Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
Consensual Mutual Wars: permanent war
Arya_Yeshe
Member
Guilds could initiate mutual wars against each other if they feel that there is too much animosity between them
Yay or nay?
- A war declaration period
- No objectives
- Permanent war until a guild chooses to opt out
- Mutual wars operate outside the PvP flagging system
- Score based on kills only
- Guild members have the option to vote on whether to end the war
- If a guild chooses to opt out, the war ends, and the guild with the higher score wins
- The minimum time period for the war is 7 days
Yay or nay?
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
0
Comments
1. How often are two guilds really going to mutually agree on a war ... given the other activities going on in Ashes?
2. What are the rewards for a successful "guild war" win?
3. Does Intrepid have time for this idea before release of the game (answer: no).
And maybe the most important item to consider --
4. Why can't guilds fight it out overland in-game within the existing Ashes ruleset (instead of another separate system)?
These things work themselves out and full PVP is not nearly the gang fest most think it is
1. such system people use for training pvp with no consequences and eventually someone will use just because they want free fights for fun, real PvPers sometimes celebrate friendship with wars
2. no rewards, having rewards defeats the purpose here
3. definitely yes, this is pretty much the guild wars system, but with objectives off and time limit off
4. they will, this "mutual wars" option is something on the side
This is truly great for training PvP, testing strategies, etc
So, you are asking for one system with a specific purpose, specifically because you can see it being cheesed and used for a different purpose?
I mean, this answer right here is literally why it shouldn't be implemented. It would mean that only players in guilds that cheese the system are getting in maximum amounts of PvP practice - and then they will just end that war when something more pressing comes along.
Way to argue against your own idea.
For example, Noaani has been blocked since my first week on the forum and other blockeds him too.
Those who are solely focused on rewards and grinding fail to see the big picture - the point is to have a permanent war, engage in challenging fights, and improve your personal PvP skills.
I understand that this doesn't make sense to carebears who only focus on hoarding.
I like PvE more (it is more challenging - and anyone that disagrees simply hasn't ever experienced top end PvE), but I did spend almost a half decade in Archeage, a game that has literally no PvE at all, by my assertion as to what PvE is and has no objectively good PvE by any valid measure. As such, the assumption should be that I like PvP well enough to play a game for many years just because of it.
Based on how little you seem to know of MMORPG's, I have to assume I have spent more time in PvP MMO's than you have. While this assumption may be wrong, all it being wrong would point to is how little you understand - you would be better off if you don't have the experience and thus knowledge, rather than you do have the experience, but not the knowledge. That isn't the point of a war in Ashes.
The point of a war is to achieve objectives. To win. That is why wars in Ashes have win conditions.
Now, to be clear, I am not against your idea in it's base form. Permanent opt in wars that either guild can opt out of. However, it is your essentially instant confession that you want the system specifically to cheese it for PvP practice that makes me instantly against it.
Wars should not exist for practice. Practice at PvP should come from actual PvP - with actual risk. There shouldn't be an easy option to practice open world PvP that doesn't involve actually just participating in open world PvP, with appropriate risk and reward.
Also, if you do not see having a permanent war in place in order to practice PvP as being just a different form of grinding, then you don't actually understand what grinding is.
Wars in L2 doesn't require consent, but mutual was is consensual just like the mutual wars in EVE Online
L2 essentially ran wars in three scenarios
I hope that some gravity can be obtained for some instances by the pk system not being so onerous that this is not an option.
I have to disagree there tbh, modern day PvE is very much predicatable and if u can follow the directions given to you then it very easy and yes ive been in high end raiding guilds and i persoanly find them very easy that being said i pick/figure things out ridiculously quickly which alot of people cant so that might be why but thats my experience atleast everyone is different.
I enjoy pvp simply cause it unpredictable in nature you dont know if the 1v1 going to become a 1v3 or a 1v1v1 and so on or if said person gonna do something you dont expect and you need to adapt on the fly, PvE content tend to be set in stone and aslong as everyone doing there job properly it a walk in the park only time thing get entertaining is when somone fks up and and main tank dies or a healer dies or dps pulls agro thats the only time i find PvE gets interesting atleast for me. These days i have a hard time playing games that dont atleast have open world pvp to add these unpredicability elements back the world.
yeah you can do that to PvE but the PvE crowd tend to find these unfair when a mobs strays for its set in stone mechanics
Every players win condition is different though. Some win condition is to push other guild out of there area (which perma guilfd wars would do) if one guild end up camped they have no choice realy but to leave the node and move elsewhere or find allies. Another win condition is to defend resource nodes or deny other nodes resources not neccesarily to destroy a node. a node mayor might want to war dec another node just so they can kill people hitting nodes they need to dominate the local marker for that resource or even to deny other nodes progression. Some win condition for somone might be to keep people out of there camp they want to farm and so on. other might be to hold a spot for x amount of time to allow for other groups to do something else
Win condition vary depending on the enviroment and players objectives and they shouldnt be set in stone to being win condition is to burn down another node and what not.
Players can set goals, games set win conditions.
There is a difference.
If you are in a running race, as an example, you can set yourself a goal to beat a specific time (personal best, for example). However, if you beat that time you didnt necessarily win the race, you met your goal. The win condition for the race was set by the race organizers, not by you.
PvE at the top end happens in three distinct phases.
The first phase is learning an encounter, then working out a strategy to beat the encounter, then essentially knowing your strategy works and continuing to kill the encounter.
The third part of this can be predictable. Note; can be.
Some guilds fo everything they can to skip the first two parts of the above, and so only experience the third. Guilds right at the top dont have the option, if you want to get a world first, you need to work out how to kill the encounter.
Saying you dont like PvE because of this one part is like saying you dont like PvP because 6v1 fights suck. If your guild literally always brings along more manpower than is needed and just smashes everyone, that is kind of the same thing as skipping the first two steps in PvE content. PvP can be enjoyable when it is close, but no one enjoys it when it is one sided.
Obviously neither is going to be fun when you literally skip the fun parts. You saying PvE is repetitive shows you are skipping the fun - non repetitive - parts.
but here were we are different to me my win condition is my goal i coudlnt care less if i come first third or even last to i win if i beat the goal and provide myself, players individual goals in most cases are the win condition for that player.
If i come into a pvp encounter and its impossible to win odds like 3 v 9 well to me i consider it a win if my side of 3 manages to kill atleast 3 of theirs. In a 1v1 somone win condition might be to kill the other person and the other person might be just to survive.
Now back to your race analogy if there a marathon most people are not looking to be the first over the line there personaly win condition is to either finish the race or to finish the race under x time.
everyone is different and the world is not black and white everyone views things different and people win conditions will always be different from one another
All this means is that you have given yourself your own definition of the word "win".
The problem with this is that it goes against the entire point of dictionaries existing.
The scenarios you talk about are all people achieving goals, not people winning. These are different things.