Abarat wrote: » I am starting to think worddog is a dygz alt he only uses when he has had a few pabst blue ribbons.
Mag7spy wrote: » worddog wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » worddog wrote: » NiKr wrote: » worddog wrote: » That's like saying if we add another flavor of Coca Cola, that we're somehow removing the original Coca Cola. More variety doesn't remove or change the original in any way. If you don't understand that basic concept idk what to say man. Except in the predominant cases of "pvp and pve servers" games, the "new taste" of cola pushes the original one out of the market, which makes the company push that new taste even more because it's way more profitable. And then the whole branding is built around this new taste rather than the original one. So your argument is that we shouldn't provide more options, because it turns out our original version might be worse than the alternative. If one design of gameplay is desired by the developers, why would they provide an easier version of it that players would abandon the original for simply because it's easier? That had nothing to do with anything I said. Still waiting for you to argue changing apex legends design lol.
worddog wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » worddog wrote: » NiKr wrote: » worddog wrote: » That's like saying if we add another flavor of Coca Cola, that we're somehow removing the original Coca Cola. More variety doesn't remove or change the original in any way. If you don't understand that basic concept idk what to say man. Except in the predominant cases of "pvp and pve servers" games, the "new taste" of cola pushes the original one out of the market, which makes the company push that new taste even more because it's way more profitable. And then the whole branding is built around this new taste rather than the original one. So your argument is that we shouldn't provide more options, because it turns out our original version might be worse than the alternative. If one design of gameplay is desired by the developers, why would they provide an easier version of it that players would abandon the original for simply because it's easier? That had nothing to do with anything I said.
Dolyem wrote: » worddog wrote: » NiKr wrote: » worddog wrote: » That's like saying if we add another flavor of Coca Cola, that we're somehow removing the original Coca Cola. More variety doesn't remove or change the original in any way. If you don't understand that basic concept idk what to say man. Except in the predominant cases of "pvp and pve servers" games, the "new taste" of cola pushes the original one out of the market, which makes the company push that new taste even more because it's way more profitable. And then the whole branding is built around this new taste rather than the original one. So your argument is that we shouldn't provide more options, because it turns out our original version might be worse than the alternative. If one design of gameplay is desired by the developers, why would they provide an easier version of it that players would abandon the original for simply because it's easier?
worddog wrote: » NiKr wrote: » worddog wrote: » That's like saying if we add another flavor of Coca Cola, that we're somehow removing the original Coca Cola. More variety doesn't remove or change the original in any way. If you don't understand that basic concept idk what to say man. Except in the predominant cases of "pvp and pve servers" games, the "new taste" of cola pushes the original one out of the market, which makes the company push that new taste even more because it's way more profitable. And then the whole branding is built around this new taste rather than the original one. So your argument is that we shouldn't provide more options, because it turns out our original version might be worse than the alternative.
NiKr wrote: » worddog wrote: » That's like saying if we add another flavor of Coca Cola, that we're somehow removing the original Coca Cola. More variety doesn't remove or change the original in any way. If you don't understand that basic concept idk what to say man. Except in the predominant cases of "pvp and pve servers" games, the "new taste" of cola pushes the original one out of the market, which makes the company push that new taste even more because it's way more profitable. And then the whole branding is built around this new taste rather than the original one.
worddog wrote: » That's like saying if we add another flavor of Coca Cola, that we're somehow removing the original Coca Cola. More variety doesn't remove or change the original in any way. If you don't understand that basic concept idk what to say man.
Dolyem wrote: » worddog wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » worddog wrote: » NiKr wrote: » worddog wrote: » That's like saying if we add another flavor of Coca Cola, that we're somehow removing the original Coca Cola. More variety doesn't remove or change the original in any way. If you don't understand that basic concept idk what to say man. Except in the predominant cases of "pvp and pve servers" games, the "new taste" of cola pushes the original one out of the market, which makes the company push that new taste even more because it's way more profitable. And then the whole branding is built around this new taste rather than the original one. So your argument is that we shouldn't provide more options, because it turns out our original version might be worse than the alternative. If one design of gameplay is desired by the developers, why would they provide an easier version of it that players would abandon the original for simply because it's easier? That had nothing to do with anything I said. It's an argument of why there shouldn't be options for either pve or pvp
worddog wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » worddog wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » worddog wrote: » NiKr wrote: » worddog wrote: » That's like saying if we add another flavor of Coca Cola, that we're somehow removing the original Coca Cola. More variety doesn't remove or change the original in any way. If you don't understand that basic concept idk what to say man. Except in the predominant cases of "pvp and pve servers" games, the "new taste" of cola pushes the original one out of the market, which makes the company push that new taste even more because it's way more profitable. And then the whole branding is built around this new taste rather than the original one. So your argument is that we shouldn't provide more options, because it turns out our original version might be worse than the alternative. If one design of gameplay is desired by the developers, why would they provide an easier version of it that players would abandon the original for simply because it's easier? That had nothing to do with anything I said. It's an argument of why there shouldn't be options for either pve or pvp It's not related to what was quoted. He quoted me saying: "So your argument is that we shouldn't provide more options, because it turns out our original version might be worse than the alternative." His quote: "If one design of gameplay is desired by the developers, why would they provide an easier version of it that players would abandon the original for simply because it's easier?" His response is about the difficulty of the game. That has nothing to do with what I said.
worddog wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » worddog wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » worddog wrote: » NiKr wrote: » worddog wrote: » That's like saying if we add another flavor of Coca Cola, that we're somehow removing the original Coca Cola. More variety doesn't remove or change the original in any way. If you don't understand that basic concept idk what to say man. Except in the predominant cases of "pvp and pve servers" games, the "new taste" of cola pushes the original one out of the market, which makes the company push that new taste even more because it's way more profitable. And then the whole branding is built around this new taste rather than the original one. So your argument is that we shouldn't provide more options, because it turns out our original version might be worse than the alternative. If one design of gameplay is desired by the developers, why would they provide an easier version of it that players would abandon the original for simply because it's easier? That had nothing to do with anything I said. Still waiting for you to argue changing apex legends design lol. Why would I want to change apex legends design.
Mag7spy wrote: » worddog wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » worddog wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » worddog wrote: » NiKr wrote: » worddog wrote: » That's like saying if we add another flavor of Coca Cola, that we're somehow removing the original Coca Cola. More variety doesn't remove or change the original in any way. If you don't understand that basic concept idk what to say man. Except in the predominant cases of "pvp and pve servers" games, the "new taste" of cola pushes the original one out of the market, which makes the company push that new taste even more because it's way more profitable. And then the whole branding is built around this new taste rather than the original one. So your argument is that we shouldn't provide more options, because it turns out our original version might be worse than the alternative. If one design of gameplay is desired by the developers, why would they provide an easier version of it that players would abandon the original for simply because it's easier? That had nothing to do with anything I said. Still waiting for you to argue changing apex legends design lol. Why would I want to change apex legends design. Apparently the same reason you want to change AoC
worddog wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » worddog wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » worddog wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » worddog wrote: » NiKr wrote: » worddog wrote: » That's like saying if we add another flavor of Coca Cola, that we're somehow removing the original Coca Cola. More variety doesn't remove or change the original in any way. If you don't understand that basic concept idk what to say man. Except in the predominant cases of "pvp and pve servers" games, the "new taste" of cola pushes the original one out of the market, which makes the company push that new taste even more because it's way more profitable. And then the whole branding is built around this new taste rather than the original one. So your argument is that we shouldn't provide more options, because it turns out our original version might be worse than the alternative. If one design of gameplay is desired by the developers, why would they provide an easier version of it that players would abandon the original for simply because it's easier? That had nothing to do with anything I said. Still waiting for you to argue changing apex legends design lol. Why would I want to change apex legends design. Apparently the same reason you want to change AoC I never said I wanted to change Ashes of Creation's design. Really confusing how often people just start pretending they're having an argument that no one made.
worddog wrote: » So your argument is that we shouldn't provide more options, because it turns out our original version might be worse than the alternative.
NiKr wrote: » worddog wrote: » So your argument is that we shouldn't provide more options, because it turns out our original version might be worse than the alternative. Yes, imo it's better to have a one design direction that represents the best form of devs' vision, even if it brings in less players, rather than having 2 subpar versions that not only split the playerbase but also split the dev time for each and increase the costs of upkeep of both. Imo it's better to have theoretical 200-300k players of the Ashes Steven wants to make, who will stick with the game for as long as its alive because those 200-300k people are the precise target audience of Steven's vision, rather than having 1-2kk players with 100k (if even that) on pvp servers and the rest on pve, most of whom will just leave for other more pve-centered games because Ashes' systems would still push them away. If you keep caravans, guild wars, node wars and node sieges in the game - all those pve players won't be able to play for too long, because all the pvpers who migrated from the pvp servers (because it's better to play on fuller servers) will dominate each and every one of those pvp events. And all the pvers will be losing their mats in caravans, their freeholds in node sieges and will be constantly killed during guild/node wars, because the hardcore pvpers will just overtake any and all mayoral positions.
CROW3 wrote: » Having followed this project for like 5 years, I’m just going to give you a blunt assessment based on my observations: - you’re never going to get a PvE Ashes server - you’re either going to get a PvX Ashes w/tuned corruption, or you’re going to get a FFA PvP Ashes It’s as simple as the dude funding the whole deal is a stone cold ow pvp fanatic, so when he says ‘this game isn’t for everyone,’ he might be talking to you.
CROW3 wrote: » I mean it’s a nice tap dance, but if the point is “Why would separate servers that focus on PvE be bad?” It’s a pointless question, because Ashes is a fundamentally OWPvP endeavor. Pretty simple. 🤷♂️
worddog wrote: » My point isn't even agreeing or disagreeing with that statement, the context of my statement was in response to someone who assumed PvE would in fact be more successful, not just in the short term but overall.
worddog wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » I mean it’s a nice tap dance, but if the point is “Why would separate servers that focus on PvE be bad?” It’s a pointless question, because Ashes is a fundamentally OWPvP endeavor. Pretty simple. 🤷♂️ If that was true than all questions would be pointless, because they all have one answer and everyone who disagrees is just wrong. The reason the discussion is possible is because people can imagine a more PvE centric server that they would enjoy. You can argue why you would personally dislike that, but you can't change what other people enjoy. Your argument is basically saying people shouldn't remove the bacon off their BLT because it's not how the sandwich was fundamentally designed. Sure it won't taste the same, and yes for a lot of people the bacon is the best part, but that doesn't change that some people would prefer a BLT without bacon. You can argue and say "oh well now its not even a BLT its just a LT!" and every argument is totally valid and fine but there is a reason you can order a BLT without bacon and the restaurant is going to oblige you.
worddog wrote: » If that was true than all questions would be pointless, because they all have one answer and everyone who disagrees is just wrong.
The reason the discussion is possible is because people can imagine a more PvE centric server that they would enjoy. You can argue why you would personally dislike that, but you can't change what other people enjoy.
worddog wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » Having followed this project for like 5 years, I’m just going to give you a blunt assessment based on my observations: - you’re never going to get a PvE Ashes server - you’re either going to get a PvX Ashes w/tuned corruption, or you’re going to get a FFA PvP Ashes It’s as simple as the dude funding the whole deal is a stone cold ow pvp fanatic, so when he says ‘this game isn’t for everyone,’ he might be talking to you. I notice a trend of people wrongly assuming I want a PvE server. You can defend and argue for things without being personally attached to them. The point of the topic was:Why would separate servers that focus on PvE be bad? People then assumed the point of the topic was:I want a PvE server, tell me why I shouldn't want one. A lot of the comments here are just arguing a strawman argument that doesn't actually exist.
CROW3 wrote: » \ The conversation isn’t about the sandwich name, it’s about whether you are in the right lunch spot.
worddog wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » \ The conversation isn’t about the sandwich name, it’s about whether you are in the right lunch spot. No that's not the conversation. The conversation is about whether or not the restaurant should take the bacon off the BLT when a customer asks them to. Now adding PvE servers would be more difficult than taking bacon off a BLT, I understand and accept that as a perfectly reasonable argument. But the argument that PvE servers would actually hurt PvP servers or the game in general has not yet been argued effectively, in my opinion. From what I've seen, it seems like the people arguing against PvE servers, are essentially making the argument that if someone makes a shop called "Papa Bacon's BLTs" they shouldn't serve food to a vegetarian who wants a BLT without bacon. The follow-up argument seems to be that vegetarians should not eat food at Papa Bacon's BLTs. But why not? If they want a BLT without any bacon, why should they be restricted from having one, when it literally takes less effort to make than a normal BLT? Because other people think it's stupid? Again, if you want to make the argument that the creation and management of PvE servers would take too much effort, that's a totally reasonable conversation to have, but saying their existence would actually ruin the game just doesn't make any sense.
