@Noaani I've said it before, the moment you stop putting words in peoples mouth, and assuming things if you have not played certain games enough you will become a better person and poster on these forums.
You need to not force things to be the way to see it and allow people to express and understand their point of view, than trying to use what they say and remolding it to fit what you want it to be.
At the core of these discussions of casual versus hardcore or pve versus pvp is the concept of player flow.
On either side of a flow state is anxiety or boredom. PvP or hardcore players who experience a lack of PvP or hardcore experiences will become bored whereas PvE or casual players who experience too much PvP or hardcore experience will see that as anxiety provoking. Both scenarios lead to the player stopping play and leaving the game.
So this will not be an easy process.
Yes, and going a bit deeper. The flow of Ashes PvX is rooted in resilience, not invincibility. To paraphrase, ‘It’s not about whether I lose my balance, but how quickly I regain it.’
If players have anxiety about what they can lose in a fight (tangible or intangible), success will be defined as ‘never losing.’ This is why open world pvp tends toward zergs and retreat, and will result in the game being more niche.
However, if players can accept that dying or surviving in the open world isn’t winning or losing, it’s just part of the game - then the game will be more fun, and have greater overall success.
TLDR: We’re going to die and survive a lot in Ashes. The more we accept this instead of resisting it, the more fun we’ll have and the better the game will be.
This is something I just couldn't accept, and I know that's the case for many others.
It's the main thing about Albion Online. Dying in red/black zones is punishing. Maybe not so much to experienced players, who know that they will just get their stuff back really fast, but to newer players, it's just extremely punishing, emotionally.
When you die and lose stuff, you've basically lost time and effort that you invested into the game up to that point. All that time spent leveling up, getting richer to buy the gear, it's all gone. It just feels like all you've done to get there was in vain, and you have wasted your time...
I simply don't want a game that's going to disrespect my time in that way. I'd be fine if I was actually having fun, but I wasn't, and that's the main issue. I tried venturing out a few times to black zones, to just gather stuff if possible... I'm not kidding, my anxiety and fear levels were through the roof. It's not an enjoying experience, because I know I will die if I ever get into combat, because it's often 1v2 or 3, or they simply outgear you by a lot. So the experience kinda goes like this: Venture out there, use the invisibility thing at the start of the map, run as fast to the thing (can't remember what it was, a dungeon of sorts I think), stay at the entrance for a few min to make sure nobody followed you there, do the dungeon, then leave and try to run back avoiding any contact with players, deposit all loot, repeat. It's just wasn't enjoyable at all, because it was extremely stressful.
And the thing is, you HAVE to go to those zones, because that's where anything of worth is located at.
So rather than "accepting that dying is a normal part of the game", I just quit. And it's going to be the same for a lot of people, hell, most of them probably.
And this is coming from someone that loved to PvP in Archeage. That experience is completely different, because if you die, you can just go back and try to fight again. You don't lose much, except maybe time spent getting back into the action, and your ego/pride.
You defending him assuming things on games he has not played and telling people who played games how it is? Also also defending him insulting as a means to dismiss people?
I'm not defending him, I just understand where he's coming from, because of my experience of interacting with you on these forums
Because i called you out on the concept that you will be able to do everything, so you should have no reason to complain about freeholds based on your words in your own post
No that's not it, but you've proven my point in a way.
You just keep making assumptions about people and their arguments, even when replying to a post, you completely make up an argument that doesn't exist in the post at all, kinda like putting words in people's mouth, as you've said. You're just projecting. You accuse him of doing the exact stuff that you are actually doing. Not to mention the constant derailing of arguments, and focusing on moot points.
And it's not the first time. As I've said, I had a fair share of those interactions with you previously a few months back. You just kept making weird and false assumptions about me, and the stuff I said or believed in, just based on the fact that I disagreed with you on a certain topic, and argued in favor of the thing you didn't seem to like that much (if I remember correctly it was about combat systems and tab vs action).
Whenever you don't do those sort of things, you actually can make a valid point, but that's very rare.
they are the exact thing you said you did not say. lol. i cannot support you any longer if you do not recognize this fact @dygz feedback required.
Um. No....
You stated I said, "People will not be playing this game."
I never said that.
Rather, what I said, very specifically is:
Ashes is designed for hardcore gamers who typically play MMORPGs on PvP servers.
If you love EvE Online, Archeage, Lineage II and the New World Alpha PvP, you will have a great time playing Ashes.
People who don't love those games probably will not be playing Ashes.
If you have poor reading comprehension and cannot properly grasp context, that is your own battle to fight.
I can't help you with that.
I very clearly stated that there will be people who love playing Ashes.
Your paraphrase of what I actually wrote is ludicrous.
If you can't see that...
They are literally quotes of what you said.
i feel bad for you.
I hope it works out.
I am sure, once, you were the MAN. I wish i could have seen that day.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited July 2023
LMAO
And the full quotes do not say what you stated I said.
What you posted are all taken out of context.
I feel bad for you! Bless you heart!
But, I was never - the MAN. I'm not interested in being the MAN.
Things worked out pretty much the way I wanted.
I was able to get Steven to agree to be on cam with us - and I think we did an OK job getting some answers and quotes from Steven that we didn't already have.
LMAO
And the full quotes do not say what you stated I said.
What you posted are all taken out of context.
I feel bad for you! Bless you heart!
But, I was never - the MAN. I'm not interested in being the MAN.
Things worked out pretty much the way I wanted.
I was able to get Steven to agree to be on cam with us - and I think we did an OK job getting some answers and quotes from Steven that we didn't already have.
CHEERS!!
i love how i can so easily create four quotes that "do not state what you stated". that I took them all "out of context".
lol. nope. i am saying you are subtly (not as much as you think) trying to change Steven's mind about pvp.
LMFAO
If I wanted to try to change his mind, I would just straight up tell him he should change his mind.
I would also clearly state that here in the Forums.
I don't want Steven to change his mind.
i think that is a pretty bald faced misdirection. You want to play this game... so bad.
you just cannot get your mind wrapped around PVP.
Anything else just feels like we are not telling the truth.
LMAO
And the full quotes do not say what you stated I said.
What you posted are all taken out of context.
I feel bad for you! Bless you heart!
But, I was never - the MAN. I'm not interested in being the MAN.
Things worked out pretty much the way I wanted.
I was able to get Steven to agree to be on cam with us - and I think we did an OK job getting some answers and quotes from Steven that we didn't already have.
CHEERS!!
i love how i can so easily create four quotes that "do not state what you stated". that I took them all "out of context".
I guess I will let everyone reading this decide.
As someone that is not the biggest fan of Dygz, but understands his mind a little, allow me to inform you as to what has happened.
The first quote where Dygz asked you to show where he said people will not play the game, he is talking about people in general - as in no one (or very few people) will play Ashes.
The posts you then provided were all of Dygz saying specific people, or people wanting specific things, will not play this game.
Now, you could argue the semantics on the above if you like, but Dygz is right. He never once said people will not play the game, but he has said many times (rightly so) that some people will not play the game.
LMAO
And the full quotes do not say what you stated I said.
What you posted are all taken out of context.
I feel bad for you! Bless you heart!
But, I was never - the MAN. I'm not interested in being the MAN.
Things worked out pretty much the way I wanted.
I was able to get Steven to agree to be on cam with us - and I think we did an OK job getting some answers and quotes from Steven that we didn't already have.
CHEERS!!
i love how i can so easily create four quotes that "do not state what you stated". that I took them all "out of context".
I guess I will let everyone reading this decide.
As someone that is not the biggest fan of Dygz, but understands his mind a little, allow me to inform you as to what has happened.
The first quote where Dygz asked you to show where he said people will not play the game, he is talking about people in general - as in no one (or very few people) will play Ashes.
The posts you then provided were all of Dygz saying specific people, or people wanting specific things, will not play this game.
Now, you could argue the semantics on the above if you like, but Dygz is right. He never once said people will not play the game, but he has said many times (rightly so) that some people will not play the game.
he literally says it often. i was able to point out four instances in the very thread he challenged me. If you wish to share his delusion, that is on you.
He says 'people' (of various types) will not play the game frequently.
LMAO
And the full quotes do not say what you stated I said.
What you posted are all taken out of context.
I feel bad for you! Bless you heart!
But, I was never - the MAN. I'm not interested in being the MAN.
Things worked out pretty much the way I wanted.
I was able to get Steven to agree to be on cam with us - and I think we did an OK job getting some answers and quotes from Steven that we didn't already have.
CHEERS!!
i love how i can so easily create four quotes that "do not state what you stated". that I took them all "out of context".
I guess I will let everyone reading this decide.
As someone that is not the biggest fan of Dygz, but understands his mind a little, allow me to inform you as to what has happened.
The first quote where Dygz asked you to show where he said people will not play the game, he is talking about people in general - as in no one (or very few people) will play Ashes.
The posts you then provided were all of Dygz saying specific people, or people wanting specific things, will not play this game.
Now, you could argue the semantics on the above if you like, but Dygz is right. He never once said people will not play the game, but he has said many times (rightly so) that some people will not play the game.
he literally says it often. i was able to point out four instances in the very thread he challenged me. If you wish to share his delusion, that is on you.
He says 'people' (of various types) will not play the game frequently.
Yeah, he does.
He often says people with specific desires from an MMO won't play Ashes, and he is right. Even you agree with him on that. You do not think a casual MMO player that is adverse to PvP will be playing Ashes - which is you agreeing that some people will not play the game.
However, he has never said people won't play Ashes. There is always the qualifier of *some* people (or a designated specific group).
These are different statements.
One suggests Ashes will be a niche game, the other suggests Ashes will be a dead game.
Keep in mind what my original comment in this regard was. I didn't say PvP in MMO's shouldn't exist, I didn't say Ashes should drop PvP - what I said was "There are far better genres for PvP gameplay than MMO's."
This is an objective fact. No one with a brain would argue against this point.
Not for me generally. Open world mmo pvp is the best pvp I've ever had, collectively. There's certainly been some bad forms of it I've seen in some games. But when done right or good enough, it's the best for me.
It's just a type of pvp. Not the most popular one. But popular enough. It has pros and cons and things that devs need to account for and mitigate, just like any other form of pvp. But as opposed to a CSGO match, it's the comparative lack of structure in owpvp that I enjoy more. And it requires skillsets that I care more about and find more entertaining to play and watch.
Keep in mind what my original comment in this regard was. I didn't say PvP in MMO's shouldn't exist, I didn't say Ashes should drop PvP - what I said was "There are far better genres for PvP gameplay than MMO's."
This is an objective fact. No one with a brain would argue against this point.
Not for me generally. Open world mmo pvp is the best pvp I've ever had, collectively. There's certainly been some bad forms of it I've seen in some games. But when done right or good enough, it's the best for me.
It's just a type of pvp. Not the most popular one. But popular enough. It has pros and cons and things that devs need to account for and mitigate, just like any other form of pvp. But as opposed to a CSGO match, it's the comparative lack of structure in owpvp that I enjoy more. And it requires skillsets that I care more about and find more entertaining to play and watch.
These are reasons why I am not saying MMO PvP shouldn't exist.
However, they do not mean that the genre is better suited to PvP than match based gaming.
As someone that is not the biggest fan of Dygz, but understands his mind a little, allow me to inform you as to what has happened.
You, unfortunately, are not a credible source of "what has happened".
Based on what? You having differing opinions on some matters to me? Or is this just an attempt to avoid having to admit you were wrong here?
I mean, if you look at the posts in question, you'll see that I am right - and thus that Dygz was right. Every time you suggested he said "people will not play the game", he in fact said "those people will not play the game".
These are different groups both linguistically and mathematically. I mean, imagine a Ven Diagram of "all people" and "those people". The circles are different, even if one circle is completely encompasing the other.
Dygz has said many of those smaller circles (defined groups of people) will not play Ashes. He has never said that larger circle (people) will not play Ashes.
You suggesting he has said "people" will not play Ashes is just factually wrong. He has only said some people will not play Ashes.
However, they do not mean that the genre is better suited to PvP than match based gaming.
It just depends on the game, not the genre necessarily. There are pvp mmos. There are pve coop shooters. What goes into a game is dependent on that game's individual vision, not the vision of the genre. That leads to staleness and rot, groupthink and hivemind.
Ultimately it's subjective. You don't think pvp is best suited for mmos. I do, or at least as good and worthy of it as any other genre. I think playing/watching static, repetitive matches of CSGO or LoL gets boring pretty quick. I crave the multiple extra dimensions that ow mmo pvp brings.
For strictly equal, 100% fair at all times pvp, of course arena and match based pvp is the best format. But if that's all people craved, battle royale wouldn't have become such a big thing. BR's are extremely unfair, even being match based. They have some similarities with open world mmo pvp. But they're not persistent, mmos are. And that's one of the things that mmo pvp devs need to account for, so I agree with you on that as I've seen you say it before.
But the whole "no one with a brain thing" I had to take issue with lol.
But the whole "no one with a brain thing" I had to take issue with lol.
The reason for this comment is simple - to me at least.
Look at a game like EVE. The very design of that game means that every time there is major PvP, the games population shrinks.
This is most obvious in EVE due to it having infrequent but very large battles, and the developers talking openly about player loss after such battles. However, while it is most obvious in EVE, it does happen in all persistent world MMO's with PvP. Since other games have smaller scale PvP, this means that PvP results in smaller scale player attrition. However, those smaller scale battles happen more often than EVE's massive battles, so that smaller scale attrition happens more often.
What this means is that MMO PvP is essentially a self consuming setup. This is what Crowfall tried to avoid, and what BDO's server structure was in part designed to prevent (players could more easily avoid those that they kept losing to in PvP).
Arguing that PvP is as suited to the MMO genre as it is to a genre with a match based structure then means the person is arguing that a self consuming game design is as good as a game design that isn't self consuming.
I don't think anyone with a brain would make that argument.
However, that doesn't mean you can't still have things about MMO PvP that you enjoy that aren't available in other genres with PvP. There being things in the MMO genre that you enjoy in relation to PvP doesn't mean that this means it is the best genre for PvP.
There being things in the MMO genre that you enjoy in relation to PvP doesn't mean that this means it is the best genre for PvP.
It doesn't mean that. That's just my opinion that it is just as good of a genre for pvp as any other. And the best for me. It's subjective, opinion.
I know of the self cannibalizing pvp problem you're talking about. I know it can happen and it has happened to games before. Some have failed because of it, some made adjustments in time to fix the problem. Ashes is pretty unique in it's design and we'll have to see how affected by the problem it could be.
I think the node system could be a factor. What I've seen sometimes is when a pvp contender guild "loses" in these types of games, there's a good chance that they fall apart, with many members quitting the game altogether. I think the node system will be a wild card in this because it will provide continuity in a way, always a new place to go contribute to as a player. I don't know that for sure, just think there may be that effect.
At the end of the day, we know pvp mmos have worked and they will continue to work. It's certainly a formula that you have to get right, and there's risk of fucking it up.
But I mean what're you gonna do. There's always going to be some people who whine and quit. There's going to be some who just aren't feeling it anymore for various reasons. That's just the nature of it. Some come back off and on, I hear that happens in Eve. Some never come back. I don't know much about Eve, but I hear it's pretty hardcore.
And for me personally, again just subjective opinion, I really don't think Ashes is that hardcore pvp in the first place. I wouldn't call it soft either, but it's definitely not hardcore for me. That's my perception having played games that are more hardcore.
Arguing that PvP is as suited to the MMO genre as it is to a genre with a match based structure then means the person is arguing that a self consuming game design is as good as a game design that isn't self consuming.
The argument isn't that a self consuming game design is good, it's that not all pvp mmos are or have to be self consuming. And even insofar as they are self consuming, or something of the like, there's a certain range of it that players will tolerate. Not so much getting consumed lol, but being around and competing with other players who are stronger than you. It's a small range, but there's a certain amount people will tolerate in an mmo. Because that's why we're here, in an mmo with pvp. We understand that that's part of the game, gear progression, other progression etc. We all do have different definitions of what that range of player power and domination should be though. In the end you or I or anyone will either like the game or not.
There being things in the MMO genre that you enjoy in relation to PvP doesn't mean that this means it is the best genre for PvP.
It doesn't mean that. That's just my opinion that it is just as good of a genre for pvp as any other. And the best for me. It's subjective, opinion.
I don't see this as opinion based discussion.
If you have a square peg that just so happens to fit inside a round hole, you can say that it fits. However, if you have round peg that perfectly fits that round hole, it is obviously a better fit. Someone could say that they like being able to look behind the hole and that is only possible when you put the ill-fitting square peg in, but we aren't talking about that, we are talking about the objective nature of which peg fits best.
There is no subjective opinion in that question - it is purely objective.
Same thing here.
PvP in MMO's has it's issues - you agree with this. These specific issues are not present in other genres.
The notion of PvP in MOBA's doesn't have any issues that aren't also present in MMO's, same with FPS or BR games.
Thus, subjective opinion aside, it is an objective truth that MMO's are not the best genre for PvP.
Again, that does not mean that MMO's should never have PvP. Nor does it mean people can't enjoy "looking behind the hole" - or the aspects of PvP in MMO's that are a result of it not fitting well.
As to your observation that Ashes may be able to negate the issue, I've been arguing on these forums for aspects of game design to accomplish literally that for many years now. So far, I am not convinced.
Only if Steven will balance the game to let that happen. Near nodes I mean, during peaceful times.
How often do you think well developed nodes will fall, especially if rich players have freeholds there?
Casual PvE-ers may want to play more often near such nodes.
Well, node sieges are declared, structured large pvp events - I don’t know how often they will happen once the game is in full swing.
If players want to successfully attain, manage, and retain a freehold - I think the first step will be ditching useless roles, such as ‘casual pve-er,’ and doing what’s necessary to achieve their goals.
😂 useless roles, such as ‘casual pve-er,’ 😂
This made laugh but I shouldn't. Would be sad if players would just push others away from their node.
There are many kind of players.
I bet there will be some guilds who will refuse to PvP and they will build reputation as neutral trustworthy crafters.
The notion of PvP in MOBA's doesn't have any issues that aren't also present in MMO's, same with FPS or BR games.
They do have an issue. For me, they're (more) boring and the competition is not expansive enough. I like FPS and BR, but prefer strongly ow mmo pvp. I think it's great that those genres operate on a mostly match based system. It works very well for the format of their pvp. You could say more than just working well, it's required for what those games are. That same format will be used in Ashes to some extent in castle sieges, arenas maybe.
I think you're just focused on match based pvp and the certain competitive benefits that it provides. And it does provide those benefits. Isolation, structure, fairness down to the layout of the starting spawns of players. Complete sterilization of anything that could be thought of as unfairly tipping the scale. It's not just video games. Football operates this way, sports in general, even political campaigns are supposed to. You set up both sides at the starting line, ready set go! and then they go into the match and compete equally. And that's how you tell who is better at this particular gameplay element that your match is based around.
And then you have ow mmo pvp, where the doors are thrown wide open. You're competing on all kinds of fronts. Economically, diplomatically, mechanically also of course like you would in a match based game, pressing your buttons on your keyboard/mouse to execute skills etc. But your reputation matters. The efficiency and intelligence of your financial decisions. Inventory management. Crafting/profession choices. Social skills. It all matters, everything. Some to a small extent, some much bigger. But it's an all encompassing competition in a world and over it's resources.
And then when you get to what might be called the actual mechanical pvp part of it, anything is possible. You might be outnumbered 10 to 1, you might outnumber 10 to 1. And everything in between on every day you engage in it. A million different variables compared to a match. You might be outgeared or overgeared. Out positioned on an "unfair" map area or in prime position.
Look, I get what you're saying about the match based nature of certain types of pvp, it's benefits and inherent strengths for the formats it serves. It makes sense. But you know what match based pvp can't accomodate a competition for? The grand competition that takes place in an open world pvp mmo. No ow pvp mmo gamer wants to be sidelined to "matches." We want our ow pvp. There's no replacement for it. It doesn't matter how fair a search and destroy map is in CSGO. CSGO matches can't give us what we're after. If it's not even what we're looking for, you can imagine why we view it as inferior to some extent. It's not for everyone, some people hate it. It's the most ideal form of pvp for me though if done right.
I think you're just focused on match based pvp and the certain competitive benefits that it provides. And it does provide those benefits.
I mean, yeah.
It provides a vehicle for PvP that means if you lose a fight, you are not disadvantaged in the next fight. If you get frustrated and walk away from the game for a year, you are not a year behind in progression when you come back.
Look, I get what you're saying about the match based nature of certain types of pvp, it's benefits and inherent strengths for the formats it serves. It makes sense. But you know what match based pvp can't accomodate a competition for? The grand competition that takes place in an open world pvp mmo.
But again, what you are saying here is that the thing you like about MMO PvP is that self consuming aspect.
No ow pvp mmo gamer wants to be sidelined to "matches." We want our ow pvp.
Again, I am not saying you shouldn't have it.
I am saying that the genre isn't the best.
Again, have it, just understand that the genre isn't the best for it. It turns MMO's in to self consuming beasts - as you yourself have admitted. Enjoy that if you like, just understand it.
As an aside, that grand competition you talked about - that doesn't need PvP to exist.
The game in which this was most present - among all games I have played - is EQ2. It isn't even close. The competition in that game was *real*. That is why there is still no info on encounters that are almost 20 years old.
Honestly, any game in which top end guilds allow players to post video of the guild fighting isn't a game that has real competition.
Again, have it, just understand that the genre isn't the best for it.
I understand that the genre isn't the best for it for you Nooani lol. Nor for many others.
No a game doesn't need pvp for a grand competition. It's just a lot cooler when it does for people who like it.
But again, what you are saying here is that the thing you like about MMO PvP is that self consuming aspect.
I don't get how that's what you think I'm saying.
Sorry, that was an extrapolation on my part.
You don't necessarily like the fact that it is self consuming - I'm not suggesting that (though I get that is how it came across - my bad).
What I am saying is that you enjoy the - as you yourself put it - grand competition that takes place in an open world pvp mmo.
But it is that grand competition (or the loss associated with losing a fight in that grand competition) that is the root cause of why MMO PvP makes such games self consuming.
One potential fix to this is to make it so there is no gain or loss in PvP - but I think we would mostly all agree that doing this would make the game kind of shit.
Again, have it, just understand that the genre isn't the best for it.
I understand that the genre isn't the best for it for you Nooani lol. Nor for many others.
No a game doesn't need pvp for a grand competition. It's just a lot cooler when it does for people who like it.
If a game was able to mix actual worthwhile PvE content, including open world, large scale economic play and PvP, but in a way where none of that caused large numbers of players to leave the game, that would be the ideal game for me. They are the three things I most enjoy in gaming, but I want a game that has a healthy population for a decade or more.
If a game was able to mix actual worthwhile PvE content, including open world, large scale economic play and PvP, but in a way where none of that caused large numbers of players to leave the game, that would be the ideal game for me. They are the three things I most enjoy in gaming, but I want a game that has a healthy population for a decade or more.
That's the dream in general. Worthwhile pve, that's the tricky part. Different definitions of that. It'll be better than Mortal Online 2 pve surely. Surely. Better than Archeage I imagine, dunno about AA2. But it almost certainly won't be as good as some of the competitors whose sole or primary focus is pve, especially instanced pve. That's just logical deduction on my part. I could be wrong. But it is hard to see how a jack of all trades mmo competes 1 for 1 with a more specialized mmo, in the thing that it is specialized in, while using a more direct pvx format for it in the world.
We'll see. It needs to be good enough for me, whatever that means. For you I imagine there's a lot more to it. I mean I don't think you're even close to satisfied with what you think it's going to be like. You want it instanced or otherwise separated from pvp during the encounter itself. Or at least a higher percentage of encounters designed in that way. Because you think that pvp detracts from the pve encounter. Understandable from a pve connoisseur. Understandable in general. The way a cigar lover puffs on his cigar, there's a certain way you do it so as to not miss out on the finer points of it.
Maybe they do just that at some point, throw some more stuff like that in, I dunno. At this point I wouldn't count on it. But from my pov, that's one of the more likely things they might do, for reasons. Not necessarily likely, just a more likely design swing than other potential design swings. imo at least.
As far as people leaving the game, people leave everything these days, even pve games. Some people are just going to leave. No you don't want a self cannibalization model, that's bad. But some people think they're being self cannibalized by any pvp that makes them feel loss, even mild. These people...I mean what're you gonna do. Others are ok with "winners" and "losers" including being the loser. Not to be crude, but to use gamer lingo, most people don't like balls dragged on their face. That's pretty universal. No one wants to just be utterly dominated, which is a big part of self cannibalization. So that's worth trying to avoid in my book. But again, subjective. Balls on one guys face might not even register as balls on my face.
Anyway, you have to make a coherent game too. Every mechanic you put in to try to reel in someone who hates your pvx games guts anyway is a mechanic that your core target audience can use as well, potentially watering down and weakening systems.
So there's going to be a cut off somewhere and it will probably cut out people who just can't tolerate pvp and loss. I don't know where the cut off will be. It will probably fall somewhere not exactly where I'd like it to, as in some features will not be exactly how I want them to be.
Steven thinks there's more than enough people for the general vision. So do I. But there's certainly risks and things that need to be gotten right, or it could fail/struggle.
2
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Combat has to feel good enough to satisfy the EvE Online, ArcheAge, Lineage II fans.
The game in which this was most present - among all games I have played - is EQ2. It isn't even close. The competition in that game was *real*. That is why there is still no info on encounters that are almost 20 years old.
There is information out there, thought not as refined as more current mmorpgs. This extends to all games released now, there will be tons of information on it. This is not 20 years ago with no twitch, less ability to record video, no youtube.
You were not special for playing everquest, time is out of joint for you not understanding modern era what gamers want, and what gamers can do.
There is information out there, thought not as refined as more current mmorpgs. This extends to all games released now, there will be tons of information on it. This is not 20 years ago with no twitch, less ability to record video, no youtube.
Yeah, clearly with no easy means of recording video, there was no possible way to record information. None at all.
I mean, if it isn't on video, it clearly never happened.
As far as people leaving the game, people leave everything these days, even pve games. Some people are just going to leave. No you don't want a self cannibalization model, that's bad.
Indeed.
To me, the key to the games that have avoided this self-consumption have done is give players enough wins outside of PvP.
If the reason these games drive their own population away is because they feel they are in a downward spiral. Make sure players can get out of such a spiral.
There is information out there, thought not as refined as more current mmorpgs. This extends to all games released now, there will be tons of information on it. This is not 20 years ago with no twitch, less ability to record video, no youtube.
Yeah, clearly with no easy means of recording video, there was no possible way to record information. None at all.
I mean, if it isn't on video, it clearly never happened.
I know you are smart enough to know what I'm talking about and knowing you have been called out on it.
There is information out there, thought not as refined as more current mmorpgs. This extends to all games released now, there will be tons of information on it. This is not 20 years ago with no twitch, less ability to record video, no youtube.
Yeah, clearly with no easy means of recording video, there was no possible way to record information. None at all.
I mean, if it isn't on video, it clearly never happened.
I know you are smart enough to know what I'm talking about and knowing you have been called out on it.
I'm smart enough to know what you think you are saying.
The problem is, there were other means of recording information, and it was used extensively. The non-competitive parts of EQ2 were recorded at the time (and are still accessable).
Fact is, the reason there is basically no information on the competitive aspects of the game is because they were competitive.
There is information out there, thought not as refined as more current mmorpgs. This extends to all games released now, there will be tons of information on it. This is not 20 years ago with no twitch, less ability to record video, no youtube.
Yeah, clearly with no easy means of recording video, there was no possible way to record information. None at all.
I mean, if it isn't on video, it clearly never happened.
I know you are smart enough to know what I'm talking about and knowing you have been called out on it.
I'm smart enough to know what you think you are saying.
The problem is, there were other means of recording information, and it was used extensively. The non-competitive parts of EQ2 were recorded at the time (and are still accessable).
Fact is, the reason there is basically no information on the competitive aspects of the game is because they were competitive.
You clearly do not, there is wider audience that has access to recording which also comes natural,. there are twitch streamers pushing content and a massive audience that watches them, there are more tools and more public sharing online as well, more communities sharing information.
If EQ were to release being a popular game, all the information would be out in the wild easily. It has nothing to do with competitiveness, a few players that might not share content isn't going to stop tons of others from doing that. The shift in view point where it gets released regardless will make people care less about hiding things, as well as people that have a edge that want to become popular and use that to their advantage.
If you don't understand this, you have not been following games as a whole. The only chance of information not being out there is if it doesn't have a large enough of an audience.
If EQ were to release being a popular game, all the information would be out in the wild easily.
This may be the case, but not for the reasons you are thinking.
The reason this would happen today is due to the narcissistic nature of younger gamers.
So many younger people are more concerned with being seen in what ever they are doing, they actually focus less on doing the thing in order to facilitate that being seen.
Comments
This you right?
They are literally quotes of what you said.
i feel bad for you.
I hope it works out.
I am sure, once, you were the MAN. I wish i could have seen that day.
And the full quotes do not say what you stated I said.
What you posted are all taken out of context.
I feel bad for you! Bless you heart!
But, I was never - the MAN. I'm not interested in being the MAN.
Things worked out pretty much the way I wanted.
I was able to get Steven to agree to be on cam with us - and I think we did an OK job getting some answers and quotes from Steven that we didn't already have.
CHEERS!!
i love how i can so easily create four quotes that "do not state what you stated". that I took them all "out of context".
I guess I will let everyone reading this decide.
i think that is a pretty bald faced misdirection. You want to play this game... so bad.
you just cannot get your mind wrapped around PVP.
Anything else just feels like we are not telling the truth.
As someone that is not the biggest fan of Dygz, but understands his mind a little, allow me to inform you as to what has happened.
The first quote where Dygz asked you to show where he said people will not play the game, he is talking about people in general - as in no one (or very few people) will play Ashes.
The posts you then provided were all of Dygz saying specific people, or people wanting specific things, will not play this game.
Now, you could argue the semantics on the above if you like, but Dygz is right. He never once said people will not play the game, but he has said many times (rightly so) that some people will not play the game.
he literally says it often. i was able to point out four instances in the very thread he challenged me. If you wish to share his delusion, that is on you.
He says 'people' (of various types) will not play the game frequently.
Yeah, he does.
He often says people with specific desires from an MMO won't play Ashes, and he is right. Even you agree with him on that. You do not think a casual MMO player that is adverse to PvP will be playing Ashes - which is you agreeing that some people will not play the game.
However, he has never said people won't play Ashes. There is always the qualifier of *some* people (or a designated specific group).
These are different statements.
One suggests Ashes will be a niche game, the other suggests Ashes will be a dead game.
I say no one will play Ashes more than Dygz does.
Not for me generally. Open world mmo pvp is the best pvp I've ever had, collectively. There's certainly been some bad forms of it I've seen in some games. But when done right or good enough, it's the best for me.
It's just a type of pvp. Not the most popular one. But popular enough. It has pros and cons and things that devs need to account for and mitigate, just like any other form of pvp. But as opposed to a CSGO match, it's the comparative lack of structure in owpvp that I enjoy more. And it requires skillsets that I care more about and find more entertaining to play and watch.
These are reasons why I am not saying MMO PvP shouldn't exist.
However, they do not mean that the genre is better suited to PvP than match based gaming.
You, unfortunately, are not a credible source of "what has happened".
Based on what? You having differing opinions on some matters to me? Or is this just an attempt to avoid having to admit you were wrong here?
I mean, if you look at the posts in question, you'll see that I am right - and thus that Dygz was right. Every time you suggested he said "people will not play the game", he in fact said "those people will not play the game".
These are different groups both linguistically and mathematically. I mean, imagine a Ven Diagram of "all people" and "those people". The circles are different, even if one circle is completely encompasing the other.
Dygz has said many of those smaller circles (defined groups of people) will not play Ashes. He has never said that larger circle (people) will not play Ashes.
You suggesting he has said "people" will not play Ashes is just factually wrong. He has only said some people will not play Ashes.
To quote you yourself;
It just depends on the game, not the genre necessarily. There are pvp mmos. There are pve coop shooters. What goes into a game is dependent on that game's individual vision, not the vision of the genre. That leads to staleness and rot, groupthink and hivemind.
Ultimately it's subjective. You don't think pvp is best suited for mmos. I do, or at least as good and worthy of it as any other genre. I think playing/watching static, repetitive matches of CSGO or LoL gets boring pretty quick. I crave the multiple extra dimensions that ow mmo pvp brings.
For strictly equal, 100% fair at all times pvp, of course arena and match based pvp is the best format. But if that's all people craved, battle royale wouldn't have become such a big thing. BR's are extremely unfair, even being match based. They have some similarities with open world mmo pvp. But they're not persistent, mmos are. And that's one of the things that mmo pvp devs need to account for, so I agree with you on that as I've seen you say it before.
But the whole "no one with a brain thing" I had to take issue with lol.
Look at a game like EVE. The very design of that game means that every time there is major PvP, the games population shrinks.
This is most obvious in EVE due to it having infrequent but very large battles, and the developers talking openly about player loss after such battles. However, while it is most obvious in EVE, it does happen in all persistent world MMO's with PvP. Since other games have smaller scale PvP, this means that PvP results in smaller scale player attrition. However, those smaller scale battles happen more often than EVE's massive battles, so that smaller scale attrition happens more often.
What this means is that MMO PvP is essentially a self consuming setup. This is what Crowfall tried to avoid, and what BDO's server structure was in part designed to prevent (players could more easily avoid those that they kept losing to in PvP).
Arguing that PvP is as suited to the MMO genre as it is to a genre with a match based structure then means the person is arguing that a self consuming game design is as good as a game design that isn't self consuming.
I don't think anyone with a brain would make that argument.
However, that doesn't mean you can't still have things about MMO PvP that you enjoy that aren't available in other genres with PvP. There being things in the MMO genre that you enjoy in relation to PvP doesn't mean that this means it is the best genre for PvP.
It doesn't mean that. That's just my opinion that it is just as good of a genre for pvp as any other. And the best for me. It's subjective, opinion.
I know of the self cannibalizing pvp problem you're talking about. I know it can happen and it has happened to games before. Some have failed because of it, some made adjustments in time to fix the problem. Ashes is pretty unique in it's design and we'll have to see how affected by the problem it could be.
I think the node system could be a factor. What I've seen sometimes is when a pvp contender guild "loses" in these types of games, there's a good chance that they fall apart, with many members quitting the game altogether. I think the node system will be a wild card in this because it will provide continuity in a way, always a new place to go contribute to as a player. I don't know that for sure, just think there may be that effect.
At the end of the day, we know pvp mmos have worked and they will continue to work. It's certainly a formula that you have to get right, and there's risk of fucking it up.
But I mean what're you gonna do. There's always going to be some people who whine and quit. There's going to be some who just aren't feeling it anymore for various reasons. That's just the nature of it. Some come back off and on, I hear that happens in Eve. Some never come back. I don't know much about Eve, but I hear it's pretty hardcore.
And for me personally, again just subjective opinion, I really don't think Ashes is that hardcore pvp in the first place. I wouldn't call it soft either, but it's definitely not hardcore for me. That's my perception having played games that are more hardcore.
The argument isn't that a self consuming game design is good, it's that not all pvp mmos are or have to be self consuming. And even insofar as they are self consuming, or something of the like, there's a certain range of it that players will tolerate. Not so much getting consumed lol, but being around and competing with other players who are stronger than you. It's a small range, but there's a certain amount people will tolerate in an mmo. Because that's why we're here, in an mmo with pvp. We understand that that's part of the game, gear progression, other progression etc. We all do have different definitions of what that range of player power and domination should be though. In the end you or I or anyone will either like the game or not.
If you have a square peg that just so happens to fit inside a round hole, you can say that it fits. However, if you have round peg that perfectly fits that round hole, it is obviously a better fit. Someone could say that they like being able to look behind the hole and that is only possible when you put the ill-fitting square peg in, but we aren't talking about that, we are talking about the objective nature of which peg fits best.
There is no subjective opinion in that question - it is purely objective.
Same thing here.
PvP in MMO's has it's issues - you agree with this. These specific issues are not present in other genres.
The notion of PvP in MOBA's doesn't have any issues that aren't also present in MMO's, same with FPS or BR games.
Thus, subjective opinion aside, it is an objective truth that MMO's are not the best genre for PvP.
Again, that does not mean that MMO's should never have PvP. Nor does it mean people can't enjoy "looking behind the hole" - or the aspects of PvP in MMO's that are a result of it not fitting well.
As to your observation that Ashes may be able to negate the issue, I've been arguing on these forums for aspects of game design to accomplish literally that for many years now. So far, I am not convinced.
😂 useless roles, such as ‘casual pve-er,’ 😂
This made laugh but I shouldn't. Would be sad if players would just push others away from their node.
There are many kind of players.
I bet there will be some guilds who will refuse to PvP and they will build reputation as neutral trustworthy crafters.
They do have an issue. For me, they're (more) boring and the competition is not expansive enough. I like FPS and BR, but prefer strongly ow mmo pvp. I think it's great that those genres operate on a mostly match based system. It works very well for the format of their pvp. You could say more than just working well, it's required for what those games are. That same format will be used in Ashes to some extent in castle sieges, arenas maybe.
I think you're just focused on match based pvp and the certain competitive benefits that it provides. And it does provide those benefits. Isolation, structure, fairness down to the layout of the starting spawns of players. Complete sterilization of anything that could be thought of as unfairly tipping the scale. It's not just video games. Football operates this way, sports in general, even political campaigns are supposed to. You set up both sides at the starting line, ready set go! and then they go into the match and compete equally. And that's how you tell who is better at this particular gameplay element that your match is based around.
And then you have ow mmo pvp, where the doors are thrown wide open. You're competing on all kinds of fronts. Economically, diplomatically, mechanically also of course like you would in a match based game, pressing your buttons on your keyboard/mouse to execute skills etc. But your reputation matters. The efficiency and intelligence of your financial decisions. Inventory management. Crafting/profession choices. Social skills. It all matters, everything. Some to a small extent, some much bigger. But it's an all encompassing competition in a world and over it's resources.
And then when you get to what might be called the actual mechanical pvp part of it, anything is possible. You might be outnumbered 10 to 1, you might outnumber 10 to 1. And everything in between on every day you engage in it. A million different variables compared to a match. You might be outgeared or overgeared. Out positioned on an "unfair" map area or in prime position.
Look, I get what you're saying about the match based nature of certain types of pvp, it's benefits and inherent strengths for the formats it serves. It makes sense. But you know what match based pvp can't accomodate a competition for? The grand competition that takes place in an open world pvp mmo. No ow pvp mmo gamer wants to be sidelined to "matches." We want our ow pvp. There's no replacement for it. It doesn't matter how fair a search and destroy map is in CSGO. CSGO matches can't give us what we're after. If it's not even what we're looking for, you can imagine why we view it as inferior to some extent. It's not for everyone, some people hate it. It's the most ideal form of pvp for me though if done right.
I mean, yeah.
It provides a vehicle for PvP that means if you lose a fight, you are not disadvantaged in the next fight. If you get frustrated and walk away from the game for a year, you are not a year behind in progression when you come back. But again, what you are saying here is that the thing you like about MMO PvP is that self consuming aspect. Again, I am not saying you shouldn't have it.
I am saying that the genre isn't the best.
Again, have it, just understand that the genre isn't the best for it. It turns MMO's in to self consuming beasts - as you yourself have admitted. Enjoy that if you like, just understand it.
As an aside, that grand competition you talked about - that doesn't need PvP to exist.
The game in which this was most present - among all games I have played - is EQ2. It isn't even close. The competition in that game was *real*. That is why there is still no info on encounters that are almost 20 years old.
Honestly, any game in which top end guilds allow players to post video of the guild fighting isn't a game that has real competition.
I don't get how that's what you think I'm saying.
I understand that the genre isn't the best for it for you Nooani lol. Nor for many others.
No a game doesn't need pvp for a grand competition. It's just a lot cooler when it does for people who like it.
You don't necessarily like the fact that it is self consuming - I'm not suggesting that (though I get that is how it came across - my bad).
What I am saying is that you enjoy the - as you yourself put it - grand competition that takes place in an open world pvp mmo.
But it is that grand competition (or the loss associated with losing a fight in that grand competition) that is the root cause of why MMO PvP makes such games self consuming.
One potential fix to this is to make it so there is no gain or loss in PvP - but I think we would mostly all agree that doing this would make the game kind of shit.
If a game was able to mix actual worthwhile PvE content, including open world, large scale economic play and PvP, but in a way where none of that caused large numbers of players to leave the game, that would be the ideal game for me. They are the three things I most enjoy in gaming, but I want a game that has a healthy population for a decade or more.
That's the dream in general. Worthwhile pve, that's the tricky part. Different definitions of that. It'll be better than Mortal Online 2 pve surely. Surely. Better than Archeage I imagine, dunno about AA2. But it almost certainly won't be as good as some of the competitors whose sole or primary focus is pve, especially instanced pve. That's just logical deduction on my part. I could be wrong. But it is hard to see how a jack of all trades mmo competes 1 for 1 with a more specialized mmo, in the thing that it is specialized in, while using a more direct pvx format for it in the world.
We'll see. It needs to be good enough for me, whatever that means. For you I imagine there's a lot more to it. I mean I don't think you're even close to satisfied with what you think it's going to be like. You want it instanced or otherwise separated from pvp during the encounter itself. Or at least a higher percentage of encounters designed in that way. Because you think that pvp detracts from the pve encounter. Understandable from a pve connoisseur. Understandable in general. The way a cigar lover puffs on his cigar, there's a certain way you do it so as to not miss out on the finer points of it.
Maybe they do just that at some point, throw some more stuff like that in, I dunno. At this point I wouldn't count on it. But from my pov, that's one of the more likely things they might do, for reasons. Not necessarily likely, just a more likely design swing than other potential design swings. imo at least.
As far as people leaving the game, people leave everything these days, even pve games. Some people are just going to leave. No you don't want a self cannibalization model, that's bad. But some people think they're being self cannibalized by any pvp that makes them feel loss, even mild. These people...I mean what're you gonna do. Others are ok with "winners" and "losers" including being the loser. Not to be crude, but to use gamer lingo, most people don't like balls dragged on their face. That's pretty universal. No one wants to just be utterly dominated, which is a big part of self cannibalization. So that's worth trying to avoid in my book. But again, subjective. Balls on one guys face might not even register as balls on my face.
Anyway, you have to make a coherent game too. Every mechanic you put in to try to reel in someone who hates your pvx games guts anyway is a mechanic that your core target audience can use as well, potentially watering down and weakening systems.
So there's going to be a cut off somewhere and it will probably cut out people who just can't tolerate pvp and loss. I don't know where the cut off will be. It will probably fall somewhere not exactly where I'd like it to, as in some features will not be exactly how I want them to be.
Steven thinks there's more than enough people for the general vision. So do I. But there's certainly risks and things that need to be gotten right, or it could fail/struggle.
There is information out there, thought not as refined as more current mmorpgs. This extends to all games released now, there will be tons of information on it. This is not 20 years ago with no twitch, less ability to record video, no youtube.
You were not special for playing everquest, time is out of joint for you not understanding modern era what gamers want, and what gamers can do.
I mean, if it isn't on video, it clearly never happened.
Indeed.
To me, the key to the games that have avoided this self-consumption have done is give players enough wins outside of PvP.
If the reason these games drive their own population away is because they feel they are in a downward spiral. Make sure players can get out of such a spiral.
I know you are smart enough to know what I'm talking about and knowing you have been called out on it.
I'm smart enough to know what you think you are saying.
The problem is, there were other means of recording information, and it was used extensively. The non-competitive parts of EQ2 were recorded at the time (and are still accessable).
Fact is, the reason there is basically no information on the competitive aspects of the game is because they were competitive.
You clearly do not, there is wider audience that has access to recording which also comes natural,. there are twitch streamers pushing content and a massive audience that watches them, there are more tools and more public sharing online as well, more communities sharing information.
If EQ were to release being a popular game, all the information would be out in the wild easily. It has nothing to do with competitiveness, a few players that might not share content isn't going to stop tons of others from doing that. The shift in view point where it gets released regardless will make people care less about hiding things, as well as people that have a edge that want to become popular and use that to their advantage.
If you don't understand this, you have not been following games as a whole. The only chance of information not being out there is if it doesn't have a large enough of an audience.
The reason this would happen today is due to the narcissistic nature of younger gamers.
So many younger people are more concerned with being seen in what ever they are doing, they actually focus less on doing the thing in order to facilitate that being seen.