Loot is pve. Gathering is pve. Crafting isn't pvp either. Who wins the pvp will be based on who has the better pve supply chain. Perhaps one guild will yolo but be unable to maintain the equipment, thus, back to pve. Caravans are opt in - another pve priority because it can be ignored.
Node castles won't just be held by pvp players but the best coordinated - again, top pve raids will have some of the best coordination. Then you have the bounty hunters - avenging the pve focused. Then we have the guild wars - based around pve requirements like grind spots, open world dungeons and node rivalry.
Again though, all of that stands on "who can win the pvp for loot". You won't be able to craft any gear if you lose the pvp for the mobs that provide the mats. And w/o gear you would then be unable to do a ton of other shit.
This is the whole point of calling the game pvx. Yes, pve will have to be done as well, but majority of your actions in the game can and will be surrounded by pvp. This is why I dislike when Noaani or Dygz argue that Ashes is a pvp game rather than a pvx one. And you're supporting their side, but I'm almost sure that they'd disagree with your reasoning
I think 9% of the player base or less will have the unique legendaries on each server. Then you have the gatherers from those same guilds deciding whether to sell the resources or hoard the resources. Crafted legendaries might be equal to a unique legendary but you would have to craft them first.
There are statements that pvp players have to pve but so too do pvers have to pvp. I think it is highly unlikely a pvp focused guild will be able to conquer anything without the support of pve players. Alliances exist for a reason. I can't imagine a pvp focused guild to be in the 9% bracket but then I've played too many pvp servers to know the pvp players prefer to lock down locations than farm said locations.
There are statements that pvp players have to pve but so too do pvers have to pvp. I think it is highly unlikely a pvp focused guild will be able to conquer anything without the support of pve players. Alliances exist for a reason. I can't imagine a pvp focused guild to be in the 9% bracket but then I've played too many pvp servers to know the pvp players prefer to lock down locations than farm said locations.
We don't know how truly difficult the pve will be. Unless it's somehow super difficult, I doubt that pvpers couldn't just kill a few mobs.
Maybe it's my L2 bias, but to me there's literally no separation between a pvper and a pvers. You just fucking fight what's in front of you. And L2's mobs were way less difficult than players, so it was way easier to fight those until you got a player to kill, so I'd assume that even if mobs are somehow as difficult as players - pvpers will be able to just farm stuff w/o issues.
The pve/pvp separation mostly came from games where pve was either instanced or did enough damage that any enemy player attack on top of it would lead to you dying. And as much as Steven's promising to keep the pve hardcore and all that, I somehow doubt that super hardcore open world pve would fly these days. Especially in the context of owpvp.
In other words, I just don't think that pve will be difficult enough to not farm if you're a pvper. And if the current pvp population can't fathom touching a mob - well then, that's a shame and I guess I'll be the one winning, cause I'll be both farming and pvping for my farm
It's been said we will need different armour for different challenges. Raid guilds might turn up with 900 people from an alliance. The fights would be better than a node/Castle seige. While 860 cover the entrance, 40 might farm inside. If domination can't be maintained then it would simply be a pvp battle between two alliances.
I'm not certain about the effectiveness of the guild buffs either. Three 40 man guilds in Alliance might be formidable and still be able to farm. My own guild is both pve and pvp focused. In the end, we will either fight to protect a dungeon or partake in the dungeon but we won't classify ourselves as anything but pvx.
It's not the case of a pvp player being unwilling to partake, its a matter of gear and whether these players are attuned to specific fights. Without doubt the same people will be formidable in pvp just because of the pve obtainment. Anyone can rise to 9% but I feel the fastest and most competent will rule.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Yeah im not saying 100% of the systems are the same- but they can have a small percentage of the same systems and still be different genres.
They could have a large part of the same systems. Just as Fantasy could share a large portion of tropes and writing systems with Sci-Fi and be a separate literary genre. You could also have a hybrid Sci-Fi/Fantasy book.
If what I want to read is a pure Fantasy Book and people add in robots and cell phones, I'm going to say that is Sci-Fi/Fantasy; not Fantasy. And it's not the book I want to read.
Tons of other people might have fun reading it, but that doesn't mean it's a Fantasy book. It's a Sci-Fi/Fantasy book.
The same system can be implemented 1:1 but they will still have a different result based on how that same exact system interacts with surrounding systems
Again, here you seem to be trying to argue that a kickball field can be exactly the same field as a baseball field. Which goes without saying. We agree.
But, I don't agree that the tanking design for an FPS will be the same as it is for an RPG.
Just as I wouldn't agree that the ball designed for playing soccer will be the same design as the ball used for playing baseball.
This is kind of what im getting at because if you always look at that from the perspective of "here is the same system in 2 different genres, they are actually different because they are in a different context, so we don't want to make any comparisons with that system", that is foolish rather than saying "this is the same exact system within a different context, so I wonder how would it interact when placed within a different context, that is more in line with what we want to evaluate". Im not saying you do that, I don't know, but just in case you do based on some comments I may have misinterpreted, that is what I am trying to touch on.
It's not going to be the same system design. That's my point. Just as it's not going to be the same ball design.
The balls will have some similar characteristics but be significantly different.
Im just saying to label your idea of what you enjoy as "the difinitive mmorpg experience" is kind of subjective. Again..not saying you do that, I don't know, but just in case you do based on some comments I may have misinterpreted, that is what I am trying to touch on.
I don't label my idea of what I enjoy as the definitive MMORPG experience - because MMORPGs should support many different playstyles. But when a game labeled MMORPG has mechanics that preclude RPing... like Diablo... that is no longer really an RPG, despite having a bunch of other RPG elements.
In any genre, there is a line of compromise that, when crossed, becomes some other animal. Of course, even in Biology; scientists don't always agree on taxonomy lines.
It really doesn't matter who agrees with me that the line has been crossed.
What matters is that people understand what I'm saying when I say that line has been crossed for me.
Is Pluto a planet?
Labels are subjective in any case.
I'm going to tell you that Fanta Orange is not a Coke.
Even Pepsi is not a Coke.
But, in some parts of the US, when you ask for a Coke, the other person will ask, "What kind of coke? Pepsi? Fanta? Sprite?"
So, yeah, even when I say that Fanta is not a Coke. There will be many people who will respond that Fanta is a coke.
I am fully aware that a large portion of MMORPG gamers don't care about the RPG aspects - all they care about are the MMO aspects. And a very significant portion of Ashes fans only carre that it's an Open World PvP MMO with no P2W. That is not news to me.
MechWarrior II
Zork: Grand Inquisitor
Dark Reign
Heavy Gear II (w/ David Georgeson)
Interstate '82
Tony Hawk
Vampire: The Masquerade
Call of Duty
etc...
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Maybe it's my L2 bias, but to me there's literally no separation between a pvper and a pvers. You just fucking fight what's in front of you. And L2's mobs were way less difficult than players, so it was way easier to fight those until you got a player to kill, so I'd assume that even if mobs are somehow as difficult as players - pvpers will be able to just farm stuff w/o issues.
(No separation because they were really just all PvPers.)
(No separation because they were really just all PvPers.)
If it's about the attitude towards the games you play (cause it's surely not about the content), then every Ashes player will also be considered a pvp player then. And it would definitely make sense if you won't play Ashes then.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited January 2023
Exactly. Pretty much it will just be PvPers playing Ashes. Yes.
I think it's never about the content because most MMORPGs have servers that all of the same content - where
the server differences are the PvP-flagging (or RP) rules.
I think 9% of the player base or less will have the unique legendaries on each server. Then you have the gatherers from those same guilds deciding whether to sell the resources or hoard the resources. Crafted legendaries might be equal to a unique legendary but you would have to craft them first.
There are statements that pvp players have to pve but so too do pvers have to pvp. I think it is highly unlikely a pvp focused guild will be able to conquer anything without the support of pve players. Alliances exist for a reason. I can't imagine a pvp focused guild to be in the 9% bracket but then I've played too many pvp servers to know the pvp players prefer to lock down locations than farm said locations.
Right now, today, in Ashes, no one has anything.
When the game goes live, the people that get ahead will be those that win at PvP.
It's fine to say that when the game is 6 months old, people need to do PvE to get gear. The problem is, in order to get themselves in to a place where they are able to PvE to get gear, people had to have already PvP'd.
Since we all start out with nothing, the people that end up being able to PvE at the top end are the people that come out of the gate in PvP mode.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited January 2023
Well, Ashes is a PvX game... which just means the PvPers will have to do some PvE to progress their Adventurer levels and Nodes.
PvEers will be playing some other games.
They could have a large part of the same systems. Just as Fantasy could share a large portion of tropes and writing systems with Sci-Fi and be a separate literary genre. You could also have a hybrid Sci-Fi/Fantasy book.
If what I want to read is a pure Fantasy Book and people add in robots and cell phones, I'm going to say that is Sci-Fi/Fantasy; not Fantasy. And it's not the book I want to read.
Tons of other people might have fun reading it, but that doesn't mean it's a Fantasy book. It's a Sci-Fi/Fantasy book.
Ok I agree on that
I mean if systems are 100% the same, they have to be the same genre. That's what 100% means.
Gotchya, when I was using the 100% I meant a system in isolation, not within a different context, so we agree that contextually it would change and not be 100% the same then- so yeah I agree.
Again, here you seem to be trying to argue that a kickball field can be exactly the same field as a baseball field. Which goes without saying. We agree.
But, I don't agree that the tanking design for an FPS will be the same as it is for an RPG.
Just as I wouldn't agree that the ball designed for playing soccer will be the same design as the ball used for playing baseball
Ok I have a clearer picture of what you are communicating- yeah I agree
It's not going to be the same system design. That's my point. Just as it's not going to be the same ball design.
The balls will have some similar characteristics but be significantly different.
Okay when I put this into context of what you are saying about things not being 100% the same- yeah I agree within that sport analogy.
I don't label my idea of what I enjoy as the definitive MMORPG experience - because MMORPGs should support many different playstyles. But when a game labeled MMORPG has mechanics that preclude RPing... like Diablo... that is no longer really an RPG, despite having a bunch of other RPG elements.
In any genre, there is a line of compromise that, when crossed, becomes some other animal. Of course, even in Biology; scientists don't always agree on taxonomy lines.
It really doesn't matter who agrees with me that the line has been crossed.
What matters is that people understand what I'm saying when I say that line has been crossed for me.
Is Pluto a planet?
Labels are subjective in any case.
I'm going to tell you that Fanta Orange is not a Coke.
Even Pepsi is not a Coke.
But, in some parts of the US, when you ask for Coke, the other person will ask, "What kind of coke? Pepsi? Fanta? Sprite?"
So, yeah, even when I say that Fanta is not a Coke. There will be many people who will respond that Fanta is a coke.
Yep you hit the nail on the head 100% agree
MechWarrior II
Zork: Grand Inquisitor
Dark Reign
Heavy Gear II (w/ David Georgeson)
Interstate '82
Tony Hawk
Vampire: The Masquerade
Call of Duty
etc...
I think 9% of the player base or less will have the unique legendaries on each server. Then you have the gatherers from those same guilds deciding whether to sell the resources or hoard the resources. Crafted legendaries might be equal to a unique legendary but you would have to craft them first.
There are statements that pvp players have to pve but so too do pvers have to pvp. I think it is highly unlikely a pvp focused guild will be able to conquer anything without the support of pve players. Alliances exist for a reason. I can't imagine a pvp focused guild to be in the 9% bracket but then I've played too many pvp servers to know the pvp players prefer to lock down locations than farm said locations.
Right now, today, in Ashes, no one has anything.
When the game goes live, the people that get ahead will be those that win at PvP.
It's fine to say that when the game is 6 months old, people need to do PvE to get gear. The problem is, in order to get themselves in to a place where they are able to PvE to get gear, people had to have already PvP'd.
Since we all start out with nothing, the people that end up being able to PvE at the top end are the people that come out of the gate in PvP mode.
I disagree. Those who get ahead will be those who give others corruption, those who flee pvp and those who are in levelling groups. There is no incentive to pvp at all. Nothing is affected if you don't pvp. You don't drop armour and the death penalty is like a pve death. Thus, even as a pvp player I won't waste time with pvp unless there are no other options but to pvp. In most cases, there are more reasons not to pvp.
I have spent a lot of time just pvping without end in many games. It all slows down reaching max level and I don't plan to do that in ashes. My twink will be the pvp without end but my main has other concerns. Most of the time toons will be with node affiliates so no pvp there. Other times you would go into riskier areas and again can avoid pvp if wanted. Then you have the open dungeons when you might pvp but it would be group vs group and for a specific purpose. The main thrust will be reaching max level so I can settle into non-levelling routines. No one waits 6 months to improve gear in a pvp game unless you have to grind pvp levels for pvp armour.
Well, Ashes is a PvX game... which just means the PvPers will have to do some PvE to progress their Adventurer levels and Nodes.
PvEers will be playing some other games.
Everything a developer does to make the trinity system work better for PvP means that it works worse for PvE.
I'm really intriged on why you believe that, can you elaborate on it or provide an example?
Gonna take a guess and say one reason would be because he's unable to think out of the box and is confined to specific unchanging parameters...such as the approach to PVE combat.
You realize that my response to the post you are "taking a guess" on what my answer would be was posted half an hour before your "guess" as to what my response would be, right?
I go out of my way on these forums to be fairly vague. The reason for this is people like you (there are about a dozen or so people that are like this).
Such people are so adamant to be against what ever it is that I say that no matter how reasonable an opinion I hold on a matter, they feel an absolute need to oppose it. I can state an outright fact (such as combining PvP and PvE requiring compromises in both areas) and they will argue against that blatant fact.
Honestly, ask Steven in the next QA if combining PvE and PvP together involves compromises. He will give some PR answer about how they are trying to lessen those compromises, but of course there will have to be some, there will always have to be some.
Then when he has said that, be absolutely sure to come back and apologize for being a dick.
A response of saying you feel no need to elaborate is not a response. What was it you told the guy from UK? If you cant provide an example you shouldn't be part of the conversation, was it? But this doesnt apply to you? Oh ok. And I'm the dick? Just read most of your posts and I think most people can figure out who the dick is. You still are unable think out of the box, and that's a problem for progress.
What was it you told the guy from UK? If you cant provide an example you shouldn't be part of the conversation, was it?
No, I said that if he needed an example, he wasn't equipped for the discussion.
I mean, if you are going to attempt to throw someone's own words back at them, at least take a second to read those words, and perhaps even try to understand them.
Talk about PvX being a marketting tool again, the mmorpg scene going through the "compromised crisis" is a bit of a broken record now...
Again, talk to anyone involved in making an MMORPG that has both PvP and PvE aspects (or ask Steven), they will tell you that there will always be compromises between the two.
It's fine if you dont believe me. I actually encourage people to not believe anyone. However, instead of simply assuming the opposite is true, go out and look in to it yourself. Come to your own conclusion.
Now, if you dont want to do this either, that is also fine. However, now you need to admit that you have no idea if there are compromises, rather than being sure there aren't.
What was it you told the guy from UK? If you cant provide an example you shouldn't be part of the conversation, was it?
No, I said that if he needed an example, he wasn't equipped for the discussion.
I mean, if you are going to attempt to throw someone's own words back at them, at least take a second to read those words, and perhaps even try to understand them.
What do you think happens when you tell someone to get back to you when they grow a brain? Are you wanting them to stick around?
The guy could be asking you for an example because he wishes to tear your example to shreds, and demonstrate how wrong you are, since youre so polite to everyone....
Well, Ashes is a PvX game... which just means the PvPers will have to do some PvE to progress their Adventurer levels and Nodes.
PvEers will be playing some other games.
Well, Ashes is a PvX game... which just means the PvPers will have to do some PvE to progress their Adventurer levels and Nodes.
PvEers will be playing some other games.
It's gonna be sad if it turns out that way
PvP-ers will play other games too.
The closer they get to a release, the more players will be able to say they don't like something.
Influencers will amplify their voice and fighting against them is hard. Keeping all the details secret and under NDA until the launch is a better strategy.
September 12. 2022: Being naked can also be used to bring a skilled artisan to different freeholds... Don't summon family!
What do you think happens when you tell someone to get back to you when they grow a brain? Are you wanting them to stick around?
Dont know, I have never said this to anyone.
The guy could be asking you for an example because he wishes to tear your example to shreds, and demonstrate how wrong you are, since youre so polite to everyone....
I mean, it is possible that was their plan. If so, they should be thanking me.
.
There are two reasons for this.
The first reason is that my comment is just a fact. It isnt an opinion, just a fact. Attempting to argue against is kind of like flat earthers arguing against the fact that the earth is a globe.
The second reason they should be thanking me if the above was their plan is because you cant disprove my statement via me giving examples. If I am going to give examples (as I did, to the right person, for the right reason), those examples are going to be of times developers have made that compromise.
If the person in question thought they could disprove examples when those examples are literally developers saying "sorry PvE players, we have to make this change for PvP", then they probably shouldnt be a part of any discussion.
My statement is - essentially - "a game with both PvP and PvE will have compromises to either one or both", the only example to disprove this statement is to.provide an example.of a game where there is no compromise in either PvP or PvE. Basically, when someone says "all these things do this", you can only disprove that statement by finding one of those things that doesnt do the thing. Asking them to provide evidence of those things doing the thing isnt going to prove or disprove anything.
The reason I didnt ask for others to give examples is simply because I know none exist. However, if you really want to prove me wrong, all you need to do is point to a game where there are no compromises between PvP and PvE.
I'm not suggesting you try, because again, it doesnt exist.
Impossible for the likes of Noaani to stay on topic.
I was hoping this thread would be closed ages ago like I requested as the real essence of my discussion point was lost or over written by Noaani and co's persistantly one sided/"fact" mmorpg arguements.
FYI you can tell if someone is actually smart by how willing they are to take other peoples views on board and bring up examples and formulate ideas, it's a rather exciting prospect and they enjoy getting their ideas across. What I said last sentence ago is not a fact and there are going to be a few irregularities, additionally a smart person will not be keen to label something as a fact unless the tech/biological/math science fields have infinitevly concluded it to be so, as they are very open and excited by new possibilities.
It's still a mistake to really discuss on these forums with the amount of prior mmorpg addicts present still and it's a shame and very sad that they can't help but dwell in these forums, they likely feel very safe and not attacked as a huge number of people can't be arsed to reply to their extremely long paragraphs and would likely be demoralised or destroyed in a viewpoint on the likes of discord. I only type long or many paragraphs when absolutely necessary, indepth explaning my views and stance with a varied amount of examples.
Anyway, waiting for the retort, I'm depressed that I even have to make these kinds of post instead of debunking gameplay aspects with people.
I still don't consider the game to use the trinity. It is and has always been a square. The main hurdle is the fact we've never seen bard yet.
Buffing players and nerfing npc's stats is not a direct aid to interactive gameplay unless they are timely and very short duration. It does give certain men a cheap thrill about how big their damage numbers can be but there can be much better applications of this class.
I want tank to be a wall between their mates and the incoming damage.
If all ranged attacks are projectile-based, the tank should be able to stand between the attacker and the victim and stop the projectile.
The tank should have a "switch target" ability where the tank shield slams into one of its mates (pushing them aside, cause we got inertia and body collision) and change their melee attacker's target to the tank.
The "wallness" of the tank should come in the form of different buffs (against melees, creatures, magic and arrows) and tank should also have counterdebuffs to those, so that every party would want to have a tank, so that they could counter "the enemy wall".
The threat would be generated by blocking mob attacks with your wall. This makes sense both in pvp and in pve. If all/most of your attacks are getting blocked by something - you'd obviously want to remove that obstacle.
And different classes would obviously specialize the tank in different types of gameplay:
tank/tank would obviously just be a thicker wall
tank/warrior could have retaliation mechanics (so a dps in a way)
tank/rogue could have a debuffs and CC lean, so their protection weakens the attacker
tank/ranger could have heightened mobility and a parry mechanic (that could synergize with other classes to boost dps)
tank/mage could have deeper mana gameplay (remove enemy mana on a protected attack; restore mana on the defended mate; move hp/mp around with abilities so that you have higher ability output or a thicker wall; etc)
tank/summoner could have a widespread wall, that siphons damage onto him, so he can protect more mates at the same time but takes way more damage in the process
tank/bard could buff the protected mates with def/dps stuff, but the wall itself would be thinner
tank/cleric would obviously hold his own hp longer and support the defended mate. As a counter balance this would probably require high mana consumption
This is what I would prefer, as a tank main. A super active gameplay that requires me to pay constant attention to the entire battlefield and each one of my partymates, instead of just yelling curses at a mob or getting kited by players while I try to CC them.
Impossible for the likes of Noaani to stay on topic.
I mean, if I make a basic comment like "there is always compromise when PvP and PvE are in a game together" and people are going to attempt to argue the point, I am OBVIOUSLY going to back myself up.
The point itself isnt central to the discussion in the topic, but if others are going to attack, I'm going to defend.
In terms of being on topic - I posted my thoughts on the OP, and you ignored the post completely. You dont get to complain about people being off topic when you aren't replying to on topic posts,but are replying to off topic ones.
FYI you can tell if someone is actually smart by how willing they are to take other peoples views on board and bring up examples and formulate ideas, it's a rather exciting prospect and they enjoy getting their ideas across.
I completely agree.
The problem is, no one has actually even attempted to talk about how a game can have a no-compromises approach to having both PvP and PvE together. You cant really I havent taken other people's views in to account here, as the only person that has shared their actual view on the matter had it pointed out to them that there were indeed compromises in what they were talking about.
Me saying "this is a fact" simply gives people like you even more incentive to attempt to counter it. I mean, if you came up with an example of a game that doesnt have any compromises, I am no longer in a position to say "well, it was just an opinion". All I can say is "I guess I was wrong".
Another way you can tell how smart someone is that when they are presented with a conclusion that isnt as they would like things to be, but cant actually come up with a means of refuting that conclusion, smart people accept it regardless (you think I am happy that there will always be compromises between PvE and PvP?). At the very least, they will say "I guess it appears that way right now" while they hunt for an effective rebuttal.
Less than smart people essentially ignore the point and attack the person.
Every single project on planet Earth likely suffers (or luckily benefits) from varying degrees of compromising.
The likes of WoW put their thumb down and squeezed the life on any decent form of open world+pvp as a feature when it decided to heavily invest into a disgusting dripping with greese and fat Raid Burgers, all with the fast food service of party matching and porting to instances.
There is little positive purpose to what you're saying, you don't realize it and you just feel attacked like a home owner, these forums you've made your home, there's something not there...well tons of EQ2 swirling around.
Comments
This is the whole point of calling the game pvx. Yes, pve will have to be done as well, but majority of your actions in the game can and will be surrounded by pvp. This is why I dislike when Noaani or Dygz argue that Ashes is a pvp game rather than a pvx one. And you're supporting their side, but I'm almost sure that they'd disagree with your reasoning
There are statements that pvp players have to pve but so too do pvers have to pvp. I think it is highly unlikely a pvp focused guild will be able to conquer anything without the support of pve players. Alliances exist for a reason. I can't imagine a pvp focused guild to be in the 9% bracket but then I've played too many pvp servers to know the pvp players prefer to lock down locations than farm said locations.
Maybe it's my L2 bias, but to me there's literally no separation between a pvper and a pvers. You just fucking fight what's in front of you. And L2's mobs were way less difficult than players, so it was way easier to fight those until you got a player to kill, so I'd assume that even if mobs are somehow as difficult as players - pvpers will be able to just farm stuff w/o issues.
The pve/pvp separation mostly came from games where pve was either instanced or did enough damage that any enemy player attack on top of it would lead to you dying. And as much as Steven's promising to keep the pve hardcore and all that, I somehow doubt that super hardcore open world pve would fly these days. Especially in the context of owpvp.
In other words, I just don't think that pve will be difficult enough to not farm if you're a pvper. And if the current pvp population can't fathom touching a mob - well then, that's a shame and I guess I'll be the one winning, cause I'll be both farming and pvping for my farm
I'm not certain about the effectiveness of the guild buffs either. Three 40 man guilds in Alliance might be formidable and still be able to farm. My own guild is both pve and pvp focused. In the end, we will either fight to protect a dungeon or partake in the dungeon but we won't classify ourselves as anything but pvx.
It's not the case of a pvp player being unwilling to partake, its a matter of gear and whether these players are attuned to specific fights. Without doubt the same people will be formidable in pvp just because of the pve obtainment. Anyone can rise to 9% but I feel the fastest and most competent will rule.
If what I want to read is a pure Fantasy Book and people add in robots and cell phones, I'm going to say that is Sci-Fi/Fantasy; not Fantasy. And it's not the book I want to read.
Tons of other people might have fun reading it, but that doesn't mean it's a Fantasy book. It's a Sci-Fi/Fantasy book.
I mean if systems are 100% the same, they have to be the same genre. That's what 100% means.
Again, here you seem to be trying to argue that a kickball field can be exactly the same field as a baseball field. Which goes without saying. We agree.
But, I don't agree that the tanking design for an FPS will be the same as it is for an RPG.
Just as I wouldn't agree that the ball designed for playing soccer will be the same design as the ball used for playing baseball.
It's not going to be the same system design. That's my point. Just as it's not going to be the same ball design.
The balls will have some similar characteristics but be significantly different.
I don't label my idea of what I enjoy as the definitive MMORPG experience - because MMORPGs should support many different playstyles. But when a game labeled MMORPG has mechanics that preclude RPing... like Diablo... that is no longer really an RPG, despite having a bunch of other RPG elements.
In any genre, there is a line of compromise that, when crossed, becomes some other animal. Of course, even in Biology; scientists don't always agree on taxonomy lines.
It really doesn't matter who agrees with me that the line has been crossed.
What matters is that people understand what I'm saying when I say that line has been crossed for me.
Is Pluto a planet?
Labels are subjective in any case.
I'm going to tell you that Fanta Orange is not a Coke.
Even Pepsi is not a Coke.
But, in some parts of the US, when you ask for a Coke, the other person will ask, "What kind of coke? Pepsi? Fanta? Sprite?"
So, yeah, even when I say that Fanta is not a Coke. There will be many people who will respond that Fanta is a coke.
I am fully aware that a large portion of MMORPG gamers don't care about the RPG aspects - all they care about are the MMO aspects. And a very significant portion of Ashes fans only carre that it's an Open World PvP MMO with no P2W. That is not news to me.
MechWarrior II
Zork: Grand Inquisitor
Dark Reign
Heavy Gear II (w/ David Georgeson)
Interstate '82
Tony Hawk
Vampire: The Masquerade
Call of Duty
etc...
I think it's never about the content because most MMORPGs have servers that all of the same content - where
the server differences are the PvP-flagging (or RP) rules.
Right now, today, in Ashes, no one has anything.
When the game goes live, the people that get ahead will be those that win at PvP.
It's fine to say that when the game is 6 months old, people need to do PvE to get gear. The problem is, in order to get themselves in to a place where they are able to PvE to get gear, people had to have already PvP'd.
Since we all start out with nothing, the people that end up being able to PvE at the top end are the people that come out of the gate in PvP mode.
PvEers will be playing some other games.
Ok I agree on that
Gotchya, when I was using the 100% I meant a system in isolation, not within a different context, so we agree that contextually it would change and not be 100% the same then- so yeah I agree.
Ok I have a clearer picture of what you are communicating- yeah I agree
Okay when I put this into context of what you are saying about things not being 100% the same- yeah I agree within that sport analogy.
Yep you hit the nail on the head 100% agree
Very cool- thanks for sharing
Sounds like we are on the same page- good talk
I disagree. Those who get ahead will be those who give others corruption, those who flee pvp and those who are in levelling groups. There is no incentive to pvp at all. Nothing is affected if you don't pvp. You don't drop armour and the death penalty is like a pve death. Thus, even as a pvp player I won't waste time with pvp unless there are no other options but to pvp. In most cases, there are more reasons not to pvp.
I have spent a lot of time just pvping without end in many games. It all slows down reaching max level and I don't plan to do that in ashes. My twink will be the pvp without end but my main has other concerns. Most of the time toons will be with node affiliates so no pvp there. Other times you would go into riskier areas and again can avoid pvp if wanted. Then you have the open dungeons when you might pvp but it would be group vs group and for a specific purpose. The main thrust will be reaching max level so I can settle into non-levelling routines. No one waits 6 months to improve gear in a pvp game unless you have to grind pvp levels for pvp armour.
It's gonna be sad if it turns out that way
A response of saying you feel no need to elaborate is not a response. What was it you told the guy from UK? If you cant provide an example you shouldn't be part of the conversation, was it? But this doesnt apply to you? Oh ok. And I'm the dick? Just read most of your posts and I think most people can figure out who the dick is. You still are unable think out of the box, and that's a problem for progress.
I mean, if you are going to attempt to throw someone's own words back at them, at least take a second to read those words, and perhaps even try to understand them.
Talk about PvX being a marketting tool again, the mmorpg scene going through the "compromised crisis" is a bit of a broken record now...
Again, talk to anyone involved in making an MMORPG that has both PvP and PvE aspects (or ask Steven), they will tell you that there will always be compromises between the two.
It's fine if you dont believe me. I actually encourage people to not believe anyone. However, instead of simply assuming the opposite is true, go out and look in to it yourself. Come to your own conclusion.
Now, if you dont want to do this either, that is also fine. However, now you need to admit that you have no idea if there are compromises, rather than being sure there aren't.
What do you think happens when you tell someone to get back to you when they grow a brain? Are you wanting them to stick around?
The guy could be asking you for an example because he wishes to tear your example to shreds, and demonstrate how wrong you are, since youre so polite to everyone....
You cant figure that out?
PvP-ers will play other games too.
The closer they get to a release, the more players will be able to say they don't like something.
Influencers will amplify their voice and fighting against them is hard. Keeping all the details secret and under NDA until the launch is a better strategy.
Dont know, I have never said this to anyone. I mean, it is possible that was their plan. If so, they should be thanking me.
.
There are two reasons for this.
The first reason is that my comment is just a fact. It isnt an opinion, just a fact. Attempting to argue against is kind of like flat earthers arguing against the fact that the earth is a globe.
The second reason they should be thanking me if the above was their plan is because you cant disprove my statement via me giving examples. If I am going to give examples (as I did, to the right person, for the right reason), those examples are going to be of times developers have made that compromise.
If the person in question thought they could disprove examples when those examples are literally developers saying "sorry PvE players, we have to make this change for PvP", then they probably shouldnt be a part of any discussion.
My statement is - essentially - "a game with both PvP and PvE will have compromises to either one or both", the only example to disprove this statement is to.provide an example.of a game where there is no compromise in either PvP or PvE. Basically, when someone says "all these things do this", you can only disprove that statement by finding one of those things that doesnt do the thing. Asking them to provide evidence of those things doing the thing isnt going to prove or disprove anything.
The reason I didnt ask for others to give examples is simply because I know none exist. However, if you really want to prove me wrong, all you need to do is point to a game where there are no compromises between PvP and PvE.
I'm not suggesting you try, because again, it doesnt exist.
Didn't read the rest of the garbage. You're a waste of everyone's time.
Anyone going to try to stay on topic?
I was hoping this thread would be closed ages ago like I requested as the real essence of my discussion point was lost or over written by Noaani and co's persistantly one sided/"fact" mmorpg arguements.
FYI you can tell if someone is actually smart by how willing they are to take other peoples views on board and bring up examples and formulate ideas, it's a rather exciting prospect and they enjoy getting their ideas across. What I said last sentence ago is not a fact and there are going to be a few irregularities, additionally a smart person will not be keen to label something as a fact unless the tech/biological/math science fields have infinitevly concluded it to be so, as they are very open and excited by new possibilities.
It's still a mistake to really discuss on these forums with the amount of prior mmorpg addicts present still and it's a shame and very sad that they can't help but dwell in these forums, they likely feel very safe and not attacked as a huge number of people can't be arsed to reply to their extremely long paragraphs and would likely be demoralised or destroyed in a viewpoint on the likes of discord. I only type long or many paragraphs when absolutely necessary, indepth explaning my views and stance with a varied amount of examples.
Anyway, waiting for the retort, I'm depressed that I even have to make these kinds of post instead of debunking gameplay aspects with people.
Tanks go back to MUDs and were born out of necessity. I haven’t seen a game that tried to reinvent the trinity without it being a disaster.
So I’d say AoC should focus on making the best game possible instead of trying to create a new kind of MMO that might or might not work.
Buffing players and nerfing npc's stats is not a direct aid to interactive gameplay unless they are timely and very short duration. It does give certain men a cheap thrill about how big their damage numbers can be but there can be much better applications of this class.
Yes
The point itself isnt central to the discussion in the topic, but if others are going to attack, I'm going to defend.
In terms of being on topic - I posted my thoughts on the OP, and you ignored the post completely. You dont get to complain about people being off topic when you aren't replying to on topic posts,but are replying to off topic ones.
I completely agree.
The problem is, no one has actually even attempted to talk about how a game can have a no-compromises approach to having both PvP and PvE together. You cant really I havent taken other people's views in to account here, as the only person that has shared their actual view on the matter had it pointed out to them that there were indeed compromises in what they were talking about.
Me saying "this is a fact" simply gives people like you even more incentive to attempt to counter it. I mean, if you came up with an example of a game that doesnt have any compromises, I am no longer in a position to say "well, it was just an opinion". All I can say is "I guess I was wrong".
Another way you can tell how smart someone is that when they are presented with a conclusion that isnt as they would like things to be, but cant actually come up with a means of refuting that conclusion, smart people accept it regardless (you think I am happy that there will always be compromises between PvE and PvP?). At the very least, they will say "I guess it appears that way right now" while they hunt for an effective rebuttal.
Less than smart people essentially ignore the point and attack the person.
The likes of WoW put their thumb down and squeezed the life on any decent form of open world+pvp as a feature when it decided to heavily invest into a disgusting dripping with greese and fat Raid Burgers, all with the fast food service of party matching and porting to instances.
There is little positive purpose to what you're saying, you don't realize it and you just feel attacked like a home owner, these forums you've made your home, there's something not there...well tons of EQ2 swirling around.