some of the most popular games in history run on linux. As a gamer, I say if more developers developed for linux I would gladly swap out of windows. The developers always say there isn't enough linux gamers to justify it. Kind of like what came first the chicken or the egg?
I don't think I would want to prolong an initial release for a linux client. But I don't think developing one after would be a bad idea. Like it or not cross-platform is the current trend and it's only a matter of time before a top tier mmorpg picks up on that.
But, as Noaani said, that is the case currently. The strongest few guilds will control the majority of pve content (especially bosses), because they'll be able to push anyone else out of the encounter through pvp. At which point all the other guilds simply don't have the access to pve content.
The other guilds can contest the encounter. That's still an activity that will be worth their time. Band together to push the dominant guilds out of their effortless control of all big objectives. The more you challenge them, the more deliberate they'll be about where they focus their full guild's efforts on.
Sure, that's PvP (so not an answer to the original question of whether the game will have enough PvE for everyone), but it's PvP for the sake of giving them rewarding PvE, so any player reasonably interested in PvX, even with a strong inclination to prefer PvE, would be willing to engage in activity like that. And if you can't live with bigger guilds sometimes getting the biggest stuff, you should probably be part of a big guild, instead of playing the martyr in your small one, while complaining that you're being left out, and not doing anything about it.
Giving people options is fine, but if you spread so many of them out across the map that everyone always has something to do everywhere, there's either no need for PvP contestation, or most of those encounters have rewards so low that no one's going to be doing them anyway and now your request didn't really address your problem. It just spreads the population further apart, locks them in mindless grinding, and removes identity from the game.
Yes, all players should have interesting and rewarding things to do (and not just PvP.) That's what instances are for. But when you run out of guaranteed content, it's up to you as a player to find opportunities to do interesting things, or be more content with doing the stuff that yields low rewards, and let that add up over time.
Yes, all the encounters Noaani listed should probably exist. If not upon release, I expect something a bunch of each of those to be added within the first year.
But not to the extent that they should undo any of the concerns you have about the availability of viable PvE, or large guilds dominating their control. Because that should be up to the players to figure out their place in.
But, as Noaani said, that is the case currently. The strongest few guilds will control the majority of pve content (especially bosses), because they'll be able to push anyone else out of the encounter through pvp. At which point all the other guilds simply don't have the access to pve content.
The other guilds can contest the encounter. That's still an activity that will be worth their time. Band together to push the dominant guilds out of their effortless control of all big objectives. The more you challenge them, the more deliberate they'll be about where they focus their full guild's efforts on.
Sure, that's PvP (so not an answer to the original question of whether the game will have enough PvE for everyone), but it's PvP for the sake of giving them rewarding PvE, so any player reasonably interested in PvX, even with a strong inclination to prefer PvE, would be willing to engage in activity like that. And if you can't live with bigger guilds sometimes getting the biggest stuff, you should probably be part of a big guild, instead of playing the martyr in your small one, while complaining that you're being left out, and not doing anything about it.
As a general point - perhaps as the start of a thought process - I agree with you here.
The reason this is only the beginning of a thought is because you then have to consider how long those people wanting a PvX game would put up with this as the only form of guild level PvE.
The answer - for reference - is a maximum of about three months, historically. People that stay longer than that are more interested in PvP.
Giving people options is fine, but if you spread so many of them out across the map that everyone always has something to do everywhere, there's either no need for PvP contestation, or most of those encounters have rewards so low that no one's going to be doing them anyway and now your request didn't really address your problem. It just spreads the population further apart, locks them in mindless grinding, and removes identity from the game.
There are two things that will stop this being an issue.
The first is the node system, and the fact that all content we are talking about here (raid level content at the end game) will only be present within the ZoI of metrpoolis nodes.
The other thing that will have an impact here is the server population. There willbe more players on a full server in Ashes than on any other AAA MMO (at least that I know of) other than EVE.
That saidd, the above would be a valid concewrn in most games.
Yes, all players should have interesting and rewarding things to do (and not just PvP.) That's what instances are for.
This is the part we are arguing for here.
As it stands, we don't have these in any meaningful way.
I mean, you seem to agree that they should exist - yet seem to be debating against thoseof us arguing for them to exist.
As it stands, we don't have these in any meaningful way.
I mean, you seem to agree that they should exist - yet seem to be debating against thoseof us arguing for them to exist.
https://tldrify.com/1b22
This is the type of ideology/foundational principle that informs my comments when I talk about these things.
If you'll just throw all verbal reassurance out the window by principle, will you just keep reiterating the same opinions/suggestions until you're literally presented with a completed game's worth of PvE encounters? Or what does it take?
As it stands, we don't have these in any meaningful way.
I mean, you seem to agree that they should exist - yet seem to be debating against thoseof us arguing for them to exist.
https://tldrify.com/1b22
This is the type of ideology/foundational principle that informs my comments when I talk about these things.
If you'll just throw all verbal reassurance out the window by principle, will you just keep reiterating the same opinions/suggestions until you're literally presented with a completed game's worth of PvE encounters? Or what does it take?
I have no idea what it is you are getting at here.
Yes, all players should have interesting and rewarding things to do (and not just PvP.) That's what instances are for. But when you run out of guaranteed content, it's up to you as a player to find opportunities to do interesting things, or be more content with doing the stuff that yields low rewards, and let that add up over time.
And that is my exact point. There should be enough pve content (of any kind) for everyone on the server. The quality of that content will obviously range from dogshit to peak, but any person should always have at least smth pve to do at any and all times. The higher you go in quality - the harder it'll be to participate in that content, but that's exactly how it should be imo.
And yes, that high quality content will usually be controlled by strong guilds and sometimes weaker guilds will have to band together to push the strong dudes out. All of that is exactly how I want it and I'll be in one of those weaker guilds, trying to band people together.
So I was thinking about this a bit more and now it seems to me like a worry based on things shown during streams. But that is not our only source of information. Before I go through the list of PvE content we most likely will get, I'll say this once again:
Intrepid is designing this game to be PvX and calling it PvX for (amongst other reasons) the fact, that PvE and PvP will not be separated as if they do not belong together. In this game they will, you get one, you'll also get the other, the mixing ratio might change depending on the situation.
With that being said here are some things we as players will probably be able to do with a PvE focus.
open sea raids - this could be against bosses (which we already know) but also against NPC pirate crews.
monster coin events - can be seen as one of the mixed examples of what PvX means. Players can take control over a monster, this could be in an event against other players but also against other mobs.
Exploration - To ensure an information advantage, group sizes have to be kept fairly small which increases the difficulty of PvE encounters, while not being seen farming with a small group probably doesn't really make for a good PvP target.
Artisan skill (especially Gathering) - This IS PvE. Going out, defening primarily against mobs or hunting specifically mobs for an artisan profession is a PvE thing to do. It might not be as epic as fighting, but that doesn't make it any less PvE.
Quests, story archs, events, tasks - Classic PvE stuff, providing us with XP, lore and rewards to help us progress in the game.
Instanced dungeons - 20% of the dungeons will be instanced
I think in a game where it has been said that it is "unlikely" to be able to purely focus on either entirely, this is a decent enough range of option to occupy with. There is no need for more separation of PvP and PvE because that runs counter to the fundamental design idea of the game. And last time I made the napkin math, Ashes will not need millions of players to be a success and anything below that is "a failure", around half a million active players would be enough for the game to be quite successful in terms of subscription numbers alone. So in my opion "more PvE or this game will have no long term players" does not apply. Of course, I can't make this as an absolute statement, but it seems to me like Steven is thinking similarly, that he can afford to not make an artifical wall between PvE and PvP.
open sea raids - this could be against bosses (which we already know) but also against NPC pirate crews.
monster coin events - can be seen as one of the mixed examples of what PvX means. Players can take control over a monster, this could be in an event against other players but also against other mobs.
Exploration - To ensure an information advantage, group sizes have to be kept fairly small which increases the difficulty of PvE encounters, while not being seen farming with a small group probably doesn't really make for a good PvP target.
Artisan skill (especially Gathering) - This IS PvE. Going out, defening primarily against mobs or hunting specifically mobs for an artisan profession is a PvE thing to do. It might not be as epic as fighting, but that doesn't make it any less PvE.
Quests, story archs, events, tasks - Classic PvE stuff, providing us with XP, lore and rewards to help us progress in the game.
Instanced dungeons - 20% of the dungeons will be instanced
Naval content is essentially like Runescapes Wilderness. Everything related to naval content will have a PvP focus. Any raids present on the ocean will have to be balanced with the idea of PvP being present - I can't see how you could claim something balanced around PvP is actually PvE focused.
We are not going to see Monster Coin events where there are not players in control. It just isnt going to happen. We are also not likely to see Monster Coin events where there are not players from a rival node working to interrupt players so said monsters do more damage to the node.
So, your example of a piece of PvE content is quite literally players fighting other players, with still other players coming in and trying to make it harder. By this logic, you may as well call all content PvE, as there is always going to be ground present and ground is a part of the environment.
The notion of exploration and crafting as being PvE focused has already been pointed out in this thread as being misguided and essentially an attempt to manipulate the discussion. When talking about PvP vs PvE, the only point to it is in regards to player expectations of content.
As for quests and up to 20% instanced content, well, we never said the game would have no PvE, we said it wouldn't have enough quality guild based PvE. Based on what Steven has said about the instanced content though, it is potentially just quest content that is unable to be repeated.
However, wise use of this 20% instanced content could well appease every issue I have in this regard. If Steven had the intention of using this 20% in such a manner, he could easily put an end to these discussions by going in to detail about it.
As a more general point, if you arre talking to an MMO player you have just met, and you ask them what kind of content they like - if they say they like PvE content and you suggest some crafting content to them, you are going to look stupid.
Same thing with talking about exploring or questing. These are all their own content types - they play differently to PvE. Calling crafting, exploring or questing PvE content is about as nonsensical as calling crafting, exploring or questing PvP content, as all can be used to forward PvP experiences just as easily as PvE.
The truth is, they are each their own thing.
Intrepid is designing this game to be PvX and calling it PvX for (amongst other reasons) the fact, that PvE and PvP will not be separated as if they do not belong together. In this game they will, you get one, you'll also get the other, the mixing ratio might change depending on the situation.
In order for this to be accurate, it means that if there are no situations in which PvE is possible and PvP is not, then there also can not be any situations in which PvP is possible but PvE is not.
If the situation arises where PvP is possible but PvE is not, then this claim of yours (that has not been made by Intrepid) is simply not true. Realistically, sieges, caravans
Also, arenas exist.
around half a million active players would be enough for the game to be quite successful in terms of subscription numbers alone.
I agree, I would consider half a million subscribers 12 months after launch to be a wild success for Ashes.
However, my expectation a year after launch is less than half of that, trending down.
So in my opion "more PvE or this game will have no long term players" does not apply. Of course, I can't make this as an absolute statement, but it seems to me like Steven is thinking similarly, that he can afford to not make an artifical wall between PvE and PvP.
But those walls aready exist - they just contain players with PvP setting and block out PvE.
Sounds like you don't really want to play the type of game that Ashes sizes up to be.
See, to me, it sounds like you are wanting a PvP game and that is not what Ashes is (or at least not what it used to be).
What I want Ashes to be is a solid PvX game where both the PvP and PvE are able to stand on their own, but are intertwined.
My reason for pointing out the lack of quality PvE in the game so far is simple.
PvP requires players, yet players that are in a game specifically for PvP will often leave a game if they are constantly losing at PvP. People in a game primarily for it's PvE will stay in the game longer, even if losing at PvP often. Thus, PvE of a quality that will being players from other games to Ashes increases the PvP targets PvP players have, thus making the PvP better.
Thus, the best way to make a PvP game with good systems better is to add PvE content to the game to attact more players.
I'm sure you have some questions in the above you want to ask, but before you do, just realize that hte basic point of the above is that I am essentially saying more players makes better PvP - only question the above if you disagree with that point (I've gone over the details of the above a half dozen times on these forums - I'm not going over it again when the above is basically all that needs to be taken away).
Now, based on the above point, that merans PvE in Ashes needs tp be good enough in terms of quality to attract players from other games - players that prefer PvE but are happy to PvP.
Moment when you have more people that prefer to pve that is going to lead to huge issues. Also people that prefer to pvp don't leave a game just because they lost at pvp lmao.
Moment when you have more people that prefer to pve that is going to lead to huge issues. Also people that prefer to pvp don't leave a game just because they lost at pvp lmao.
I don't see why having more people that prefer to PvE could be an issue. I mean, this is supposed to be a PvX game, as long as all players are willing to PvE and PvP it shouldn't be an issue.
What issues could possible come from having more people that perfer to PvE than PvP?
To your seccond point - yes they do. it isn't every PvP player (obviously), but it is the bulk of them. This is why BDO had the server structure it had, and why Crowfall had the game mode it had. Both were attempts to break this cycle.
It's cool if you don't see it - I'm not all that bothered by that. MMO developers know it to be true, so I have no need to attempt to convince anyone.
Moment when you have more people that prefer to pve that is going to lead to huge issues. Also people that prefer to pvp don't leave a game just because they lost at pvp lmao.
I don't see why having more people that prefer to PvE could be an issue. I mean, this is supposed to be a PvX game, as long as all players are willing to PvE and PvP it shouldn't be an issue.
What issues could possible come from having more people that perfer to PvE than PvP?
To your seccond point - yes they do. it isn't every PvP player (obviously), but it is the bulk of them. This is why BDO had the server structure it had, and why Crowfall had the game mode it had. Both were attempts to break this cycle.
It's cool if you don't see it - I'm not all that bothered by that. MMO developers know it to be true, so I have no need to attempt to convince anyone.
Same issue New world had and other games with pve players want pve focused features and less pvp features. Having pvpers that enjoy pve is the best way things could go not the other way around. Players that like pvp will also enjoy the content of pve. People with a focus on pve will not like pvp distracting them or influence their pve content as well as want ways to have content not gated behind pvp and want changes.
Using crowfall as an example is a meme, no advertising, bad game all around, boring, terrible ass ideas (me being bad game doesn't' even do it justice it was utter dog crap from every single element of the game.)
If they did modern shadowbane it would have been 100% better.
BDO is also another bad example, you can't use that data in any positive way when it has gear level gambling that is the reason why people quit and don't come back. There can be a thousand and other reasons why people would quit that game.
BDO has a lack of content all around not just including the bad pve (which is non existent) but the game lacks actaul pvp content as well, and the pvp content feels hardly meaningful. PvP is in the game to inflate player progression through distraction and trying to penny and dime players.
I can turn this around easy and say pve is a issue, all these new mmorpgs that come out that are focused on pve are all dead. Besides the same ones that had a certain following mainly WoW. If you look at what games people play on twitch the top games are all focused on PvP.
Same issue New world had and other games with pve players want pve focused features and less pvp features.
See, the issues with New World were people saying "this PvP system is shit". The arguments weren't asking for more of a PvE focus, or even less of aPvP focus. They were asking for a better PvP system.
The reason New World launched as poorly as it did was nothing to do with that though, it was because Amazon corperate had a goal for Amazone Games, and launching New World no later than end of Q3 2021. It launshed 2 days before the end of Q3. It had been delayed twice, they needed it launched.
Given another 6 months to a year, they could have created a much better PvP system - but their corparate overlords wanted the game to be launched regardless of the state it was in (to be fair, Amazon is used to being able to release unfinished software and updating it while live with no real issues).
That said, developers will often look to players to identify issues. They will not look to players to find solutions to those problems. This is basically true for any professional organization.
Using crowfall as an example is a meme
If I were using it or BDO as exampes of a good game, sure.
However, I was using them as examples to show you that developers are aware of the phenomenon of PvP player retention being significantly lower than that of PvE - with it being those with lower w/l ratios that leave first.
Any other facts pertaining to those games is irrelevent to the point I was making.
I can turn this around easy and say pve is a issue
You could.
Go ahead and try it though, see what happens.
Thing is, I think you know what happens, because you have seen that argument being made before.
Same issue New world had and other games with pve players want pve focused features and less pvp features.
See, the issues with New World were people saying "this PvP system is shit". The arguments weren't asking for more of a PvE focus, or even less of aPvP focus. They were asking for a better PvP system.
The reason New World launched as poorly as it did was nothing to do with that though, it was because Amazon corperate had a goal for Amazone Games, and launching New World no later than end of Q3 2021. It launshed 2 days before the end of Q3. It had been delayed twice, they needed it launched.
Given another 6 months to a year, they could have created a much better PvP system - but their corparate overlords wanted the game to be launched regardless of the state it was in (to be fair, Amazon is used to being able to release unfinished software and updating it while live with no real issues).
That said, developers will often look to players to identify issues. They will not look to players to find solutions to those problems. This is basically true for any professional organization.
Using crowfall as an example is a meme
If I were using it or BDO as exampes of a good game, sure.
However, I was using them as examples to show you that developers are aware of the phenomenon of PvP player retention being significantly lower than that of PvE - with it being those with lower w/l ratios that leave first.
Any other facts pertaining to those games is irrelevent to the point I was making.
I can turn this around easy and say pve is a issue
You could.
Go ahead and try it though, see what happens.
Thing is, I think you know what happens, because you have seen that argument being made before.
My point is using crowfall as an example of anything is flawed. And the take on BDO is flawed in poeople leaving for pvp, when they have gambling systems that would be the reason people leave. The thing about BDO is it has a stead player base doesn't grow or shrink so by default those players are not leaving the game because of pvp. Either way there is a lot more to talk about on why people can leave and why they are not good examples. Its akin to taking badly designed games with no floor and being like :look this is why im right" And ignoring how flaws any point of data can be ignoring many other issues on why people will quit, or a game won't grow.
Already made the point on pve, all those games are dead. The point is it is a flawed argument people leave if the game is bad or not fun it goes for both PvP and PvE. People aren't leaving because they lose in PvP (Unless you are getting pve focused players which is again part of the issue, those players leave if pvped since they dont like pvp to begin with most of the time).
Now if you are trying to make a point pve focused players will leave because of pvp i agree with you. Hence why i say more focused pve players leads to bad things.
See, to me, it sounds like you are wanting a PvP game and that is not what Ashes is (or at least not what it used to be).
Strange how you would think that, since I didn't even use the word "want" or "should" once and only referred to thinks we probably come to see without making any kind of implication whether that is what I want or not.
But to clear this one up: I am a primarily PvE guy. I like my occasional PvP, but Ashes will have more of that than I would normally engage in. I hope the story, engaging exploration and the artisan progression to mitigate the player conflicts that I won't be able to avoid (because I suck at PvP).
What I want Ashes to be is a solid PvX game where both the PvP and PvE are able to stand on their own, but are intertwined.
And I am trying to tell you is that this doesn't seem to be what is Intrepid and in particular Steven is aiming at, because from all I have read to far the systems are created in a way to be dependent on one another to make them one - PvX, instead of "PvE and PvP". From the way this is being designed I suspect the goal is that there is only both aspects working together or not working at all. Just like there is Hydrogen and Oxygen separately, thats fine and dandy, but separated they are not water - by fusing the two they become something that is not well enough described by breaking it back down into its parts.
Again, not that I am saying this "should" be, I am describing what seems to be the most likely intent of the developer based on the information I am aware of.
I think by trying to strictly analyze the game game features through a lense of PvP VS PvE, one misses the point of what Intrepids perspective is and what drives their design in the way they are designing it. And sure, as long as Steven is not coming out and clarifying this, I am aware that I am just speculating, but it seems to me that this point is explaining more of what we can actually see happening in the development.
At some point you mentioned more instanced dungeons being a potential way to "improve" PvE content in the game. I think Steven addressed this point in the livestream where he was asked what he would do if the community would be asking for more instanced dungeons. The answer was that the core design features - which included open world dungeons - were not up for discussion and that Intrepid felt confident enough about the quality of their final product that they wouldn't need the extra PvE players to be successful and deliver a game of good quality.
Lastly the "more players equals better PvP"... well, games like League of Legends made 5v5 PvP, there are 1v1 PvP games and there are games like Ashes that want to go 250v250 (or 500v500?). In the end as long as the number of participants can be filled more players doesn't really matter imo. So if some thousand people don't want to play Ashes because of they share the opinion that the PvE content is lacking, I am not too worried that this will affect the quality of my gaming experience.
My point is using crowfall as an example of anything is flawed.
Well this is not true.
As to your point about BDO, I didn't say people left the game due to PvP.
In both cases, what I said was the developers knew that players leave games due to PvP faster than average. As such, the develoeprs of both games attempted to create ways to prevent that.
The point of mentioning this was to point out that developers know players leave games due to PvP faster. How the games turned out after launch literally has nothing to do with this point.
Already made the point on pve, all those games are dead.
Which games again?
EQ or EQ2? WoW? ESO? GW2? FFXIV?
Between those games you have some of the longest lasting games, and about 80% of the MMO population.
See, to me, it sounds like you are wanting a PvP game and that is not what Ashes is (or at least not what it used to be).
Strange how you would think that, since I didn't even use the word "want" or "should" once and only referred to thinks we probably come to see without making any kind of implication whether that is what I want or not.
But to clear this one up: I am a primarily PvE guy. I like my occasional PvP, but Ashes will have more of that than I would normally engage in. I hope the story, engaging exploration and the artisan progression to mitigate the player conflicts that I won't be able to avoid (because I suck at PvP).
Ashes isn't planning on having much of a developer driven story.
And I am trying to tell you is that this doesn't seem to be what is Intrepid and in particular Steven is aiming at, because from all I have read to far the systems are created in a way to be dependent on one another to make them one - PvX, instead of "PvE and PvP".
If all you have paid attention to is the last few years, then sure, this would be your perspective.
If you go back further though, back when Jeff Bard was lead designer, Steven actually commented that he would love to compete with WoW on raid content. The concern he stated was in regards to the ability to do it, not whether it would fit in to the game or not. Or you could go to the Kickstarter page and try and find mentions of PvP or PvX - they don't exist.
I think by trying to strictly analyze the game game features through a lense of PvP VS PvE, one misses the point of what Intrepids perspective is and what drives their design in the way they are designing it.
If Intrepid are not looking at the game through the lense of PvP and PvE, then they are missing out on the players perspective - and the player experience.
Lastly the "more players equals better PvP"... well, games like League of Legends made 5v5 PvP, there are 1v1 PvP games and there are games like Ashes that want to go 250v250 (or 500v500?). In the end as long as the number of participants can be filled more players doesn't really matter imo.
I wasn't talking about the numbers present in a fight.
If you are on a server designed for 10k people, and there are only 2k online in prime time, just finding someone to attack could be difficult.
My point is using crowfall as an example of anything is flawed.
Well this is not true.
As to your point about BDO, I didn't say people left the game due to PvP.
In both cases, what I said was the developers knew that players leave games due to PvP faster than average. As such, the develoeprs of both games attempted to create ways to prevent that.
The point of mentioning this was to point out that developers know players leave games due to PvP faster. How the games turned out after launch literally has nothing to do with this point.
Already made the point on pve, all those games are dead.
Which games again?
EQ or EQ2? WoW? ESO? GW2? FFXIV?
Between those games you have some of the longest lasting games, and about 80% of the MMO population.
Yeah, PvE is failing... great argument my dude.
You didn't say people left BDO due to pvp, yet you are bringing up games as if people re leaving them? That makes 0 sense to me. Where are you getting information that pearl abyss is attempting to create ways that prevent players from leaving do to pvp, and what are they doing exactly that is special?
As i said before there are only two games that are up which is WoW and i suppose FF. Both are old and working off nostalgia. What you need to look at is ALL the other mmorpgs that are full dead.
People are playing for more PvP than pve you can see what games are popular alone here and the contrast.
Ashes isn't planning on having much of a developer driven story.
I don't understand how this connects to what I wrote in the quote and even by itself I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say there.
If all you have paid attention to is the last few years, then sure, this would be your perspective.
If you go back further though, back when Jeff Bard was lead designer, Steven actually commented that he would love to compete with WoW on raid content. The concern he stated was in regards to the ability to do it, not whether it would fit in to the game or not. Or you could go to the Kickstarter page and try and find mentions of PvP or PvX - they don't exist.
"Competing with" doesn't equal exact replication of the circumstances. A raid can be just as epic as by being in an open dungeon, that is not mutually exclusive.
If Intrepid are not looking at the game through the lense of PvP and PvE, then they are missing out on the players perspective - and the player experience.
Last time I checked I was just as well a gamer and I don't seem to be limited to looking at everything through this lense. Additionally, innovation and success have proven themselves to be found where people actually made things that were different, where their approached changed perspective. And I think Ashes has the chance to do exactly that by rejecting the artificial divide that has been established in recent years. And looking at other games it is safe to say that a divide is not necessary to be successful.
I wasn't talking about the numbers present in a fight.
If you are on a server designed for 10k people, and there are only 2k online in prime time, just finding someone to attack could be difficult.
True, but I have yet to see the evidence that points to Ashes actually running the explicit risk of that happening.
You didn't say people left BDO due to pvp, yet you are bringing up games as if people re leaving them? That makes 0 sense to me.
That seems like a "you" issue to me.
I pointed out a known issue in MMO's, and gave two examples of games that had attempted to prevent that issue. The point of that was not to say it was or was not working, it was merely to illustrate that it is an issue that developers are trying to solve.
As to your comment about what games people are playing- yes, short form (ie, lobby) PvP is indeed the most popular. That has been the case for a good 20 years - PvP games have been far more popular than PvE, yet PvP MMO's have simply not been as popular as PvE dewpite many attempts at making it work.
Are you advocating for Ashes becoming a lobby game? If not, I'm not sure what you are saying.
"Competing with" doesn't equal exact replication of the circumstances. A raid can be just as epic as by being in an open dungeon, that is not mutually exclusive.
Actually, it is mutually exclusive.
Two reasons for that. The first is that if a games raid content is all open world, only two or three raid guilds can be supported per server. Second, raid content when PvP is to be expected can not be built nearly as intricately or with as much of a challenge.
True, but I have yet to see the evidence that points to Ashes actually running the explicit risk of that happening.
Since it has been observed in every persistent world PvP game, you shouldnt be looking for reasons as to why it wod happen in Ashes, you should be looking for reasons why it wouldnt.
You didn't say people left BDO due to pvp, yet you are bringing up games as if people re leaving them? That makes 0 sense to me.
That seems like a "you" issue to me.
I pointed out a known issue in MMO's, and gave two examples of games that had attempted to prevent that issue. The point of that was not to say it was or was not working, it was merely to illustrate that it is an issue that developers are trying to solve.
As to your comment about what games people are playing- yes, short form (ie, lobby) PvP is indeed the most popular. That has been the case for a good 20 years - PvP games have been far more popular than PvE, yet PvP MMO's have simply not been as popular as PvE dewpite many attempts at making it work.
Are you advocating for Ashes becoming a lobby game? If not, I'm not sure what you are saying.
I've yet to see how you answer my question on what pearl abyss does to prevent people from leaving in pvp besides you simply just saying it just cause.
Yes a pvp mmo that lacks decent content is not going to last, as any game. It isn't something that just relates to a mmorpg that has pvp, hense why i brought you the fact far more pve games have failed / are dead than pvp ones.
It is so easy to say something without considering more than just the surface level and the reasons why something failed.
I've yet to see how you answer my question on what pearl abyss does to prevent people from leaving in pvp besides you simply just saying it just cause.
It is so easy to say something without considering more than just the surface level and the reasons why something failed.
I mean, it is - but the point I was making that you are arguing is that this is a known phonomenon. My point is that it is a known thing that developers have witnessed, and are trying to find ways to reduce.
The point is, developers of PvP MMO's are able to see players leave games faster than PvE games, and are able to see that the people leaving tend to be either those that have a very low w/l ratio, or those that experienced a massive loss recently.
Even FPS and MOBA games have this same phenomonon. When people feel a match is lost, they will often just leave. Not everyone, but enough that most of those games attempted to come up with a system to prevent it. Sure, people in those games often come back - often just start a new match straight away. In an MMO though, that isn't an option. The world is persistent - if you have found yourself in a position where you are unable to win, that isn't going to just change any time soon.
I've yet to see how you answer my question on what pearl abyss does to prevent people from leaving in pvp besides you simply just saying it just cause.
It is so easy to say something without considering more than just the surface level and the reasons why something failed.
I mean, it is - but the point I was making that you are arguing is that this is a known phonomenon. My point is that it is a known thing that developers have witnessed, and are trying to find ways to reduce.
The point is, developers of PvP MMO's are able to see players leave games faster than PvE games, and are able to see that the people leaving tend to be either those that have a very low w/l ratio, or those that experienced a massive loss recently.
Even FPS and MOBA games have this same phenomonon. When people feel a match is lost, they will often just leave. Not everyone, but enough that most of those games attempted to come up with a system to prevent it. Sure, people in those games often come back - often just start a new match straight away. In an MMO though, that isn't an option. The world is persistent - if you have found yourself in a position where you are unable to win, that isn't going to just change any time soon.
.... Please don't tell me you are taking them having shards as a reason to prevent people leaving the game do to pvp as your proof....
That is not them acknowledging anything that is you just looking at a feature and assuming based on personal or bias feelings. That is not backed by any kind of facts.
.... Please don't tell me you are taking them having shards as a reason to prevent people leaving the game do to pvp as your proof....
It is one of the reasons they gave for it - assuming my Korean was accurate enough.
Their thinking was that one of the main ways people leave an MMO is when they get themselves in to a situation where a guild or an alliance is able to stop them doing anything. Being stuck on a server with such a guild or alliance never ends well. They also wanted a system where players were able to always play with their friends, and so settled on the system they have as an attempt to assist both issues.
Keep in mind, the people behind Pearl Abyss had a background in publishing, not developing.
That is not them acknowledging anything that is you just looking at a feature and assuming based on personal or bias feelings. That is not backed by any kind of facts.
This is the reason they gave for it.
It is the reason they still give.
It would take me forever to find the video, of course, so you can take my word for it, or do your usual, but for data for those who track me, I watched BDO's community streams and design stuff and developer notes for a while to study.
This is absolutely one of the reasons for their 'whole single world' thing, and it's an explicit part of the game loop to 'change servers if you are not able to win at your PvE grindspot'. The idea being that you 'move around every time you lose until you find someone you can beat', because it lowers the 'pain point' ratio (and if you always win, move to the 'PvP' server where there is no 'Corruption' but 50% more loot, since you have 'earned' it by being the best).
Instead of the strongest player making 9 people have the all-loss experience, 9 people get the 'well, I beat someone' experience and only one gets the all-loss, if the 'intended flow' is followed (in the optimal case).
The paragraph directly above this is an extrapolation, not part of what they said. They only said the 'move around every time you lose to get other/fairer matches' part. It's pretty ingenious, as retention mechanics go, but it is still only about as effective as matchmaking is, which is to say, not very effective long term.
.... Please don't tell me you are taking them having shards as a reason to prevent people leaving the game do to pvp as your proof....
It is one of the reasons they gave for it - assuming my Korean was accurate enough.
Their thinking was that one of the main ways people leave an MMO is when they get themselves in to a situation where a guild or an alliance is able to stop them doing anything. Being stuck on a server with such a guild or alliance never ends well. They also wanted a system where players were able to always play with their friends, and so settled on the system they have as an attempt to assist both issues.
Keep in mind, the people behind Pearl Abyss had a background in publishing, not developing.
Pearl abyss didn't publish the game, that was kakao games but this is kind of pointless and not really important to the discussion.
Having shards is not them trying to stop people from leaving do to pvp, that is skipping over all other relevant design to just assume that. Them saying we have shards so people aren't forced to pvp in a shard, does not = them escaping pvp in another shard. You can shard hope all you want and there will be people around and you will still get pvp and same thing would happen. That doesn't make people quit the game.
What is important about the shards has to do that there is one server for everyone, meaning there is very limited grind spots. In order to ensure there is enough content for players and it is not over crowded it is a solution that has to be used. As well as keeping the community tighter together than splitting it based off servers.
The game wouldn't have places for people to grind without them as everywhere would be over crowded and not work. If you are grinding a popular spot you aren't going to avoid pvp, people are going to be at those points on the shards.
So i can't really chalk that up to dev's acknowledging players leaving over pvp, that is issues within their game for lack of content and area space to support the large amount of players. So it is over reaching to think devs are "aware" of this issue in terms of that and coming with some strong unmovable point without considering the bigger picture.
Now for the other side of things
Now there always needs to be a balance to stop griefing and such, but I don't relate PvP to = to griefing. Having measures in place to foster a balanced pvp environment not based on heavy griefing is important based on what those rules would be for the game that design intends. Any dev is going to look at the limit of griefing being something that makes people leave. But why it is important you have good design and such so that won't be the case and people can avoid it if needed and have other options.
If griefing is so bad and the game isn't designed to reduce and prevent it yes you will have a issue with pvp. But that is not because of pvp but lack of designs to foster a good game design. If something is lacking design players will leave for both PvP and PvE if it is bad. Both have their unique challenges. When it comes to pvp and players being unpredictable it is always more work.
Having shards is not them trying to stop people from leaving do to pvp, that is skipping over all other relevant design to just assume that. Them saying we have shards so people aren't forced to pvp in a shard, does not = them escaping pvp in another shard. You can shard hope all you want and there will be people around and you will still get pvp and same thing would happen. That doesn't make people quit the game.
What is important about the shards has to do that there is one server for everyone, meaning there is very limited grind spots. In order to ensure there is enough content for players and it is not over crowded it is a solution that has to be used. As well as keeping the community tighter together than splitting it based off servers.
For clarity this is not only untrue, it is very untrue.
It would take me too long to detail why, so as usual, I hate to have to make this post type, but I hope people can forgive me for not engaging with Mag7 on this matter in this way. The unfair allotment of time between the 'Here is the exact reason with references, design doc equivalents, and statistics" and "nuh uh!" is just not tenable.
Comments
I don't think I would want to prolong an initial release for a linux client. But I don't think developing one after would be a bad idea. Like it or not cross-platform is the current trend and it's only a matter of time before a top tier mmorpg picks up on that.
Sure, that's PvP (so not an answer to the original question of whether the game will have enough PvE for everyone), but it's PvP for the sake of giving them rewarding PvE, so any player reasonably interested in PvX, even with a strong inclination to prefer PvE, would be willing to engage in activity like that. And if you can't live with bigger guilds sometimes getting the biggest stuff, you should probably be part of a big guild, instead of playing the martyr in your small one, while complaining that you're being left out, and not doing anything about it.
Giving people options is fine, but if you spread so many of them out across the map that everyone always has something to do everywhere, there's either no need for PvP contestation, or most of those encounters have rewards so low that no one's going to be doing them anyway and now your request didn't really address your problem.
It just spreads the population further apart, locks them in mindless grinding, and removes identity from the game.
Yes, all players should have interesting and rewarding things to do (and not just PvP.) That's what instances are for. But when you run out of guaranteed content, it's up to you as a player to find opportunities to do interesting things, or be more content with doing the stuff that yields low rewards, and let that add up over time.
Yes, all the encounters Noaani listed should probably exist. If not upon release, I expect something a bunch of each of those to be added within the first year.
But not to the extent that they should undo any of the concerns you have about the availability of viable PvE, or large guilds dominating their control. Because that should be up to the players to figure out their place in.
The first is the node system, and the fact that all content we are talking about here (raid level content at the end game) will only be present within the ZoI of metrpoolis nodes.
The other thing that will have an impact here is the server population. There willbe more players on a full server in Ashes than on any other AAA MMO (at least that I know of) other than EVE.
That saidd, the above would be a valid concewrn in most games. This is the part we are arguing for here.
As it stands, we don't have these in any meaningful way.
I mean, you seem to agree that they should exist - yet seem to be debating against thoseof us arguing for them to exist.
https://tldrify.com/1b22
This is the type of ideology/foundational principle that informs my comments when I talk about these things.
If you'll just throw all verbal reassurance out the window by principle, will you just keep reiterating the same opinions/suggestions until you're literally presented with a completed game's worth of PvE encounters? Or what does it take?
I have no idea what it is you are getting at here.
Yes, Ashes will have bosses.
And yes, that high quality content will usually be controlled by strong guilds and sometimes weaker guilds will have to band together to push the strong dudes out. All of that is exactly how I want it and I'll be in one of those weaker guilds, trying to band people together.
Intrepid is designing this game to be PvX and calling it PvX for (amongst other reasons) the fact, that PvE and PvP will not be separated as if they do not belong together. In this game they will, you get one, you'll also get the other, the mixing ratio might change depending on the situation.
With that being said here are some things we as players will probably be able to do with a PvE focus.
I think in a game where it has been said that it is "unlikely" to be able to purely focus on either entirely, this is a decent enough range of option to occupy with. There is no need for more separation of PvP and PvE because that runs counter to the fundamental design idea of the game. And last time I made the napkin math, Ashes will not need millions of players to be a success and anything below that is "a failure", around half a million active players would be enough for the game to be quite successful in terms of subscription numbers alone. So in my opion "more PvE or this game will have no long term players" does not apply. Of course, I can't make this as an absolute statement, but it seems to me like Steven is thinking similarly, that he can afford to not make an artifical wall between PvE and PvP.
We are not going to see Monster Coin events where there are not players in control. It just isnt going to happen. We are also not likely to see Monster Coin events where there are not players from a rival node working to interrupt players so said monsters do more damage to the node.
So, your example of a piece of PvE content is quite literally players fighting other players, with still other players coming in and trying to make it harder. By this logic, you may as well call all content PvE, as there is always going to be ground present and ground is a part of the environment.
The notion of exploration and crafting as being PvE focused has already been pointed out in this thread as being misguided and essentially an attempt to manipulate the discussion. When talking about PvP vs PvE, the only point to it is in regards to player expectations of content.
As for quests and up to 20% instanced content, well, we never said the game would have no PvE, we said it wouldn't have enough quality guild based PvE. Based on what Steven has said about the instanced content though, it is potentially just quest content that is unable to be repeated.
However, wise use of this 20% instanced content could well appease every issue I have in this regard. If Steven had the intention of using this 20% in such a manner, he could easily put an end to these discussions by going in to detail about it.
As a more general point, if you arre talking to an MMO player you have just met, and you ask them what kind of content they like - if they say they like PvE content and you suggest some crafting content to them, you are going to look stupid.
Same thing with talking about exploring or questing. These are all their own content types - they play differently to PvE. Calling crafting, exploring or questing PvE content is about as nonsensical as calling crafting, exploring or questing PvP content, as all can be used to forward PvP experiences just as easily as PvE.
The truth is, they are each their own thing.
In order for this to be accurate, it means that if there are no situations in which PvE is possible and PvP is not, then there also can not be any situations in which PvP is possible but PvE is not.
If the situation arises where PvP is possible but PvE is not, then this claim of yours (that has not been made by Intrepid) is simply not true. Realistically, sieges, caravans
Also, arenas exist.
I agree, I would consider half a million subscribers 12 months after launch to be a wild success for Ashes.
However, my expectation a year after launch is less than half of that, trending down.
But those walls aready exist - they just contain players with PvP setting and block out PvE.
See, to me, it sounds like you are wanting a PvP game and that is not what Ashes is (or at least not what it used to be).
What I want Ashes to be is a solid PvX game where both the PvP and PvE are able to stand on their own, but are intertwined.
My reason for pointing out the lack of quality PvE in the game so far is simple.
PvP requires players, yet players that are in a game specifically for PvP will often leave a game if they are constantly losing at PvP. People in a game primarily for it's PvE will stay in the game longer, even if losing at PvP often. Thus, PvE of a quality that will being players from other games to Ashes increases the PvP targets PvP players have, thus making the PvP better.
Thus, the best way to make a PvP game with good systems better is to add PvE content to the game to attact more players.
I'm sure you have some questions in the above you want to ask, but before you do, just realize that hte basic point of the above is that I am essentially saying more players makes better PvP - only question the above if you disagree with that point (I've gone over the details of the above a half dozen times on these forums - I'm not going over it again when the above is basically all that needs to be taken away).
Now, based on the above point, that merans PvE in Ashes needs tp be good enough in terms of quality to attract players from other games - players that prefer PvE but are happy to PvP.
My arguments are to that end, and that end only.
I don't see why having more people that prefer to PvE could be an issue. I mean, this is supposed to be a PvX game, as long as all players are willing to PvE and PvP it shouldn't be an issue.
What issues could possible come from having more people that perfer to PvE than PvP?
To your seccond point - yes they do. it isn't every PvP player (obviously), but it is the bulk of them. This is why BDO had the server structure it had, and why Crowfall had the game mode it had. Both were attempts to break this cycle.
It's cool if you don't see it - I'm not all that bothered by that. MMO developers know it to be true, so I have no need to attempt to convince anyone.
Same issue New world had and other games with pve players want pve focused features and less pvp features. Having pvpers that enjoy pve is the best way things could go not the other way around. Players that like pvp will also enjoy the content of pve. People with a focus on pve will not like pvp distracting them or influence their pve content as well as want ways to have content not gated behind pvp and want changes.
Using crowfall as an example is a meme, no advertising, bad game all around, boring, terrible ass ideas (me being bad game doesn't' even do it justice it was utter dog crap from every single element of the game.)
If they did modern shadowbane it would have been 100% better.
BDO is also another bad example, you can't use that data in any positive way when it has gear level gambling that is the reason why people quit and don't come back. There can be a thousand and other reasons why people would quit that game.
BDO has a lack of content all around not just including the bad pve (which is non existent) but the game lacks actaul pvp content as well, and the pvp content feels hardly meaningful. PvP is in the game to inflate player progression through distraction and trying to penny and dime players.
I can turn this around easy and say pve is a issue, all these new mmorpgs that come out that are focused on pve are all dead. Besides the same ones that had a certain following mainly WoW. If you look at what games people play on twitch the top games are all focused on PvP.
The reason New World launched as poorly as it did was nothing to do with that though, it was because Amazon corperate had a goal for Amazone Games, and launching New World no later than end of Q3 2021. It launshed 2 days before the end of Q3. It had been delayed twice, they needed it launched.
Given another 6 months to a year, they could have created a much better PvP system - but their corparate overlords wanted the game to be launched regardless of the state it was in (to be fair, Amazon is used to being able to release unfinished software and updating it while live with no real issues).
That said, developers will often look to players to identify issues. They will not look to players to find solutions to those problems. This is basically true for any professional organization. If I were using it or BDO as exampes of a good game, sure.
However, I was using them as examples to show you that developers are aware of the phenomenon of PvP player retention being significantly lower than that of PvE - with it being those with lower w/l ratios that leave first.
Any other facts pertaining to those games is irrelevent to the point I was making.
You could.
Go ahead and try it though, see what happens.
Thing is, I think you know what happens, because you have seen that argument being made before.
My point is using crowfall as an example of anything is flawed. And the take on BDO is flawed in poeople leaving for pvp, when they have gambling systems that would be the reason people leave. The thing about BDO is it has a stead player base doesn't grow or shrink so by default those players are not leaving the game because of pvp. Either way there is a lot more to talk about on why people can leave and why they are not good examples. Its akin to taking badly designed games with no floor and being like :look this is why im right" And ignoring how flaws any point of data can be ignoring many other issues on why people will quit, or a game won't grow.
Already made the point on pve, all those games are dead. The point is it is a flawed argument people leave if the game is bad or not fun it goes for both PvP and PvE. People aren't leaving because they lose in PvP (Unless you are getting pve focused players which is again part of the issue, those players leave if pvped since they dont like pvp to begin with most of the time).
Now if you are trying to make a point pve focused players will leave because of pvp i agree with you. Hence why i say more focused pve players leads to bad things.
Strange how you would think that, since I didn't even use the word "want" or "should" once and only referred to thinks we probably come to see without making any kind of implication whether that is what I want or not.
But to clear this one up: I am a primarily PvE guy. I like my occasional PvP, but Ashes will have more of that than I would normally engage in. I hope the story, engaging exploration and the artisan progression to mitigate the player conflicts that I won't be able to avoid (because I suck at PvP).
And I am trying to tell you is that this doesn't seem to be what is Intrepid and in particular Steven is aiming at, because from all I have read to far the systems are created in a way to be dependent on one another to make them one - PvX, instead of "PvE and PvP". From the way this is being designed I suspect the goal is that there is only both aspects working together or not working at all. Just like there is Hydrogen and Oxygen separately, thats fine and dandy, but separated they are not water - by fusing the two they become something that is not well enough described by breaking it back down into its parts.
Again, not that I am saying this "should" be, I am describing what seems to be the most likely intent of the developer based on the information I am aware of.
I think by trying to strictly analyze the game game features through a lense of PvP VS PvE, one misses the point of what Intrepids perspective is and what drives their design in the way they are designing it. And sure, as long as Steven is not coming out and clarifying this, I am aware that I am just speculating, but it seems to me that this point is explaining more of what we can actually see happening in the development.
At some point you mentioned more instanced dungeons being a potential way to "improve" PvE content in the game. I think Steven addressed this point in the livestream where he was asked what he would do if the community would be asking for more instanced dungeons. The answer was that the core design features - which included open world dungeons - were not up for discussion and that Intrepid felt confident enough about the quality of their final product that they wouldn't need the extra PvE players to be successful and deliver a game of good quality.
Lastly the "more players equals better PvP"... well, games like League of Legends made 5v5 PvP, there are 1v1 PvP games and there are games like Ashes that want to go 250v250 (or 500v500?). In the end as long as the number of participants can be filled more players doesn't really matter imo. So if some thousand people don't want to play Ashes because of they share the opinion that the PvE content is lacking, I am not too worried that this will affect the quality of my gaming experience.
As to your point about BDO, I didn't say people left the game due to PvP.
In both cases, what I said was the developers knew that players leave games due to PvP faster than average. As such, the develoeprs of both games attempted to create ways to prevent that.
The point of mentioning this was to point out that developers know players leave games due to PvP faster. How the games turned out after launch literally has nothing to do with this point.
Which games again?
EQ or EQ2? WoW? ESO? GW2? FFXIV?
Between those games you have some of the longest lasting games, and about 80% of the MMO population.
Yeah, PvE is failing... great argument my dude.
If you go back further though, back when Jeff Bard was lead designer, Steven actually commented that he would love to compete with WoW on raid content. The concern he stated was in regards to the ability to do it, not whether it would fit in to the game or not. Or you could go to the Kickstarter page and try and find mentions of PvP or PvX - they don't exist.
If Intrepid are not looking at the game through the lense of PvP and PvE, then they are missing out on the players perspective - and the player experience.
I wasn't talking about the numbers present in a fight.
If you are on a server designed for 10k people, and there are only 2k online in prime time, just finding someone to attack could be difficult.
You didn't say people left BDO due to pvp, yet you are bringing up games as if people re leaving them? That makes 0 sense to me. Where are you getting information that pearl abyss is attempting to create ways that prevent players from leaving do to pvp, and what are they doing exactly that is special?
As i said before there are only two games that are up which is WoW and i suppose FF. Both are old and working off nostalgia. What you need to look at is ALL the other mmorpgs that are full dead.
People are playing for more PvP than pve you can see what games are popular alone here and the contrast.
I don't understand how this connects to what I wrote in the quote and even by itself I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say there.
"Competing with" doesn't equal exact replication of the circumstances. A raid can be just as epic as by being in an open dungeon, that is not mutually exclusive.
Last time I checked I was just as well a gamer and I don't seem to be limited to looking at everything through this lense. Additionally, innovation and success have proven themselves to be found where people actually made things that were different, where their approached changed perspective. And I think Ashes has the chance to do exactly that by rejecting the artificial divide that has been established in recent years. And looking at other games it is safe to say that a divide is not necessary to be successful.
True, but I have yet to see the evidence that points to Ashes actually running the explicit risk of that happening.
I pointed out a known issue in MMO's, and gave two examples of games that had attempted to prevent that issue. The point of that was not to say it was or was not working, it was merely to illustrate that it is an issue that developers are trying to solve.
As to your comment about what games people are playing- yes, short form (ie, lobby) PvP is indeed the most popular. That has been the case for a good 20 years - PvP games have been far more popular than PvE, yet PvP MMO's have simply not been as popular as PvE dewpite many attempts at making it work.
Are you advocating for Ashes becoming a lobby game? If not, I'm not sure what you are saying.
Two reasons for that. The first is that if a games raid content is all open world, only two or three raid guilds can be supported per server. Second, raid content when PvP is to be expected can not be built nearly as intricately or with as much of a challenge. Since it has been observed in every persistent world PvP game, you shouldnt be looking for reasons as to why it wod happen in Ashes, you should be looking for reasons why it wouldnt.
I've yet to see how you answer my question on what pearl abyss does to prevent people from leaving in pvp besides you simply just saying it just cause.
Yes a pvp mmo that lacks decent content is not going to last, as any game. It isn't something that just relates to a mmorpg that has pvp, hense why i brought you the fact far more pve games have failed / are dead than pvp ones.
It is so easy to say something without considering more than just the surface level and the reasons why something failed.
I mean, it is - but the point I was making that you are arguing is that this is a known phonomenon. My point is that it is a known thing that developers have witnessed, and are trying to find ways to reduce.
The point is, developers of PvP MMO's are able to see players leave games faster than PvE games, and are able to see that the people leaving tend to be either those that have a very low w/l ratio, or those that experienced a massive loss recently.
Even FPS and MOBA games have this same phenomonon. When people feel a match is lost, they will often just leave. Not everyone, but enough that most of those games attempted to come up with a system to prevent it. Sure, people in those games often come back - often just start a new match straight away. In an MMO though, that isn't an option. The world is persistent - if you have found yourself in a position where you are unable to win, that isn't going to just change any time soon.
.... Please don't tell me you are taking them having shards as a reason to prevent people leaving the game do to pvp as your proof....
Their thinking was that one of the main ways people leave an MMO is when they get themselves in to a situation where a guild or an alliance is able to stop them doing anything. Being stuck on a server with such a guild or alliance never ends well. They also wanted a system where players were able to always play with their friends, and so settled on the system they have as an attempt to assist both issues.
Keep in mind, the people behind Pearl Abyss had a background in publishing, not developing.
This is the reason they gave for it.
It is the reason they still give.
It would take me forever to find the video, of course, so you can take my word for it, or do your usual, but for data for those who track me, I watched BDO's community streams and design stuff and developer notes for a while to study.
This is absolutely one of the reasons for their 'whole single world' thing, and it's an explicit part of the game loop to 'change servers if you are not able to win at your PvE grindspot'. The idea being that you 'move around every time you lose until you find someone you can beat', because it lowers the 'pain point' ratio (and if you always win, move to the 'PvP' server where there is no 'Corruption' but 50% more loot, since you have 'earned' it by being the best).
Instead of the strongest player making 9 people have the all-loss experience, 9 people get the 'well, I beat someone' experience and only one gets the all-loss, if the 'intended flow' is followed (in the optimal case).
The paragraph directly above this is an extrapolation, not part of what they said. They only said the 'move around every time you lose to get other/fairer matches' part. It's pretty ingenious, as retention mechanics go, but it is still only about as effective as matchmaking is, which is to say, not very effective long term.
Pearl abyss didn't publish the game, that was kakao games but this is kind of pointless and not really important to the discussion.
Having shards is not them trying to stop people from leaving do to pvp, that is skipping over all other relevant design to just assume that. Them saying we have shards so people aren't forced to pvp in a shard, does not = them escaping pvp in another shard. You can shard hope all you want and there will be people around and you will still get pvp and same thing would happen. That doesn't make people quit the game.
What is important about the shards has to do that there is one server for everyone, meaning there is very limited grind spots. In order to ensure there is enough content for players and it is not over crowded it is a solution that has to be used. As well as keeping the community tighter together than splitting it based off servers.
The game wouldn't have places for people to grind without them as everywhere would be over crowded and not work. If you are grinding a popular spot you aren't going to avoid pvp, people are going to be at those points on the shards.
So i can't really chalk that up to dev's acknowledging players leaving over pvp, that is issues within their game for lack of content and area space to support the large amount of players. So it is over reaching to think devs are "aware" of this issue in terms of that and coming with some strong unmovable point without considering the bigger picture.
Now for the other side of things
Now there always needs to be a balance to stop griefing and such, but I don't relate PvP to = to griefing. Having measures in place to foster a balanced pvp environment not based on heavy griefing is important based on what those rules would be for the game that design intends. Any dev is going to look at the limit of griefing being something that makes people leave. But why it is important you have good design and such so that won't be the case and people can avoid it if needed and have other options.
If griefing is so bad and the game isn't designed to reduce and prevent it yes you will have a issue with pvp. But that is not because of pvp but lack of designs to foster a good game design. If something is lacking design players will leave for both PvP and PvE if it is bad. Both have their unique challenges. When it comes to pvp and players being unpredictable it is always more work.
For clarity this is not only untrue, it is very untrue.
It would take me too long to detail why, so as usual, I hate to have to make this post type, but I hope people can forgive me for not engaging with Mag7 on this matter in this way. The unfair allotment of time between the 'Here is the exact reason with references, design doc equivalents, and statistics" and "nuh uh!" is just not tenable.