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.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

superhero6785

worddog wrote: »

How does a PvE server hurt the game exactly?

The game can be designed the exact same way and nothing needs to change other than on a PvE server

False.

The game is designed from the ground up to be player economy driven. Things like travel time & the threat of "overstaying your welcome" to farm a particular area for resources all play into the cost-benefit analysis players must make. The game itself will be balanced with this in mind. How many resources you can carry, how quickly you gather, resource node locations, etc. will all be determined taking into account the threat that one player may want to pay a price (Corruption) in order to kill you and take a portion of your gatherables. When you remove this threat, you change the design philosophy of the entire game. What you end up with is a completely broken economy like that which New World suffered from. Obviously, Intrepid wants to provide players with a fun experience. They DON'T want to have to balance the game in two ways - one for PvP servers and again for PvE servers. It ends up creating a compromised balance for BOTH.

Earl_Grey

worddog wrote: »

The game can be designed the exact same way and nothing needs to change

No.
Economy on PvP and PvE server would be very different. Node system competitive nature useless on PvE.
IMHO AoC main goal to create community around competition of cities for dominance and survival. AoC goal (IMHO) is to create environment for strong gaming communities cemented around common need to advance and defend city by any means possible including aggression.
How do you do it in PvE server? Player control cities in PvE environment are useless and even negative.

IMHO PvE server at this point would be counter productive and have negative effect on speed of development.

insomnia

I don't care for PvP. But i understand that it will be part of the game. Maybe look more into the game before you post

worddog2

Ironhope wrote: »

worddog wrote: »

Yeah gamers are a really friendly community that all love and respect each other.

Surely we won't see the giga nuclear griefers of doom turn the game into metagaming trash.

Surely making changes to a system from 2003 will be able to combat one of the sweatiest and most degenerate types of playstyles that has thrived in every system attempting to prevent it.

Surely.

There won't be any significant amounts of griefing because the corruption system will just make it not worth it.

As Steven explained in his post, the system is very notably different from the early 2000's one invoked by Lucky Ghost and other people.

I see absolutely no reason to assume the currently designed corruption system wont work and you mention no such reason, only a baseless, already disproven premise.

There is no such thing as "not worth it" only "can I do it".

For the casual and hardcore player, yes you can incentivize them to not grief.

But once we go beyond hardcore, into the super sweats, the 30hr straight ritalin gamer, the four multibox account gamer, the rogue that sat in Steemwheedle Port all day just waiting to kill anyone doing the 25 minute escort quest just to waste their time. These player live to overcome and even abuse any system trying to stop them.

worddog2

insomnia wrote: »

I don't care for PvP. But i understand that it will be part of the game. Maybe look more into the game before you post

Not sure why you would play Ashes if you don't care about PvP at all seeing as it is 80% of the game.

Dygz

But... you might understand a bit better if you correctly mirrored back what was written instead of paraphrasing with a different meaning.

Strevi

Dygz wrote: »

But... you might understand a bit better if you correctly mirrored back what was written instead of paraphrasing with a different meaning.

You mean word-dog should pay attention to word-ing?

mfckingjoker

Stealing this from one of my guildmates. I'm just convinced at this point that people think like this.

worddog2

mfckingjoker wrote: »

Stealing this from one of my guildmates. I'm just convinced at this point that people think like this.

who was talking about ffxiv

LordBlank

wrms wrote: »

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.

Did you skip over the post at the top about how a PvE server wouldn't work with a game like ashes or are you just ignoring it?

Ironhope

worddog wrote: »

There is no such thing as "not worth it" only "can I do it".

Of course there's a balance of gain vs risk any player makes when making any decision and if griefing represents too big of a setback they just won't do it.

worddog wrote: »

For the casual and hardcore player, yes you can incentivize them to not grief.

If the incentive is serious enough, they just won't do it, not in any amount significant enough to represent a problem.

worddog wrote: »

But once we go beyond hardcore, into the super sweats, the 30hr straight ritalin gamer, the four multibox account gamer, the rogue that sat in Steemwheedle Port all day just waiting to kill anyone doing the 25 minute escort quest just to waste their time. These player live to overcome and even abuse any system trying to stop them.

The people you just described are the top level min-maxers and if griefing doesn't get them good results in the competitive setting of the game they just won't do it.

As I said we have no reason so far to believe the system is cracked and that people will get around it in any significant enough amounts that it will represent a serious problem.

If the system is too leniant or people find abuses, the system can always be buffed and fixed.

insomnia

worddog wrote: »

insomnia wrote: »

I don't care for PvP. But i understand that it will be part of the game. Maybe look more into the game before you post

Not sure why you would play Ashes if you don't care about PvP at all seeing as it is 80% of the game.

But it's not. I'm quite certain you can play a big part of the game, without PvP, or atleast open world PvP. Sieges is another thing. That is more like battlegrounds, plus i would proberly only do siege, if it was to defend a node i was part of. I don't have to attack someone that takes i resource i wanted. I have played mmo's where only 1 person could harvest a resource. I don't have to be part of caravans. I can level my character(s). Do crafting/gathering/refining, without having to do pvp. Dungeons, raids. I don't see how you can say it's 80% of the game. Plus I have said before, i'm not sure the game is for me. I'll give it a try, and see how it is

worddog2

LordBlank wrote: »

wrms wrote: »

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.

Did you skip over the post at the top about how a PvE server wouldn't work with a game like ashes or are you just ignoring it?

I've responded to it many times, or are you ignoring that?

wrms

LordBlank wrote: »

wrms wrote: »

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.

Did you skip over the post at the top about how a PvE server wouldn't work with a game like ashes or are you just ignoring it?

Theres only one post like that above my post you quoted, and it's a one sentence opinion with no supporting data or examples.

I already made a follow up post about that as well, which I guess you ignored. But in short, I disagree with the notion that a pve server just "wouldn't work", with pve server being the type outlined in this thread as having disabled owpvp but all of the other pvp systems in place.

Yes, that means ow bosses would be often be dps races, although I think guild wars could help provide a solution here. Yes, this means gatherables will be contested by clicking on them first instead of fighting over them. No, I dont want to play on a server like that. But no one is forcing me to, and if enough people did want to put up with those headaches to make it worth IS adding pve servers, these servers would still "work", they would just have different frustrations for a different audience.

worddog2

insomnia wrote: »

worddog wrote: »

insomnia wrote: »

I don't care for PvP. But i understand that it will be part of the game. Maybe look more into the game before you post

Not sure why you would play Ashes if you don't care about PvP at all seeing as it is 80% of the game.

But it's not. I'm quite certain you can play a big part of the game, without PvP, or atleast open world PvP. Sieges is another thing. That is more like battlegrounds, plus i would proberly only do siege, if it was to defend a node i was part of. I don't have to attack someone that takes i resource i wanted. I have played mmo's where only 1 person could harvest a resource. I don't have to be part of caravans. I can level my character(s). Do crafting/gathering/refining, without having to do pvp. Dungeons, raids. I don't see how you can say it's 80% of the game. Plus I have said before, i'm not sure the game is for me. I'll give it a try, and see how it is

The 80/20 split refers to instanced content. There is a small amount of pure PvE content in the game. The vast majority of PvE content has major PvP aspects, making that content PvX. PvP content does not have major PvE content. Node/castle sieges are not PvE, Caravans are not PvE, Arenas are not PvE. I would also say open world ganking and naval combat are not PvE but that might not be true.

If you only want to PvP, Ashes can provide that for you, sure you need to get to max level but most hardcore players will be able to do that within a couple weeks or at the very least a single month. I don't count leveling as a very large part of the game when MMOs are meant to be played for months/years.

If you only want to PvE, it might be possible, but you are very likely going to be forced to PvP seeing as all the important PvE content is also PvP orientated.

If the combat feels really deep, I'll probably spend more than 80% of my time doing arenas. There is genuinely zero PvE involved in that so even if I hate PvE, I can still enjoy the game. But if a player hates PvP? What content is there for them to do? Instanced dungeons that don't even provide good loot?

Dolyem

This again? No. The game is not designed to not have PVP. No PVE servers.

worddog2

Dolyem wrote: »

This again? No. The game is not designed to not have PVP. No PVE servers.

Game is designed around having PvP.

PvE servers still have PvP.

PvE servers bad.

The logic, it's flawless.

Dolyem

worddog wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

This again? No. The game is not designed to not have PVP. No PVE servers.

Game is designed around having PvP.

PvE servers still have PvP.

PvE servers bad.

The logic, it's flawless.

The game is designed around competition between nodes. Competition between nodes require the ability to fight one another for resources. Taking PvP out of the equation for killing gatherers in the open world is a big deal. Accept that this game isnt for you if you want to play on a PVE server.

Mag7spy

worddog wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

This again? No. The game is not designed to not have PVP. No PVE servers.

Game is designed around having PvP.

PvE servers still have PvP.

PvE servers bad.

The logic, it's flawless.

This is your logic, they need to remove pvp from apex legends so people can kill mobs.

worddog2

Mag7spy wrote: »

worddog wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

This again? No. The game is not designed to not have PVP. No PVE servers.

Game is designed around having PvP.

PvE servers still have PvP.

PvE servers bad.

The logic, it's flawless.

This is your logic, they need to remove pvp from apex legends so people can kill mobs.

Are there mobs in apex legends?

Child Item