I did not play FFXI so while I concede that the encounter your describing (the meter thing) is not a static exact same every time encounter like most raids, its still a script to me. It doesn't have the possibility to change tactics from fight to fight because its still programmed to do its thing. Its simply using a skill at less predictable intervals. Your example from my understanding would easily be solved by just setting up a stun order and rotating through it as the attack comes out. Easily accomplished by competent raiders. Correct me if I'm wrong.
It does however more closely resemble the dynamics of pvp in sense. You would have to choose to use your stun skill for the damage, or risk it not being up when you need it on your turn, instead of blindly following a rotation. For a pvp analogy, imagine a 5v5 skirmish in the open world. Most often, the groups are going to focus each other's healers. But sometimes, the other group is very good at peeling, or the healer is very tanky. So this tactic may not work and you lose. So you fight again, but instead you cc the healer and blow up a squishy to get a numbers advantage and let attrition set in and win. Or maybe you try to play defensively and bait someone into over-extending to get a quick kill or at least make the healer blow his big cooldowns, thus letting you secure a kill on the healer or a squishy. Or maybe you feint a charge to bait out cooldowns. Or maybe the healer makes a mistake and loses LoS because he ran behind a rock, so you capitalize elsewhere. The point is, your group is making tactical decisions in real time to counter the other group, while they should simultaneously being doing to the same to you. You might have a plan, but it's not scripted because any number of things could happen that require the plans to change. That is dynamic content to me.
In a PvX game, which is what I hope AoC is going to be, encounters like you describe and encounters like I described will be occurring concurrently, and that sounds fun as hell to me. Imagine a boss like you described that's being contested, and your group decides instead of countering the mega death move, you have your tank turn it into the other group and let it rip. That would be the type of gaming moment I would never forget.
I did not play FFXI so while I concede that the encounter your describing (the meter thing) is not a static exact same every time encounter like most raids, its still a script to me. It doesn't have the possibility to change tactics from fight to fight because its still programmed to do its thing. Its simply using a skill at less predictable intervals. Your example from my understanding would easily be solved by just setting up a stun order and rotating through it as the attack comes out. Easily accomplished by competent raiders. Correct me if I'm wrong.
It does however more closely resemble the dynamics of pvp in sense. You would have to choose to use your stun skill for the damage, or risk it not being up when you need it on your turn, instead of blindly following a rotation. For a pvp analogy, imagine a 5v5 skirmish in the open world. Most often, the groups are going to focus each other's healers. But sometimes, the other group is very good at peeling, or the healer is very tanky. So this tactic may not work and you lose. So you fight again, but instead you cc the healer and blow up a squishy to get a numbers advantage and let attrition set in and win. Or maybe you try to play defensively and bait someone into over-extending to get a quick kill or at least make the healer blow his big cooldowns, thus letting you secure a kill on the healer or a squishy. Or maybe you feint a charge to bait out cooldowns. Or maybe the healer makes a mistake and loses LoS because he ran behind a rock, so you capitalize elsewhere. The point is, your group is making tactical decisions in real time to counter the other group, while they should simultaneously being doing to the same to you. You might have a plan, but it's not scripted because any number of things could happen that require the plans to change. That is dynamic content to me.
In a PvX game, which is what I hope AoC is going to be, encounters like you describe and encounters like I described will be occurring concurrently, and that sounds fun as hell to me. Imagine a boss like you described that's being contested, and your group decides instead of countering the mega death move, you have your tank turn it into the other group and let it rip. That would be the type of gaming moment I would never forget.
Then according to this, you've just done the same thing and defined all PvE as static because it relies on ANY form of computer code at all.
Except that it doesn't have to. I have a question then.
Is a Chess playing computer 'static' whereas a chess playing human is 'dynamic'?
And if EITHER the human is 'static' or the computer 'dynamic', is it the nature of Chess that causes this?
I don't want to get really philosophical on you, but you literally defined the answer in a way where you just make it tautological. I normally don't engage after that, but you're new (to me) so I would just like to make sure I cover all bases before I form any opinions of your thought process.
Also yes, you are wrong about the encounter. Again, for many reasons, really, which would take a long time to explain. The question is if you are willing to START believing that before I spend 10 posts on it, or if you're just likely to go 'well that sounds easy and a competent raider can do it' every time until we get back to 'well it's impossible for a Computer Controlled Opponent to be dynamic anyway'.
Gnoles have an ability "Call of the Moon" which grants them "Intimidate" which has the potential to make most actions taken against them fail for a time. The user is intimidated and does not perform the action. Thereby creating a situation where you could attempt to Stun it and just... fail.
Your really over thinking this. The raid boss can't change it's tactics in real time from fight to fight. It can't even change its tactics mid fight. It's not AI. Humans can. The humans are dynamic. If raid bosses were AI, you'd have a point. If I'm playing chess against a computer, it has difficulties levels that are guess what, static. You don't play at medium difficulty and the computer gets better over time. It gets better when you turn the difficulty up. It is not Google's DeepMind.
That is literally my point, PVE encounters are by definition static because they can only operate within what they are programmed to do. The raid boss isn't coming out to fight you when half your group isn't there. It doesn't magically learn new abilities, or find a way to target bigger threats than the tank unless it was programmed to do so. Its not learning or doing something new. Its just doing the same things at different intervals. You claim I'm being tautological: here's the definition of dynamic (#3) for you:
And here is Variable (#1):
I am not being tautological. I keep explaining why PVE is static. You are just failing to understand why variable and dynamic are different.
Back to the encounter you described, maybe you should make a thread explaining it because you seem to think its this god tier encounter or something, but I bet thousands of average gamers have cleared it so that would likely indicate it isn't. The wiki literally states that with the right comp it's easily duoable. And again, this is a variable not dynamic encounter. Did either of the mobs ever do anything beside what's listed on their wiki? We both know the answer is no.
Look if you want to be done with me fine, that's on you. I for one can enjoy and possibly learn from a conversation with someone with a dissenting opinion. If you can't that's on you. Most people don't like to admit they're wrong so yeah I get why you wouldn't want to continue.
Your really over thinking this. The raid boss can't change it's tactics in real time from fight to fight. It can't even change its tactics mid fight. It's not AI. Humans can. The humans are dynamic. If raid bosses were AI, you'd have a point. If I'm playing chess against a computer, it has difficulties levels that are guess what, static. You don't play at medium difficulty and the computer gets better over time. It gets better when you turn the difficulty up. It is not Google's DeepMind.
That is literally my point, PVE encounters are by definition static because they can only operate within what they are programmed to do. The raid boss isn't coming out to fight you when half your group isn't there. It doesn't magically learn new abilities, or find a way to target bigger threats than the tank unless it was programmed to do so. Its not learning or doing something new. Its just doing the same things at different intervals. You claim I'm being tautological: here's the definition of dynamic (#3) for you:
And here is Variable (#1):
I am not being tautological. I keep explaining why PVE is static. You are just failing to understand why variable and dynamic are different.
Back to the encounter you described, that's easily fixed by having the next person in the list use their stun. Maybe you should make a thread explaining it because you seem to think its this god tier encounter or something, but I bet thousands of average gamers have cleared it so that would likely indicate it isn't. And again, this is a variable not dynamic encounter. Did either of the mobs ever do anything beside what's listed on their wiki? We both know the answer is no.
Look if you want to be done with me fine, that's on you. I for one can enjoy and possibly learn from a conversation with someone with a dissenting opinion. If you can't that's on you. Most people don't like to admit they're wrong so yeah I get why you wouldn't want to continue.
I am willing to continue if you are. But as it stands, it seems that you have decided that 'anything that doesn't adapt is only variable'. And I don't want to presume, so please tell me. Is anything that can only adapt within a certain parameter space, because it has a limited number of abilities TOTAL, also not dynamic? Because I perceive player groups to also have this limited number of total abilities.
I want to continue this without insulting you, I will ask you to try to do the same. Therefore I also ask that despite this next line PROBABLY seeming like an intention to insult you, you try to look past that because tiptoeing around it takes SO long.
I find that many 'good Raiders' have this concept that 'just bring enough CC so that the boss can't do anything dangerous' is the correct design space to be in. People seem to enjoy 'well, it poses a danger we can't adapt to other than locking it down, so LOCK IT DOWN'.
But please understand that from my perspective 'Hard PvE' would involve things you can't just lock down. Things that GET to be Dynamic and adapt. Players just don't LIKE this because they have to keep up. I offer you two counterpoints to the ENCOUNTER part of this therefore.
1. Note that I said the METER does not go away. Some bosses are 'nice' and don't 'immediately retry'. Harder ones are NOT nice. You stun ability A, they can try it again almost instantly. At SOME point you must run out of stuns.
2. Just making ANY boss stun-immune would prevent this. Now, if your response is 'well that's not good design', we can definitely stop. I prefer games where I have to actually deal with the compound abilities and progressions of bosses. IF you don't appreciate that gameplay type, I can see why you hold the opinion you hold.
There ARE FFXI bosses and enemies that EXPLICITLY adapt to what players are doing, what the players have done, how many players are present, etc. But if 'adapting based on changing battle conditions' is not enough to be 'Dynamic', only 'Variable' (due to a limited number of abilities that can be used for the adaptation) then wouldn't PvP also be just 'variable'?
The only thing I know Bosses don't really do is 'take actions that could only result in them losing' on purpose. To me, this is the difference between humans and Bosses. Bosses don't usually have the ability to just FUCK UP SO ROYALLY that the opponents are left dazed and confused and then get sucker-punched (or not).
I have world firsted raid content, and server firsted much more. There is nothing dynamic about it. It is simple trial and error, and then execution once you know the strat.
So, this comment (and your previous post) tells me a few things about you.
It tells me that you may well have killed content like the Kraken or Red Dragon fairly early in Archeage. It also tells me you are aware of raid content in some games that is popular with streamers.
The other thing it tells me is that you are only aware of the above two types of raid content - that which uses PvP for difficulty, and that which uses scripts for difficulty.
Your comments outright twll me that you are unaware of content that uses chaos as its means of delivering difficulty.
These are encounters where there aren't single major mechanics players need to worry about, but rather 20 or 30 smaller mechanics, all going off together, but in different combinations. This means that you can never just muscle memory your way through this content, or have a static plan to take it on. Everyone in the raid needs to be able to look at what is going on, and make split second decisions as to what they need to do.
Using your own definition of variable, these encounters are FAR more inconsistent than PvP, and since you are having to continually change your plans during an encounter (not that you are planning more than a few seconds ahead), it perfectly fits your definition of dynamic, as well.
These encounters are far more dynamic than any PvP in any MMO - yet as far as I can tell it is a content type you are unaware even exists.
I mean, in PvP you can generally make assumptions as to what players will do -95% of the time they will do the same thing you would do if you were in their situation.
To me, this makes PvP predictable, not dynamic.
0
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
If this is at me, I don't like to make those sorts of distinctions BUT.
If the PvE is garbage and just there to give people something to do when not fighting each other so that they can get gear, I would consider it a PvP game.
If the PvE is scripted to the point where you know what will happen if PvP happens during it, I also consider it a PvP game.
If anything, I'm arguing that Intrepid has said 'Ashes will not be a PvP game' using those definitions. They talk about a lot of things that I'm used to. What I consistently learn is that EITHER Intrepid doesn't know what hard PvE is either and lots of people will agree with what they make as a result OR a lot of people don't know what hard PvE is so the descriptions Intrepid gives, don't actually give them any understanding of the intention.
For example:
"Your really over thinking this. The raid boss can't change it's tactics in real time from fight to fight. It can't even change its tactics mid fight. It's not AI. Humans can. The humans are dynamic. If raid bosses were AI, you'd have a point."
This has multiple flaws.
1. Raid bosses can be AI, if they aren't, that's a choice someone made.
2. Dynamic AI is one of the EASIER things to code into game encounters because of HOW exactly AI actually works.
3. Bosses can change tactics in real time, and many can and do change tactics mid-fight.
The result, though, is someone possibly not understanding at all what Intrepid might be trying to make.
So it's PvP to me if that person is correct and I'm the one that's wrong about the way it will be implemented. But I choose to trust Steven's terms when viewed through the lens of having played games like this already. So it can still be a PvX game, if some VERY difficult and complex (for players, not developers) systems are used.
tl;dr getting into PvP while fighting a scripted boss doesn't count as PvX at the same LEVEL as 'getting into PvP separately but also being challenged by 'variable' bosses in PvE. The former puts all the content load on PvP, the latter does not, and therefore I think it is more accurately 'PvX'.
Having thought about it and carefully reread @Calibix responses, I guess I'll go with 'I'm unable to admit I'm wrong' or whatever.
Too many signs of 'just trying to pick at details instead of trying to understand the point being made', possible ignorance of how AI even works, and 'willing to consider PvP to be dynamic but PvE not, even if mobs have MORE abilities than any player' without even factoring the AI.
Just not worth it today...
Becoming less and less worth it lately in general.
Well, I wonder how much gear based will be AoC's PvP, hopefully not greatly like in WoW... because in WoW oh boy if you don't have the armor just forget about trying to kill someone with a better armor than you, if the guy doesn't commit a mistake then you are dead
If AoC's PvP is a somewhat dependant on gear, then PvPers will have to do some grind for gear or buy gear if the gear isn't account bound. If that is the case then PvPers will have to be more PvX so they get better stuff if it's account bound or soul bound
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
Well, I wonder how much gear based will be AoC's PvP, hopefully not greatly like in WoW... because in WoW oh boy if you don't have the armor just forget about trying to kill someone with a better armor than you, if the guy doesn't commit a mistake then you are dead
If AoC's PvP is a somewhat dependant on gear, then PvPers will have to do some grind for gear or buy gear if the gear isn't account bound. If that is the case then PvPers will have to be more PvX so they get better stuff if it's account bound or soul bound
Why shouldnt gear make a big difference?
If I have better gear than you, it is because I am better at a specific aspect of the game than you.
If I killed stuff and got good gear from it, then I am clearly better at that than you - if i have better gear than you.
If I played the economic game well and bought my gear, then grats to me for being great at making coin in an MMO - I am obviously better at it than you.
If I made some great friends and they just give me gear, then I am better at the social aspects of MMO's than you.
Being good at PvP makes other aspects of the game easier. Why shouldnt being good at other aspects of the game make PvP easier?
If you already done the encounter at least once you already know everything about the encounter and what to expect from it so there is no surprise at all which means that after you know the mechanics it all comes down to their proper execution, and here for me is the difference between a hard engaging PvE and a bad one. If the execution of the mechanics is tight it will be fun and engaging experience, if not then after the first clear it just becomes a chore.
In PvP there much more stuff which need to be learned, first what are the classes and what are their strengths weakness, after that what are the synergies between this classes and the different compositions, what are the combat mechanics and how they work, after you learn all that ofcourse the valuable options are not countless they are limited but still the execution of the mechanics is more challenging and its much harder to be proactive in pvp while in PvE its very easy when you learn the mechanics because they dont change and they happen at very easy to predict times, while in PvP thats not the case even when you know all of the mechanics its much harder to predict what exactly will happen. Also you talk about large scale PvP, there is no MMO with good large scale pvp because its really hard to balance the game around it. If the game is balanced around large scale pvp then in small scale pvp nobody will be able to kill nobody, so thats the reason why large scale PvP is not that challenging also in large scale pvp your individual skill contribute very small portion in the equation which predicts the outcome of the fight. So if you compare Raids to just large scale PvP i understand why you find PvP easier, but this modes are fundamentally different in design, Raids in the modern age are designed in a way that even if 1 person fails a curtail mechanics the whole raid fails, while in Large scale PvP thats not the case and if 1 person dies he comes back into the fight shortly, thats why its much more appropriate to compare Raid to PvP mode in which individual skill matters much more as for example 3v3 or 5v5 mode and in this case pvp is much more unpredictable and harder than PvE raid even if you know perfectly what all the enemy classes can do and what their composition can do. Another thing is that in PvP you can design different objectives which lead to "winning" in a lot of different ways, while in PvE the objective is 1 kill the boss and you dont have different ways of killing the boss than executing the mechanics correctly. Ofcourse all of that depend on the combat mechanics of the game too but generally speaking PvE is much more predictable therefore much easier than PvP.
Anyways i think we are a bit offtopic
Most of this doesn't match my experience.
"If you already did the encounter at least once you already know everything about the encounter" - not in the games I play.
"In PvP there is much more stuff that needs to be learned." - Also not true. I would elaborate here but I usually get the 'Fighting Games aren't MMOs' response, which is correct because MMOs are almost always less complicated.
"Execution of the mechanics is more challenging" - nope.
"Raids in the modern age" - Assume that if I am talking, and I BET that when Noaani is talking, this isn't what is being talked about.
"Another thing is that in PvP you can design different objectives which lead to "winning" in a lot of different ways, while in PvE the objective is 1 kill the boss and you dont have different ways of killing the boss than executing the mechanics correctly." - I once again feel sorrow at the state of the genre if this is the experience of most players. I will continue to hope that Ashes can live up to the standards of the MMOs of Yore so that people can have an experience beyond this.
I remember when I created a thread for what people expect in raids and people didn't really respond to it much. If you have certain expectations of difficulty it's better to push that kind of thread with examples and such as good feedback. If it is old mmorpgs people don't play, were not mainstream, etc it's going to be hard to expect that type of content in anyway without fully expressing it enough and what you desire as a player for content and difficulty.
Part of the problem with that thread, as I remember it, is that you literally don't believe that the things we tell you about the PvE we have experienced are possible.
Or you think they're bad design. So you kinda automatically disqualify all the content we consider interesting.
As for 'expressing it', I think that would be a bad idea here kind of. I want Ashes to succeed. Ashes is based on AA and L2 and might be losing any FFXI/EQ influence it has, as we move forward.
If the game system doesn't suit the type of encounters I am talking about, they should not make them. If it does, I am so confident that they are ALREADY making them, that the only reason I even try to explain anything to anyone else is because I am sad that y'all don't know 'what is coming'.
I'm sure you will adapt, it's not going to be some 'mind-blowing wake-up call' if you have to face the type of content I'm used to. It might be jarring at first to 'randomly die because you thought it was scripted' or you weren't prepared for something you've never seen the boss do before, but that's part of the fun.
So I don't really feel the need to express it. If Ashes doesn't intend to have this PvE type, they probably did extensive analysis on why their game won't work if they have it. If they DO intend to have it, then all I can do is help you understand that it exists so you can give feedback on how you feel about it.
All I hope is that either TL or Ashes has it, and given the other decisions on Ashes side, for my selfish perspective I have to hope it is TL. Ashes should do whatever Steven enjoys.
Do you have a quote with me saying your idea was bad design? I'd like you to share it or reference it please.
Only thing i can think of is the back and forth of me saying chaotic is not well designed and if I recall you pulled back from the discussion. You need to understand my viewpoint of what chaotic is, else if you don't understand my viewpoint on it with how I view what equals to chaotic, while arguing your own view point it will get nowhere.
You need to understand and have a dialogue with me on my viewpoint on it on what i deem chaotic and how. If you assume my meaning, we aren't going to be able to come to an understanding with each other to debates the details on what is or isn't acceptable design wise.
I'm open and not difficult if you want to have a fair discussion, but you need to be opening seeing how I see things as well, then you can pick things apart if it doesn't match.
Which is best done through actual examples on what is too light, what is too extreme, and the in-between.
Also, some PvE encounters are built with an amount of randomness to them. Not many, to be fair, but some. I have had some encounters where our path or so kill of the mob was the first time we came across a particularly devastating AoE. That was one hell of a surprise.
Yes thats true, FF14 have some randomized mechanics also Lost ark too, but still for me once i learn all the possible mechanics it all comes down to proper execution and for me what makes a fight engaging and fun in the long run is how hard is to execute this mechanics not how hard is it to learn them. Ofcourse the most fun part atleast for me is the learning proccess thats why i always go blind in new encounters.
"If you already did the encounter at least once you already know everything about the encounter" - not in the games I play.
.
Which are? I am playing mmos since 2002 and i have played quite a substantional number of different mmos, In all of them which i have played the stated above was aways the case for me, once i learn the mechanics and finish the encounter once it becomes much easier to do iit again and again.
"In PvP there is much more stuff that needs to be learned." - Also not true. I would elaborate here but I usually get the 'Fighting Games aren't MMOs' response, which is correct because MMOs are almost always less complicated.
it is true. there much more stuff to learn in PvP usually then PvE.
"Another thing is that in PvP you can design different objectives which lead to "winning" in a lot of different ways, while in PvE the objective is 1 kill the boss and you dont have different ways of killing the boss than executing the mechanics correctly." - I once again feel sorrow at the state of the genre if this is the experience of most players. I will continue to hope that Ashes can live up to the standards of the MMOs of Yore so that people can have an experience beyond this.
Totally agree with you here. The state is not very trilling and i share your hope.
Yes totally agree with this, as i said i never seen a large scale pvp done right in an MMO so far because its hard to balance the game around it.
What would be "done right" in your opinion? I love L2's mass pvp and consider it somewhat well-balanced, where lower amounts of highly skilled (or better geared) people can win out against bigger amounts of poorly skilled/geared ones.
Yes totally agree with this, as i said i never seen a large scale pvp done right in an MMO so far because its hard to balance the game around it.
What would be "done right" in your opinion? I love L2's mass pvp and consider it somewhat well-balanced, where lower amounts of highly skilled (or better geared) people can win out against bigger amounts of poorly skilled/geared ones.
I'm curious, in L2, how much of an impact did leadership have in PvP?
In Archeage, leadership was more important than numbers - up to a point (having 25% less than the opposition but a better leader would make for a fair fight). However, this was only the case in that games set pieces, sieges, MM, Halcy, some raids, lusca etc. In open PvP without a goal other than just PvP, leadership didn't really matter.
I'm curious, in L2, how much of an impact did leadership have in PvP?
In Archeage, leadership was more important than numbers - up to a point (having 25% less than the opposition but a better leader would make for a fair fight). However, this was only the case in that games set pieces, sieges, MM, Halcy, some raids, lusca etc. In open PvP without a goal other than just PvP, leadership didn't really matter.
Quite a lot. The best guilds usually had the best leaders. One of the biggest examples that I know is of a person who had a lvl40 character instead of a max lvl one, purely because he spent way more time controlling and directing stuff from behind rather than being directly on the front lines. And during sieges he'd usually be on a flying mount overlooking the battlefield.
And from my own experience as a GL and my guildmates' feedback to it, we had much bigger successes and the feedback was way more positive when I concentrated on my commands and tried to strategize correct movements on the battlefield rather than when I was just trying to lead everyone at the front of the pack.
And the same applies to each party too. A good PL can make a party of even mid-skill players much more effective than a shitty PL who's at conflict with his highly skilled partymates. Though on the party lvl it's usually even more about personal respect and skill lvl difference. You GL might be a shitty mechanical player or low lvl, but his strategical and tactical decisions win the battle, but if your PL is either of those things - all the egos would just clash against each other and the PL wouldn't be able to control anyone properly.
And if the GL somehow manages to both be the top lvl in the guild, the most level-headed person and also great at mass pvp control - you've got yourself a dude who'll be followed by hundreds of people w/o a question. I've only really heard about such GLs through second-hand experiences.
Yes totally agree with this, as i said i never seen a large scale pvp done right in an MMO so far because its hard to balance the game around it.
What would be "done right" in your opinion? I love L2's mass pvp and consider it somewhat well-balanced, where lower amounts of highly skilled (or better geared) people can win out against bigger amounts of poorly skilled/geared ones.
L2 had a good fundation and it was definitelly great for its time and thats mainly because the PvP was more balanced around large scale battles than small scale battles, so i agree with you on this. Excuse me i didnt worded my self correctly, I never seen a large scale battles done right in a more modern MMOs, mainly because the PvP is balanced around Small scale instanced PvP than large scale PvP. Eso and Gw2 have large scale battles and i dont find them very engaging. Unfortunately i didn't had the opportunity to see how they work in Archeage and BDO.
Let me try to answer your question.
1. In order for large scale battles to be good the damage from 1 play to another should not be very bursty because if 1 player can burst another in just a 1-2 seconds then when few people focus 1 he die in just miliseconds (no time for reaction at all). In lineage2 1v1 fight took "ages" assuming that both players have good gear, thats why the large scale pvp worked quite good, the PvP was more balanced around large amount of groups and their synergy.
2. Tanks should have very important role and should be the primary target not just avoided and ignored as in most cases it happens.
3. There have to be different mechanic for attacking, namely siege weapons and other war tools which has to be player controlled and even can be controlled with multiple players.
4. There have to be different defense siege weapons and tools in order to counter different attacking siege weapons, also controlled by players (in some cases multiple players).
5. There have to be some ways to sneak and use some small groups of people to distract the opponent and etc.
In general there should be more tools to organize different strategy and tactical outplays, than just sitting in a zerg and moving together as it is in GW2 and ESO for example.
Of course thats just my subjective opinion on the topic.
Let me try to answer your question.
1. In order for large scale battles to be good the damage from 1 play to another should not be very bursty because if 1 player can burst another in just a 1-2 seconds then when few people focus 1 he die in just miliseconds (no time for reaction at all). In lineage2 1v1 fight took "ages" assuming that both players have good gear, thats why the large scale pvp worked quite good, the PvP was more balanced around large amount of groups and their synergy.
2. Tanks should have very important role and should be the primary target not just avoided and ignored as in most cases it happens.
3. There have to be different mechanic for attacking, namely siege weapons and other war tools which has to be play controlled by players and even can be controlled with multiple players.
4. There have to be different defense siege weapons and tools in order to counter different attacking siege weapons, also controlled by players (in some cases multiple players).
5. There have to be some ways to sneak and use some small groups of people to distract the opponent and etc.
Gladly, you've pretty much described AoC's plans so we just gotta hope that they work out.
Let me try to answer your question.
1. In order for large scale battles to be good the damage from 1 play to another should not be very bursty because if 1 player can burst another in just a 1-2 seconds then when few people focus 1 he die in just miliseconds (no time for reaction at all). In lineage2 1v1 fight took "ages" assuming that both players have good gear, thats why the large scale pvp worked quite good, the PvP was more balanced around large amount of groups and their synergy.
2. Tanks should have very important role and should be the primary target not just avoided and ignored as in most cases it happens.
3. There have to be different mechanic for attacking, namely siege weapons and other war tools which has to be play controlled by players and even can be controlled with multiple players.
4. There have to be different defense siege weapons and tools in order to counter different attacking siege weapons, also controlled by players (in some cases multiple players).
5. There have to be some ways to sneak and use some small groups of people to distract the opponent and etc.
Gladly, you've pretty much described AoC's plans so we just gotta hope that they work out.
Yes, hopefully. I believe they have the potential and the capacity to make it very fun and engaging
0
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I'm curious, in L2, how much of an impact did leadership have in PvP?
.
Good leadership was pivotal for mass pvp.. the fights of 20 v 20+ up to several 100 v several hundred were highly tactical.
Good leadership required good political skills to make deals for alliances, end wars, create wars, stay neutral, agree to which guild or alliances might take over castles (which made a lot of coin), or throw a seige, back off from an open raid or be the one to do so.
But for group vs group, depended if grouped up for pvp or grouped up for pve and had an incidental pvp encounter.
1-2 v 1-2 pvp.. well that depended on your class.. if you were a healer - expect to be picked off first or last depending how well you are known for your skills.. tank.. might be just kited and left alone.. mage types hit way too hard but were glass cannons.. and archer types hit almost as hard but were agile!..
Longest pvp fight outside a seige, I think was something like 4-4 went for a full buff (20min) and was a cat and mouse chase over many regions of the map!
There were no illusions of which classes could fight and which could not.. there was no expectation by dwarves to do damage.. but all had key strategic roles in larger pvp and played their parts..
Hoping AoC allow the same to happen, and not design the game so every class can do as well at pvp.. some should be good at pvp. some should shine in other domains..
Also, hope that the politics play out similarly, whereby guilds that want to be pve only and/or neutral, can make alliances and friends, just like L2, and do their own thing separate in piece if need be.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I don't understand why Dygz keeps posting. I understand he's "interested" in the development due to some personal relationships, but why keep posting? You can just lurk instead of posting your same old opinion with nothing new to contribute in any thread that mentions Pvp. Your obviously not going to play, so imo your borderline trolling at this point.
LMAO
Why would I not post?
Especially when people continue to talk about me and misunderstand and misrepresent my perspective.
Thanks for proving my point by once again not contributing to the discussion. Trolling confirmed.
LMAO
Prior to you invoking my name on Nov 1 to complain about me contributing to PvP threads, I last posted in this thread on Oct 28.
But, you felt a need to ask why I'm still posting. And now complain that my response did not contribute to the PvP discussion.
If you invoke my name, you should expect that I'm likely to respond to that post.
So just from skimming through the comments, have we gone from discussing whether or not the goal of ashes is to be PvX into a argument over whether PvP or PvE is more difficult?
So just from skimming through the comments, have we gone from discussing whether or not the goal of ashes is to be PvX into a argument over whether PvP or PvE is more difficult?
Yeah, because the answer to the first question is that Intrepid look at what most of us consider to be PvP games (Archeage, L2, BDO et al) and see PvX instead.
If I played the economic game well and bought my gear, then grats to me for being great at making coin in an MMO - I am obviously better at it than you.
if you can buy the good gear, than thats ok
still there's no full loot drop, you are still compensating your lack of personal skills in pvp by spending the gold you farmed in your bot aspirancy
If I made some great friends and they just give me gear, then I am better at the social aspects of MMO's than you.
Thats the only point that is fair in your reply, if you manage getting stuff than you are a better scammer or got people backing you ip, which is fine....
Still not a PvPer... you are just hiding behind items instead of personal pvp skills
Being good at PvP makes other aspects of the game easier. Why shouldnt being good at other aspects of the game make PvP easier?
One thing has nothing to do with the other, you can try arena as much as you want and still be bad after years
but you can join parties for grinding dungeons and amass wealth
In the end of the day: if you run for gear for compensating your lack of skills in pvp it's just weaseling your way to victory and almost as ugly as cheating
@Noaani i'm not trying to be an ass to you or anything, I'm just offering anwers from a pvper point of view. This is how a sweaty pvper will see such arguments you brought
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
here @Noaani just to show you I wasnt trying to be unpolite or anything, but just to tell you the perspective of a sweaty pvpers who play with sweaty pvpers... Asmongold just said the same thing as me and he explained why:
Asmongold just did another reacto video about AoC and he talked about the problem about grinding for gear for pvp in mmos
The fundamental paradox about pvp in mmos is grind for gear for pvp, so you gotta relentlessly farm for gear so you can pvp in an optimal way... so the PvP guy will have to grind hundreds of hours for gear, which is sad, it's depressing someone who likes combat having to go through that
But the PvE carebear can skip all PvP and go for PvE only... sometimes he will get ganked, not that it matters it will change nothing in the long run for him....
Can you imagine forcing a carebear to pvp for hundreds of hours?
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
Noaani i'm not trying to be an ass to you or anything, I'm just offering anwers from a pvper point of view. This is how a sweaty pvper will see such arguments you brought
I was going to give you my typical smart arse answers, but rather than that, I'm going to reciprocate the above.
Things like killing mobs for gear, playing the economy and social aspects of the game - these are the things that separate an MMORPG from a lobby game.
If a PvP'er doesn't want to participate in these things, they should play a game that doesn't include them. This is no different to how if a PvE'er doesn't want to PvP, they should play a game without PvP.
I'm going to assume you are accepting of the notion of fair discussion.
Assuming this, if we agree that someone not willing to accept PvP should not play Ashes, then surely it stands to reason that someone not willing to accept other aspects of the game should also not play Ashes.
Am I missing something here, or is the above not 100% reasonable?
Noaani i'm not trying to be an ass to you or anything, I'm just offering anwers from a pvper point of view. This is how a sweaty pvper will see such arguments you brought
I was going to give you my typical smart arse answers, but rather than that, I'm going to reciprocate the above.
Things like killing mobs for gear, playing the economy and social aspects of the game - these are the things that separate an MMORPG from a lobby game.
If a PvP'er doesn't want to participate in these things, they should play a game that doesn't include them. This is no different to how if a PvE'er doesn't want to PvP, they should play a game without PvP.
I'm going to assume you are accepting of the notion of fair discussion.
Assuming this, if we agree that someone not willing to accept PvP should not play Ashes, then surely it stands to reason that someone not willing to accept other aspects of the game should also not play Ashes.
Am I missing something here, or is the above not 100% reasonable?
Here is the thing, let's say a carebear wants to become a fantastic craftsman, he will need a certain axe for cutting down some mythical trees
But this axe will only drop if he plays hundreds of hours in the PvP arena and this axe can't be bought, it is a soulbound axe
How do you think this craft-only carebear will feel?
Do you think that's fair to him?
That's the paradox in RPG MMOs these days, the game runs around building your character but companies hide the pvp gear behind pve grinds
That's what I liked about Guild Wars 2, I didnt run all quest chains in the open world and I am a level 80 because I played so much PvP that I became a level 80 in the open pve world. I think that's awesome... and in GW2 if in the open world I travel to an area that is for levels 12-16 the game will temporarily bring my character to level 16 so I can have a challenge
So in certain MMOs the carebears are weasiling their way to victory, they mindlessly farm and grind after gear, then they have gear for pvp even if they are bad pvpers
In WoW it's impossible killing the other guy due to unbalanced gear
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
Comments
I did not play FFXI so while I concede that the encounter your describing (the meter thing) is not a static exact same every time encounter like most raids, its still a script to me. It doesn't have the possibility to change tactics from fight to fight because its still programmed to do its thing. Its simply using a skill at less predictable intervals. Your example from my understanding would easily be solved by just setting up a stun order and rotating through it as the attack comes out. Easily accomplished by competent raiders. Correct me if I'm wrong.
It does however more closely resemble the dynamics of pvp in sense. You would have to choose to use your stun skill for the damage, or risk it not being up when you need it on your turn, instead of blindly following a rotation. For a pvp analogy, imagine a 5v5 skirmish in the open world. Most often, the groups are going to focus each other's healers. But sometimes, the other group is very good at peeling, or the healer is very tanky. So this tactic may not work and you lose. So you fight again, but instead you cc the healer and blow up a squishy to get a numbers advantage and let attrition set in and win. Or maybe you try to play defensively and bait someone into over-extending to get a quick kill or at least make the healer blow his big cooldowns, thus letting you secure a kill on the healer or a squishy. Or maybe you feint a charge to bait out cooldowns. Or maybe the healer makes a mistake and loses LoS because he ran behind a rock, so you capitalize elsewhere. The point is, your group is making tactical decisions in real time to counter the other group, while they should simultaneously being doing to the same to you. You might have a plan, but it's not scripted because any number of things could happen that require the plans to change. That is dynamic content to me.
In a PvX game, which is what I hope AoC is going to be, encounters like you describe and encounters like I described will be occurring concurrently, and that sounds fun as hell to me. Imagine a boss like you described that's being contested, and your group decides instead of countering the mega death move, you have your tank turn it into the other group and let it rip. That would be the type of gaming moment I would never forget.
Then according to this, you've just done the same thing and defined all PvE as static because it relies on ANY form of computer code at all.
Except that it doesn't have to. I have a question then.
Is a Chess playing computer 'static' whereas a chess playing human is 'dynamic'?
And if EITHER the human is 'static' or the computer 'dynamic', is it the nature of Chess that causes this?
I don't want to get really philosophical on you, but you literally defined the answer in a way where you just make it tautological. I normally don't engage after that, but you're new (to me) so I would just like to make sure I cover all bases before I form any opinions of your thought process.
Also yes, you are wrong about the encounter. Again, for many reasons, really, which would take a long time to explain. The question is if you are willing to START believing that before I spend 10 posts on it, or if you're just likely to go 'well that sounds easy and a competent raider can do it' every time until we get back to 'well it's impossible for a Computer Controlled Opponent to be dynamic anyway'.
Gnoles have an ability "Call of the Moon" which grants them "Intimidate" which has the potential to make most actions taken against them fail for a time. The user is intimidated and does not perform the action. Thereby creating a situation where you could attempt to Stun it and just... fail.
Post Counter: 1.
That is literally my point, PVE encounters are by definition static because they can only operate within what they are programmed to do. The raid boss isn't coming out to fight you when half your group isn't there. It doesn't magically learn new abilities, or find a way to target bigger threats than the tank unless it was programmed to do so. Its not learning or doing something new. Its just doing the same things at different intervals. You claim I'm being tautological: here's the definition of dynamic (#3) for you:
And here is Variable (#1):
I am not being tautological. I keep explaining why PVE is static. You are just failing to understand why variable and dynamic are different.
Back to the encounter you described, maybe you should make a thread explaining it because you seem to think its this god tier encounter or something, but I bet thousands of average gamers have cleared it so that would likely indicate it isn't. The wiki literally states that with the right comp it's easily duoable. And again, this is a variable not dynamic encounter. Did either of the mobs ever do anything beside what's listed on their wiki? We both know the answer is no.
Look if you want to be done with me fine, that's on you. I for one can enjoy and possibly learn from a conversation with someone with a dissenting opinion. If you can't that's on you. Most people don't like to admit they're wrong so yeah I get why you wouldn't want to continue.
I am willing to continue if you are. But as it stands, it seems that you have decided that 'anything that doesn't adapt is only variable'. And I don't want to presume, so please tell me. Is anything that can only adapt within a certain parameter space, because it has a limited number of abilities TOTAL, also not dynamic? Because I perceive player groups to also have this limited number of total abilities.
I want to continue this without insulting you, I will ask you to try to do the same. Therefore I also ask that despite this next line PROBABLY seeming like an intention to insult you, you try to look past that because tiptoeing around it takes SO long.
I find that many 'good Raiders' have this concept that 'just bring enough CC so that the boss can't do anything dangerous' is the correct design space to be in. People seem to enjoy 'well, it poses a danger we can't adapt to other than locking it down, so LOCK IT DOWN'.
But please understand that from my perspective 'Hard PvE' would involve things you can't just lock down. Things that GET to be Dynamic and adapt. Players just don't LIKE this because they have to keep up. I offer you two counterpoints to the ENCOUNTER part of this therefore.
1. Note that I said the METER does not go away. Some bosses are 'nice' and don't 'immediately retry'. Harder ones are NOT nice. You stun ability A, they can try it again almost instantly. At SOME point you must run out of stuns.
2. Just making ANY boss stun-immune would prevent this. Now, if your response is 'well that's not good design', we can definitely stop. I prefer games where I have to actually deal with the compound abilities and progressions of bosses. IF you don't appreciate that gameplay type, I can see why you hold the opinion you hold.
There ARE FFXI bosses and enemies that EXPLICITLY adapt to what players are doing, what the players have done, how many players are present, etc. But if 'adapting based on changing battle conditions' is not enough to be 'Dynamic', only 'Variable' (due to a limited number of abilities that can be used for the adaptation) then wouldn't PvP also be just 'variable'?
The only thing I know Bosses don't really do is 'take actions that could only result in them losing' on purpose. To me, this is the difference between humans and Bosses. Bosses don't usually have the ability to just FUCK UP SO ROYALLY that the opponents are left dazed and confused and then get sucker-punched (or not).
But even that, I have experienced, so...
So, this comment (and your previous post) tells me a few things about you.
It tells me that you may well have killed content like the Kraken or Red Dragon fairly early in Archeage. It also tells me you are aware of raid content in some games that is popular with streamers.
The other thing it tells me is that you are only aware of the above two types of raid content - that which uses PvP for difficulty, and that which uses scripts for difficulty.
Your comments outright twll me that you are unaware of content that uses chaos as its means of delivering difficulty.
These are encounters where there aren't single major mechanics players need to worry about, but rather 20 or 30 smaller mechanics, all going off together, but in different combinations. This means that you can never just muscle memory your way through this content, or have a static plan to take it on. Everyone in the raid needs to be able to look at what is going on, and make split second decisions as to what they need to do.
Using your own definition of variable, these encounters are FAR more inconsistent than PvP, and since you are having to continually change your plans during an encounter (not that you are planning more than a few seconds ahead), it perfectly fits your definition of dynamic, as well.
These encounters are far more dynamic than any PvP in any MMO - yet as far as I can tell it is a content type you are unaware even exists.
I mean, in PvP you can generally make assumptions as to what players will do -95% of the time they will do the same thing you would do if you were in their situation.
To me, this makes PvP predictable, not dynamic.
Yes.
If this is at me, I don't like to make those sorts of distinctions BUT.
If the PvE is garbage and just there to give people something to do when not fighting each other so that they can get gear, I would consider it a PvP game.
If the PvE is scripted to the point where you know what will happen if PvP happens during it, I also consider it a PvP game.
If anything, I'm arguing that Intrepid has said 'Ashes will not be a PvP game' using those definitions. They talk about a lot of things that I'm used to. What I consistently learn is that EITHER Intrepid doesn't know what hard PvE is either and lots of people will agree with what they make as a result OR a lot of people don't know what hard PvE is so the descriptions Intrepid gives, don't actually give them any understanding of the intention.
For example:
"Your really over thinking this. The raid boss can't change it's tactics in real time from fight to fight. It can't even change its tactics mid fight. It's not AI. Humans can. The humans are dynamic. If raid bosses were AI, you'd have a point."
This has multiple flaws.
1. Raid bosses can be AI, if they aren't, that's a choice someone made.
2. Dynamic AI is one of the EASIER things to code into game encounters because of HOW exactly AI actually works.
3. Bosses can change tactics in real time, and many can and do change tactics mid-fight.
The result, though, is someone possibly not understanding at all what Intrepid might be trying to make.
So it's PvP to me if that person is correct and I'm the one that's wrong about the way it will be implemented. But I choose to trust Steven's terms when viewed through the lens of having played games like this already. So it can still be a PvX game, if some VERY difficult and complex (for players, not developers) systems are used.
tl;dr getting into PvP while fighting a scripted boss doesn't count as PvX at the same LEVEL as 'getting into PvP separately but also being challenged by 'variable' bosses in PvE. The former puts all the content load on PvP, the latter does not, and therefore I think it is more accurately 'PvX'.
Having thought about it and carefully reread @Calibix responses, I guess I'll go with 'I'm unable to admit I'm wrong' or whatever.
Too many signs of 'just trying to pick at details instead of trying to understand the point being made', possible ignorance of how AI even works, and 'willing to consider PvP to be dynamic but PvE not, even if mobs have MORE abilities than any player' without even factoring the AI.
Just not worth it today...
Becoming less and less worth it lately in general.
-Teach me where the gatherers are and how much armor they have
If AoC's PvP is a somewhat dependant on gear, then PvPers will have to do some grind for gear or buy gear if the gear isn't account bound. If that is the case then PvPers will have to be more PvX so they get better stuff if it's account bound or soul bound
Why shouldnt gear make a big difference?
If I have better gear than you, it is because I am better at a specific aspect of the game than you.
If I killed stuff and got good gear from it, then I am clearly better at that than you - if i have better gear than you.
If I played the economic game well and bought my gear, then grats to me for being great at making coin in an MMO - I am obviously better at it than you.
If I made some great friends and they just give me gear, then I am better at the social aspects of MMO's than you.
Being good at PvP makes other aspects of the game easier. Why shouldnt being good at other aspects of the game make PvP easier?
Do you have a quote with me saying your idea was bad design? I'd like you to share it or reference it please.
Only thing i can think of is the back and forth of me saying chaotic is not well designed and if I recall you pulled back from the discussion. You need to understand my viewpoint of what chaotic is, else if you don't understand my viewpoint on it with how I view what equals to chaotic, while arguing your own view point it will get nowhere.
You need to understand and have a dialogue with me on my viewpoint on it on what i deem chaotic and how. If you assume my meaning, we aren't going to be able to come to an understanding with each other to debates the details on what is or isn't acceptable design wise.
I'm open and not difficult if you want to have a fair discussion, but you need to be opening seeing how I see things as well, then you can pick things apart if it doesn't match.
Which is best done through actual examples on what is too light, what is too extreme, and the in-between.
Yes totally agree with this, as i said i never seen a large scale pvp done right in an MMO so far because its hard to balance the game around it.
Yes thats true, FF14 have some randomized mechanics also Lost ark too, but still for me once i learn all the possible mechanics it all comes down to proper execution and for me what makes a fight engaging and fun in the long run is how hard is to execute this mechanics not how hard is it to learn them. Ofcourse the most fun part atleast for me is the learning proccess thats why i always go blind in new encounters.
Well , we all have our own experiences i guess we can agree to disagree ...
Which are? I am playing mmos since 2002 and i have played quite a substantional number of different mmos, In all of them which i have played the stated above was aways the case for me, once i learn the mechanics and finish the encounter once it becomes much easier to do iit again and again.
it is true. there much more stuff to learn in PvP usually then PvE.
Yep.
Totally agree with you here. The state is not very trilling and i share your hope.
I'm curious, in L2, how much of an impact did leadership have in PvP?
In Archeage, leadership was more important than numbers - up to a point (having 25% less than the opposition but a better leader would make for a fair fight). However, this was only the case in that games set pieces, sieges, MM, Halcy, some raids, lusca etc. In open PvP without a goal other than just PvP, leadership didn't really matter.
And from my own experience as a GL and my guildmates' feedback to it, we had much bigger successes and the feedback was way more positive when I concentrated on my commands and tried to strategize correct movements on the battlefield rather than when I was just trying to lead everyone at the front of the pack.
And the same applies to each party too. A good PL can make a party of even mid-skill players much more effective than a shitty PL who's at conflict with his highly skilled partymates. Though on the party lvl it's usually even more about personal respect and skill lvl difference. You GL might be a shitty mechanical player or low lvl, but his strategical and tactical decisions win the battle, but if your PL is either of those things - all the egos would just clash against each other and the PL wouldn't be able to control anyone properly.
And if the GL somehow manages to both be the top lvl in the guild, the most level-headed person and also great at mass pvp control - you've got yourself a dude who'll be followed by hundreds of people w/o a question. I've only really heard about such GLs through second-hand experiences.
L2 had a good fundation and it was definitelly great for its time and thats mainly because the PvP was more balanced around large scale battles than small scale battles, so i agree with you on this. Excuse me i didnt worded my self correctly, I never seen a large scale battles done right in a more modern MMOs, mainly because the PvP is balanced around Small scale instanced PvP than large scale PvP. Eso and Gw2 have large scale battles and i dont find them very engaging. Unfortunately i didn't had the opportunity to see how they work in Archeage and BDO.
Let me try to answer your question.
1. In order for large scale battles to be good the damage from 1 play to another should not be very bursty because if 1 player can burst another in just a 1-2 seconds then when few people focus 1 he die in just miliseconds (no time for reaction at all). In lineage2 1v1 fight took "ages" assuming that both players have good gear, thats why the large scale pvp worked quite good, the PvP was more balanced around large amount of groups and their synergy.
2. Tanks should have very important role and should be the primary target not just avoided and ignored as in most cases it happens.
3. There have to be different mechanic for attacking, namely siege weapons and other war tools which has to be player controlled and even can be controlled with multiple players.
4. There have to be different defense siege weapons and tools in order to counter different attacking siege weapons, also controlled by players (in some cases multiple players).
5. There have to be some ways to sneak and use some small groups of people to distract the opponent and etc.
In general there should be more tools to organize different strategy and tactical outplays, than just sitting in a zerg and moving together as it is in GW2 and ESO for example.
Of course thats just my subjective opinion on the topic.
Yes, hopefully. I believe they have the potential and the capacity to make it very fun and engaging
Good leadership was pivotal for mass pvp.. the fights of 20 v 20+ up to several 100 v several hundred were highly tactical.
Good leadership required good political skills to make deals for alliances, end wars, create wars, stay neutral, agree to which guild or alliances might take over castles (which made a lot of coin), or throw a seige, back off from an open raid or be the one to do so.
But for group vs group, depended if grouped up for pvp or grouped up for pve and had an incidental pvp encounter.
1-2 v 1-2 pvp.. well that depended on your class.. if you were a healer - expect to be picked off first or last depending how well you are known for your skills.. tank.. might be just kited and left alone.. mage types hit way too hard but were glass cannons.. and archer types hit almost as hard but were agile!..
Longest pvp fight outside a seige, I think was something like 4-4 went for a full buff (20min) and was a cat and mouse chase over many regions of the map!
There were no illusions of which classes could fight and which could not.. there was no expectation by dwarves to do damage.. but all had key strategic roles in larger pvp and played their parts..
Hoping AoC allow the same to happen, and not design the game so every class can do as well at pvp.. some should be good at pvp. some should shine in other domains..
Also, hope that the politics play out similarly, whereby guilds that want to be pve only and/or neutral, can make alliances and friends, just like L2, and do their own thing separate in piece if need be.
Prior to you invoking my name on Nov 1 to complain about me contributing to PvP threads, I last posted in this thread on Oct 28.
But, you felt a need to ask why I'm still posting. And now complain that my response did not contribute to the PvP discussion.
If you invoke my name, you should expect that I'm likely to respond to that post.
Yeah, because the answer to the first question is that Intrepid look at what most of us consider to be PvP games (Archeage, L2, BDO et al) and see PvX instead.
No, that would make you a bot aspirant who farmed gear for hundreds of hours for compensating your lack of skills or real life
You are just a carebear farming gear, completely unskilled in pvp, hiding behind a system that offers no loot drops from your corpse
in other words, you are just bad and is using the system to grief people through gear, people who didnt farm pve for hundreds of hours
if you can buy the good gear, than thats ok
still there's no full loot drop, you are still compensating your lack of personal skills in pvp by spending the gold you farmed in your bot aspirancy
Thats the only point that is fair in your reply, if you manage getting stuff than you are a better scammer or got people backing you ip, which is fine....
Still not a PvPer... you are just hiding behind items instead of personal pvp skills
One thing has nothing to do with the other, you can try arena as much as you want and still be bad after years
but you can join parties for grinding dungeons and amass wealth
In the end of the day: if you run for gear for compensating your lack of skills in pvp it's just weaseling your way to victory and almost as ugly as cheating
@Noaani i'm not trying to be an ass to you or anything, I'm just offering anwers from a pvper point of view. This is how a sweaty pvper will see such arguments you brought
Asmongold just did another reacto video about AoC and he talked about the problem about grinding for gear for pvp in mmos
The fundamental paradox about pvp in mmos is grind for gear for pvp, so you gotta relentlessly farm for gear so you can pvp in an optimal way... so the PvP guy will have to grind hundreds of hours for gear, which is sad, it's depressing someone who likes combat having to go through that
But the PvE carebear can skip all PvP and go for PvE only... sometimes he will get ganked, not that it matters it will change nothing in the long run for him....
Can you imagine forcing a carebear to pvp for hundreds of hours?
I was going to give you my typical smart arse answers, but rather than that, I'm going to reciprocate the above.
Things like killing mobs for gear, playing the economy and social aspects of the game - these are the things that separate an MMORPG from a lobby game.
If a PvP'er doesn't want to participate in these things, they should play a game that doesn't include them. This is no different to how if a PvE'er doesn't want to PvP, they should play a game without PvP.
I'm going to assume you are accepting of the notion of fair discussion.
Assuming this, if we agree that someone not willing to accept PvP should not play Ashes, then surely it stands to reason that someone not willing to accept other aspects of the game should also not play Ashes.
Am I missing something here, or is the above not 100% reasonable?
I don't like how he looks.
Here is the thing, let's say a carebear wants to become a fantastic craftsman, he will need a certain axe for cutting down some mythical trees
But this axe will only drop if he plays hundreds of hours in the PvP arena and this axe can't be bought, it is a soulbound axe
How do you think this craft-only carebear will feel?
Do you think that's fair to him?
That's the paradox in RPG MMOs these days, the game runs around building your character but companies hide the pvp gear behind pve grinds
That's what I liked about Guild Wars 2, I didnt run all quest chains in the open world and I am a level 80 because I played so much PvP that I became a level 80 in the open pve world. I think that's awesome... and in GW2 if in the open world I travel to an area that is for levels 12-16 the game will temporarily bring my character to level 16 so I can have a challenge
So in certain MMOs the carebears are weasiling their way to victory, they mindlessly farm and grind after gear, then they have gear for pvp even if they are bad pvpers
In WoW it's impossible killing the other guy due to unbalanced gear