned).

    Steven has explicitly talked about the existence of safe zones not in relation to player stalls or freeholds. So I'm assuming the Wiki doesn't have all the information.

    If we're really expecting Ashes to allow max level players to permanently spawn camp level 1 players, the game will objectively be unplayable.

    Even if you want open world PvP, there will always be places that open world PvP is disabled. Unless you want the game to actually just die and only play with like a small community that likes that really niche idea.

    I'm just saying I would be glad to know what you mean/what quote you are referring to.

    I have never heard it, that's all. So I go with what exists in the game and what we were able to do in Alpha-1 and in Alpha-1 you could kill people in cities. If your point was about 'Safe Zones in general' I understand. But cities are NORMALLY Safe Zones (and I consider this realistic personally for lots of reasons so even as a PvP player I would not mind it, I'd personally just make it so that flagging in a city makes you instantly Red).

    To 'make it so Nodes aren't safe zones', to the point where you have to SPECIFY 'you can't be attacked in a city WHILE in your stall', seems intentional to me, so I would like to know what counterpoint, if any, Steven has ever said.

    The only things I've heard him say:

    1. When a node is upgrading, players are teleported to a safe zone.
    2. When a green/purple player dies they respawn in a safe zone.

    Again, this is very vague and doesn't really mean much. But because he said safe zones exist, I just assumed they would want safe zones to be an important mechanic, and not just super specific things like player stalls.

    My hope is that this game doesn't pointlessly throw away 80% of the player base for no reason. I'm sorry but if you like instantly dying to a max level player while you're trying to level, that really doesn't make you a better person or even a hardcore gamer. That is a very niche experience that few people value.

    Yes, I'm aware, I don't necessarily agree with everything that Intrepid's designs lead to, either, I just want to make sure we're all giving feedback or 'arguing' from the correct stances.

    So far we don't expect there to be many safe zones. I think we weren't even sure if Freeholds were actually going to be safe zones for a while. That's how rare the concept was.

    Okay if that's the foundation we're working from, than that version of Ashes open world PvP sounds really bad in my opinion. I don't even think I'd want to play on a PvP server that unregulated. And I love PvP, like in Lost Ark I was top 500 before I quit and I didn't do any high level raiding.

    I love the idea of node sieges, but I assumed those would be instanced and everyone would have set date and time for when it occurs. If people are just having massive battlegrounds in the middle of a city at 3 am that sounds really stupid to me.

    Right, you are one of those 'PvP goes in second slot' players.

    And you ARE a PvP player.

    Basic (overarching) game design. Like I said, I don't know EXACTLY why Intrepid designed things this way, but if it loses your support or you drift away, know that there will always be people here trying to get them to fix it relative to what you might prefer.

    I'll spare everyone the long explanation about why 'no Safe Zones' is utterly unrealistic for a gameworld/immersion.
    Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
    
  • Options
    BlackBrony wrote: »
    worddog wrote: »
    BlackBrony wrote: »
    worddog wrote: »
    Lust69 wrote: »
    The game is designed around pvp it literally wouldn’t work it’s not a case of choose to have no pvp the mechanics wouldn’t work without it.

    You still have PvP on PvE servers. Read the post again.

    what about caravans? You get attacked but it's not consensual.

    Caravans are optional, so you'd have to consent to PvP to start a caravan route. Some things would of course require PvP like caravans and sieges. PvE players still enjoy PvP just as much as people on PvP servers, they just don't enjoy being level 10 and getting spawn camped by a max level player for 6 hours.

    Caravans have the "same problem"

    I'm not sure what problem we're talking about. Dying to a high level player during a caravan route is consensual. You're taking a risk that you've accepted beforehand.

    You could walk the entire way with mule(s) it would just take 100x longer.
  • Options
    WhyFourWhyFour Member, Founder, Kickstarter
    My Gods so many topics after one clickbaity video from some niche youtuber, that's crazy!
    English is not my first language, but i try to write properly.1lemnjk9va5y.gif
  • Options
    worddog wrote: »
    Talents wrote: »
    I'll copy and paste my response to this from Reddit.

    Ok, here's a few reasons why opt-in would break the game.

    Firstly, the dungeons and raids are currently 80%+ open-world with the BiS gear and materials coming from open-world content rather than instanced. If they made PvP opt-in, then you'd just have 1000 people sitting in dungeons trying to snipe the bosses and mobs before the other 1000 people who are PvE only.

    Next, the economy. Take the example above of dungeons and raids being open-world, maybe your solution to the above point is making the dungeons instanced, but then they need to redesign all the loot drops since you can't just have people being able to enter an instanced area and kill their own version of these mobs and bosses otherwise it would increase the number of drops coming in to the game 100 fold. And because the large large majority of items in Ashes do not bind to your character, neither on pick up or equip, this means the market will be flooded with these items.

    Next is world bosses. World bosses are planned to drop some of the rarest items in the game, such as Flying Mount Eggs. But now without PvP, there's no contesting this stuff. It's just which group can deal the most damage and get lucky enough to get the drops instead of guilds contesting each other and earning the drops.

    Next is caravans. Why would anyone use a caravan when they can just run the materials from one end of the map to the other without the risk of losing any of the gatherables/processed goods when they die? Sure it might take longer, but most people would prefer to put on a stream or Netflix and run stuff across the map while chilling. You've now basically made caravans useless.

    We're not talking about opt-in PvP

    Opt-in is absolutely horrible.

    You have either PvE or PvP SERVERS and they never change the rulesets for those servers.

    on a pve server caravans are useless. why have that system at all
  • Options
    WhyFour wrote: »
    My Gods so many topics after one clickbaity video from some niche youtuber, that's crazy!

    People were talking about this before that video. You can check the timestamps of previous threads.

    Also why do you feel the need to not respond to the topic and instead try to discredit a youtuber than nobody is talking about in this thread.
Sign In or Register to comment.