Tragnar wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Tragnar wrote: » Natasha wrote: » Tragnar wrote: » Dungeons are usually a PvE reward for doing a zone and if you let players the power to DENY clearing it for the whole evening then you create a ragequit moment for a ton of players. In other words your game rewarded some players by making others players quit Player agency my guy. If theres 1 guild that's blocking off content for a metropolis on a continent then I can roughly assume 20% of the playerbase is affected. Why don't these 2000 odd players actually go do something about it rather than whine about it and rage quit. Why don't they kill the guild and have every guild start a guild war against them? Why don't they sabotage the guild during its next castle siege? Why don't they refuse to serve the membership of that guild so they cant function? Why don't the surrounding nodes of that metropolis facilitate the destruction of the metropolis also destroying the guild members freeholds for blocking the (let's assume) only content dungeon as punishment. Why not focus on destroying their caravan convoys so they cant make money? Why not make their life hell? Use your brain. What you are describing is PvP activity - if you have to go through all of that then you just alienate everyone except the PvP crowd Don't slap PvX label on a purely PvP activity and not call it PvP I get it you want a PvP mmo, those are out there (New world was supposed to be one of them) but you can't just force every player into a choice between doing PvP or logging out. The best way (imo) to get PvE players the option to participate in PvP with rewards, but to not force it PvE players don't want to do anything PvP and will avoid it without trying to attempting to grow. This is a PvX game, both types of content will lean on each other. People will learn to adapt and grow and give it a try and be able to judge for themselves. Sometimes you will not have as much pvp, sometimes you will have more, sometimes you will need to war to take a spot or more on to another area. Play the game, improve and understand it, else if you want to just teleport to dungeons, no pvp, have less meaningful gathering, etc WoW exist. I don't see people trying to saying WoW needs to become a PvX game all the sudden. I'm not disputing that, I am agreeing with it - because I believe that if you force a choice on a PvE player to either participate in PvP (almost always inbalanced against him - cuz he isn't building towards PvP) or leave the area or leave the game then he will mostly choose one of the leave options However if you present an incentive to participate in PvP like having a currency that can be exchanged for goods if you PK someone who attacked you then PvE players a reward for doing PvP that they can see value inIf you drive a PvE player away by non-consensual PvP he is lost forever. Give PvE player a reward for doing PvP and he might become casual PvP player
Mag7spy wrote: » Tragnar wrote: » Natasha wrote: » Tragnar wrote: » Dungeons are usually a PvE reward for doing a zone and if you let players the power to DENY clearing it for the whole evening then you create a ragequit moment for a ton of players. In other words your game rewarded some players by making others players quit Player agency my guy. If theres 1 guild that's blocking off content for a metropolis on a continent then I can roughly assume 20% of the playerbase is affected. Why don't these 2000 odd players actually go do something about it rather than whine about it and rage quit. Why don't they kill the guild and have every guild start a guild war against them? Why don't they sabotage the guild during its next castle siege? Why don't they refuse to serve the membership of that guild so they cant function? Why don't the surrounding nodes of that metropolis facilitate the destruction of the metropolis also destroying the guild members freeholds for blocking the (let's assume) only content dungeon as punishment. Why not focus on destroying their caravan convoys so they cant make money? Why not make their life hell? Use your brain. What you are describing is PvP activity - if you have to go through all of that then you just alienate everyone except the PvP crowd Don't slap PvX label on a purely PvP activity and not call it PvP I get it you want a PvP mmo, those are out there (New world was supposed to be one of them) but you can't just force every player into a choice between doing PvP or logging out. The best way (imo) to get PvE players the option to participate in PvP with rewards, but to not force it PvE players don't want to do anything PvP and will avoid it without trying to attempting to grow. This is a PvX game, both types of content will lean on each other. People will learn to adapt and grow and give it a try and be able to judge for themselves. Sometimes you will not have as much pvp, sometimes you will have more, sometimes you will need to war to take a spot or more on to another area. Play the game, improve and understand it, else if you want to just teleport to dungeons, no pvp, have less meaningful gathering, etc WoW exist. I don't see people trying to saying WoW needs to become a PvX game all the sudden.
Tragnar wrote: » Natasha wrote: » Tragnar wrote: » Dungeons are usually a PvE reward for doing a zone and if you let players the power to DENY clearing it for the whole evening then you create a ragequit moment for a ton of players. In other words your game rewarded some players by making others players quit Player agency my guy. If theres 1 guild that's blocking off content for a metropolis on a continent then I can roughly assume 20% of the playerbase is affected. Why don't these 2000 odd players actually go do something about it rather than whine about it and rage quit. Why don't they kill the guild and have every guild start a guild war against them? Why don't they sabotage the guild during its next castle siege? Why don't they refuse to serve the membership of that guild so they cant function? Why don't the surrounding nodes of that metropolis facilitate the destruction of the metropolis also destroying the guild members freeholds for blocking the (let's assume) only content dungeon as punishment. Why not focus on destroying their caravan convoys so they cant make money? Why not make their life hell? Use your brain. What you are describing is PvP activity - if you have to go through all of that then you just alienate everyone except the PvP crowd Don't slap PvX label on a purely PvP activity and not call it PvP I get it you want a PvP mmo, those are out there (New world was supposed to be one of them) but you can't just force every player into a choice between doing PvP or logging out. The best way (imo) to get PvE players the option to participate in PvP with rewards, but to not force it
Natasha wrote: » Tragnar wrote: » Dungeons are usually a PvE reward for doing a zone and if you let players the power to DENY clearing it for the whole evening then you create a ragequit moment for a ton of players. In other words your game rewarded some players by making others players quit Player agency my guy. If theres 1 guild that's blocking off content for a metropolis on a continent then I can roughly assume 20% of the playerbase is affected. Why don't these 2000 odd players actually go do something about it rather than whine about it and rage quit. Why don't they kill the guild and have every guild start a guild war against them? Why don't they sabotage the guild during its next castle siege? Why don't they refuse to serve the membership of that guild so they cant function? Why don't the surrounding nodes of that metropolis facilitate the destruction of the metropolis also destroying the guild members freeholds for blocking the (let's assume) only content dungeon as punishment. Why not focus on destroying their caravan convoys so they cant make money? Why not make their life hell? Use your brain.
Tragnar wrote: » Dungeons are usually a PvE reward for doing a zone and if you let players the power to DENY clearing it for the whole evening then you create a ragequit moment for a ton of players. In other words your game rewarded some players by making others players quit
George_Black wrote: » I guess you never played L2.
Natasha wrote: » I'll use your example of a guild blocking out a dungeon. You know what the reward is if they engage in pvp and chase off the guild? They get to do the pve content they wanted to do.
Dygz wrote: » I mean - I like to PvP sometimes, but, with the Open Seas auto-flag, Ashes has too much PvP for me. I won't be playing.
Dygz wrote: » For instance... P2W is not a dealbreaker for me.
BaSkA13 wrote: » Dygz wrote: » I mean - I like to PvP sometimes, but, with the Open Seas auto-flag, Ashes has too much PvP for me. I won't be playing. I agree it's a bad change to the game, but I have a feeling the game will slowly turn into EVE or Albion PvP wise because that's the easiest way to cater to the biggest number people from both the PvP and PvE audiences, which I personally very much dislike. Dygz wrote: » For instance... P2W is not a dealbreaker for me. That's very unfortunate, in my opinion that (P2W/greed) is one of the top factors that killed the genre.
Mag7spy wrote: » PvE players don't want to do anything PvP and will avoid it without trying to attempting to grow.
Noaani wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » PvE players don't want to do anything PvP and will avoid it without trying to attempting to grow. I disagree with this statement entirely. I spent 10 years as a purely PvE MMO player, then moved over to a mostly PvP setting. In my experience of top end PvE players, most of us are quite happy to PvP, but we dont want to play a game to PvP if it means we cant also have top end PvE (why few PvE players stuck with Archeage). Put a game up that has top end PvE on par with any other game on the market, put some PvP aspects in, and you'll pull both top end PvE players, as well as many PvP players who will love the chance to take on said top end PvE players and take their top end loot. That is what Ashes *should* be.
Mag7spy wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » PvE players don't want to do anything PvP and will avoid it without trying to attempting to grow. I disagree with this statement entirely. I spent 10 years as a purely PvE MMO player, then moved over to a mostly PvP setting. In my experience of top end PvE players, most of us are quite happy to PvP, but we dont want to play a game to PvP if it means we cant also have top end PvE (why few PvE players stuck with Archeage). Put a game up that has top end PvE on par with any other game on the market, put some PvP aspects in, and you'll pull both top end PvE players, as well as many PvP players who will love the chance to take on said top end PvE players and take their top end loot. That is what Ashes *should* be. I don't believe this applies tot he normal player just wanting to play a pve mmorpg and isn't really in any kind of constant end game scene. But hopefully I can be wrong, just not may experience talking to some people that do pve and confused at them avoiding pvp content like the plague or me needing to do some serious convincing.
Noaani wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » PvE players don't want to do anything PvP and will avoid it without trying to attempting to grow. I disagree with this statement entirely. I spent 10 years as a purely PvE MMO player, then moved over to a mostly PvP setting. In my experience of top end PvE players, most of us are quite happy to PvP, but we dont want to play a game to PvP if it means we cant also have top end PvE (why few PvE players stuck with Archeage). Put a game up that has top end PvE on par with any other game on the market, put some PvP aspects in, and you'll pull both top end PvE players, as well as many PvP players who will love the chance to take on said top end PvE players and take their top end loot. That is what Ashes *should* be. I don't believe this applies tot he normal player just wanting to play a pve mmorpg and isn't really in any kind of constant end game scene. But hopefully I can be wrong, just not may experience talking to some people that do pve and confused at them avoiding pvp content like the plague or me needing to do some serious convincing. Players only wanting PvE are probably not interested in PvP, this is true. In my experience though, this is a very small group of people. Most people would be happy with an amount of PvP along side good PvE - the problem is that all games with open world PvP so far have been more PvP focused with PvE as an afterthought. This is why it appears that many PvE players dont want PvP - there are no games where PvP is the minor aspect to PvE being the major aspect - and as such these games are lacking in quality PvE. Some people would look at PvE playera not playing those games and come to the reasonable conclusion that PvE players dont want to PvP, when in reality it is just that PvE players dont want to compromise on a game with sub-par PvE. And honestly, why should they? If a game wants to attract PvE players that are accepting of PvP, they need to have PvE to attract then - which means being on par with other games. If your PvP isnt on par with other games, then you only have PvP to attract people, in which case you are a PvP game, not a PvX game.
Tragnar wrote: » Natasha wrote: » Tragnar wrote: » Dungeons are usually a PvE reward for doing a zone and if you let players the power to DENY clearing it for the whole evening then you create a ragequit moment for a ton of players. In other words your game rewarded some players by making others players quit Player agency my guy. If theres 1 guild that's blocking off content for a metropolis on a continent then I can roughly assume 20% of the playerbase is affected. Why don't these 2000 odd players actually go do something about it rather than whine about it and rage quit. Why don't they kill the guild and have every guild start a guild war against them? Why don't they sabotage the guild during its next castle siege? Why don't they refuse to serve the membership of that guild so they cant function? Why don't the surrounding nodes of that metropolis facilitate the destruction of the metropolis also destroying the guild members freeholds for blocking the (let's assume) only content dungeon as punishment. Why not focus on destroying their caravan convoys so they cant make money? Why not make their life hell? Use your brain. What you are describing is PvP activity - if you have to go through all of that then you just alienate everyone except the PvP crowd Don't slap PvX label on a purely PvP activity and not call it PvP what about 1 guild just farming all the resources in one area, not leaving anything for anybody else in a pve server. players will have to "log out" or go to a different area. the difference in a pvp server or ashes is that you have the option to fight and kill them. also, why should i let you farm? i want the resources too. if you are farming the resources, im not. I get it you want a PvP mmo, those are out there (New world was supposed to be one of them) but you can't just force every player into a choice between doing PvP or logging out. thats like saying well, in a chess game, u shouldnt force players into a choice between moving the pawn backwards or not playing. games have rulesets, constraints, etc... ashes is no different. The best way (imo) to get PvE players the option to participate in PvP with rewards, but to not force it
I get it you want a PvP mmo, those are out there (New world was supposed to be one of them) but you can't just force every player into a choice between doing PvP or logging out.
The best way (imo) to get PvE players the option to participate in PvP with rewards, but to not force it
Mag7spy wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » PvE players don't want to do anything PvP and will avoid it without trying to attempting to grow. I disagree with this statement entirely. I spent 10 years as a purely PvE MMO player, then moved over to a mostly PvP setting. In my experience of top end PvE players, most of us are quite happy to PvP, but we dont want to play a game to PvP if it means we cant also have top end PvE (why few PvE players stuck with Archeage). Put a game up that has top end PvE on par with any other game on the market, put some PvP aspects in, and you'll pull both top end PvE players, as well as many PvP players who will love the chance to take on said top end PvE players and take their top end loot. That is what Ashes *should* be. I don't believe this applies tot he normal player just wanting to play a pve mmorpg and isn't really in any kind of constant end game scene. But hopefully I can be wrong, just not may experience talking to some people that do pve and confused at them avoiding pvp content like the plague or me needing to do some serious convincing. Players only wanting PvE are probably not interested in PvP, this is true. In my experience though, this is a very small group of people. Most people would be happy with an amount of PvP along side good PvE - the problem is that all games with open world PvP so far have been more PvP focused with PvE as an afterthought. This is why it appears that many PvE players dont want PvP - there are no games where PvP is the minor aspect to PvE being the major aspect - and as such these games are lacking in quality PvE. Some people would look at PvE playera not playing those games and come to the reasonable conclusion that PvE players dont want to PvP, when in reality it is just that PvE players dont want to compromise on a game with sub-par PvE. And honestly, why should they? If a game wants to attract PvE players that are accepting of PvP, they need to have PvE to attract then - which means being on par with other games. If your PvP isnt on par with other games, then you only have PvP to attract people, in which case you are a PvP game, not a PvX game. Guess it will be interesting to see how AoC turns out since I can't think of any other mmorpg that has a focus on pvp and is doing pve as well. With seeing how players react to it if the pve does hold up.
Noaani wrote: » Going by Steven's experience, I see no reason at all to expect PvE past what L2 and Archeage have done. He seems to consider these to have good PvE, where as PvE players consider these games PvE to be so bad that PvE preferred guilds will leave the game after seeing just how much of a joke they are. I mean, I'd love to see it, obviously, but Intrepid won't be able to do it unless they replace Jeff with someone with the testicular fortitude to tell Steven he is wrong about his own game, while on a livestream.
NiKr wrote: » I don't really know how the hierarchy in a dev studio works, but couldn't AI/mob devs just make good stuff and then present it to Steven?
Noaani wrote: » How many workplaces do you know that allow their workers to spend hundreds of hours working on just what ever they want, rather than what the product requires them to work on?
