PvE Players tell me why you follow Ashes of Creation

I want to explore and do treasure hunting/dungeon raids

Vyril

Mine would be open world dungeons.

But, I'm not a PvE first player. I prefer the added bonus to ow dungeons, which is the friction that can happen while in the dungeon areas.

Vyril wrote: »

Mine would be open world dungeons.

But, I'm not a PvE first player, because the added bonus to ow dungeons, is the friction that can happen while in the dungeon areas.

Likewise. I am going to be a rogue, so it will be interesting how it works out

As someone that is in to top end PvE as well as an amount of PvP, I can see a good number of reasons why someone that prefers PvE would have been looking at Ashes in the past.

To start, there is no mention at all of PvP on the games kickstarter page. There is, however, a long list of primarily PvE games that the developers came from - games they wanted people to know "this has been our experience". Generally, when a company does that, it's a way of saying "if you liked these games, you will probably like what we are doing".

If you first read the games kickstarter and then went to the games wiki page, you would think they were two different games.

As to why anyone that isn't primarily concerned with PvP - not just PvP but actual perpetual competition with other players for basically everything - would still be looking at the game, I am not sure.

Hope that perhaps the game will swing back to something closer to what was talked about on the kickstarter page, perhaps.

Gizban

I'm actually not a fan of pvp but I find it adds an element of tension to the game that I enjoy.

I'll give it a shot and hopefully enjoy it in this game, if not.. I'll still enjoy the rest of the game.

Vyril

pyreal wrote: »

I'm actually not a fan of pvp but I find it adds an element of tension to the game that I enjoy.

I'll give it a shot and hopefully enjoy it in this game, if not.. I'll still enjoy the rest of the game.

As a PvE player what looks to be the promising part Ashes has for you?

Liniker

Noaani wrote: »

To start, there is no mention at all of PvP on the games kickstarter page. There is, however, a long list of primarily PvE games that the developers came from - games they wanted people to know "this has been our experience". Generally, when a company does that, it's a way of saying "if you liked these games, you will probably like what we are doing".

If you first read the games kickstarter and then went to the games wiki page, you would think they were two different games.

@Noaani Do you really need to take literally any opportunity in any post to push your agenda lying about stuff lol

1st, in the KS video they mentioned they have devs that worked on call of duty... does that mean CoD players will like AoC....? now if you look up linkedin you will see they have multiple devs whose main experience comes from mobile games, does that mean mobile gamers will like AoC?

they just posted the relevant experience developers had at the time, that's about it, stop trying to make these random correlations to push your wrong ideas

now, 2nd, and most importantly.....

Noaani wrote: »

To start, there is no mention at all of PvP on the games kickstarter page.

Literally the first thing on the Kickstarter is the dam video and 02:47 fucking minutes in the video Steven says "Ashes of Creation is about 4 PRIMARY PILLARS" and he mentions 1st the Node system and the fucking second thing he talks about in regards to the 4 primary pillars is meaningful conflict trough PVP and how it can catalyze change in the environment around you.... the second pillar for AoC is literally pvp

ding ding ding

3rd pillar is economy, and last the narrative... so

- Nodes
- PVP
- Economy
- Narrative

the 4 pillars mentioned in the first 02:47 minutes of the video which is the first thing in the kickstarter page

just another day with Noaani being wrong.

Mag7spy

He prob is salty about the dps meters so he just spends years on the forums trying to start fires in post slowly trying to manipulate certain groups of people. Thankfully we have some people to fact check him so he isn't running rampant.

Kilion

I've been a PvE player for most of my gaming time. The reason why I am excited about Ashes is because it expands on what is part of the core "loop" of the game. I've never been primarily a PvE guy because that is all I care about, but because the PvP mechanics of other games felt meaningless. Ashes doesn't bother with creating artificial barriers between PvP and PvE, making both legitimate and compelling - that's what I am here for.

Liniker wrote: »

just another day with Noaani being wrong.

To be clear, I said the page, not the video.

Yes, the video is embedded on the page, but still.

Like a good number of people, the bulk of my time where I have access to the internet and are not playing a game it is not suitable for me to be watching a video. The page for the kickstarter (you know, the thing I was talking about) should have all applicable information on it.

The fact is - and you have not refuted or disproven this at all - if you read the kickstarter page and are a PvE focused player, this game would appeal to you.

Edit to add; also, if Steven was so thrilled about having a CoD developers on staff, why isn't CoD in the list of games they claim to have worked on?

One could actually look at that and assume the game would be leaning more towards the games they have publicly and proudly displayed as having worked on than the games they have been less public and less proud about.

Boneshatter

I'm a pve first player so I'll answer this for you. There are many things I like about this game so far:

-The world is impressive with the overall size, the seasons, and varied zones. I could absolutely see myself spending way too much time just exploring.

-The gathering looks enjoyable. Goes well with my fondness for exploring.

-The node system is very interesting and could lead to some fantastic teamwork and social aspects along with making players feel like they contributed to the cities instead of just showing up there. The ever changing world is a very interesting concept in general.

-The class design sounds promising. With the secondary archetypes, augments, and all the other horizontal progression I see some serious customization potential. I also like how each class shown looks like they would feel different to play (does that make sense?). In so many other games the classes look different but feel the same.

-What Steven has released of the lore has serious storytelling potential.

-Player controlled castles and ship battles. 'Nuff said.

I do enjoy some pvp. Castle and node sieges sound awesome. Caravans are a fun sounding concept. The ocean being a full on pvp zone sounds like a blast. I've done my share of arenas and battlegrounds and the like, so pvp when I'm in the mood is great.

Honestly the only part of the pvp that I don't like is the forced pvp in all the zones. Every game I have ever played with forced pvp became a cesspool of griefing. And before anybody says it- no, I am not some carebear that wants a participation trophy or log in rewards. I am a player that absolutely can -and will- earn my keep. When its go time its go time.

That said, sometimes I just want to chill and play relaxed. Just kick back and farm whatever currency or whatever material without being bothered. Do some quests without having to look over my shoulder. I am definitely not OK with losing a significant percentage of whatever I'm carrying because I got 3v1'ed and stood no chance.

So why am I still here? The game looks good enough I may try it anyways. I also have this selfish hope that Steven will decide to release a couple servers that are exactly like the other servers except that a player flagged as a non-combatant can't be attacked (forced flag zones and objectives would still be ofc).

Fiddlez

Noaani wrote: »

As to why anyone that isn't primarily concerned with PvP - not just PvP but actual perpetual competition with other players for basically everything - would still be looking at the game, I am not sure.

Hope that perhaps the game will swing back to something closer to what was talked about on the kickstarter page, perhaps.

I don't consider this a PVP game. It has PVP elements but I think you will find that it's more about the integrity of the game then creating a "PVP game". It's about politics, intrigue,danger, risk and reward. It's about creating a world as opposed to just a quick ride then getting off and trying another. It simply doesn't work with out PVP.

Vyril wrote: »

Doesn't matter if the first time you saw Ashes was in kickstarter, or just learned of the project 2 weeks ago.

As a PvE first player, what makes you look forward to PvE in AoC or what was the defining feature that you're looking forward to?

I don't look forward to PvE in Ashes after launch.

For Alpha 2 and the Betas, I plan to...
Explore the map (except for the Open Seas)
Test Node Progression
Test Active Skills, Passive Skills and Augments.
Test Racial progression.
Test Social Org and Religion Progression
Test some Crafting

Liniker wrote: »

1st, in the KS video they mentioned they have devs that worked on call of duty... does that mean CoD players will like AoC....? now if you look up linkedin you will see they have multiple devs whose main experience comes from mobile games, does that mean mobile gamers will like AoC?

The core pillars mentioned in the Kickstarter are very similar to the core pillars for EQNext.
And most of the dev team at that time came from SOE/Daybreak/EQ/EQ2. Including the Lead Game Designer.
Since I am a PvP-sometimes player who started EQ, EQ2 and WoW on PvE Optional servers and rage-quit them to move to PvE-Only servers, the first thing I want to know when I hear that there is no separate PvE-Only server is why I would want to play on the same servers as PvPers (gamers who play on PvP servers and PvP-Optional servers) who dismiss the concept of non-consensual PvP.

So, for me...
PvPers are gamers who typically play MMORPGs on PvP servers and PvP-Optional servers.
And PvEers are players who typically play MMORPGs on PvE-Only servers.
(Technically, I am a PvP-sometimes player, who theoretically should prefer to play on PvP-Optional servers.)
What are the mechanics that will make me feel comfortable playing on the same servers as PvPers who have no respect for the concept of non-consensual PvP? I'm not going to play on a server where someone is going to say to me,
"You auto-consent to PvP just by playing the game." or "Why are in this area if you don't want to PvP?"

EQNext never really got around to sharing any kind of solution for this. No mention of anything like Corruption.
But, I was expecting that the EQNext devs would want to retain the players who typically play EQ and EQ2 on PvE-Only servers - especially since those servers typically had the highest populations.

Same when I saw that Ashes as some similar features, like Nodes...
(My favorite form of PvP is city/town defense. Objective-based PvP. Where I am more focused on completing objectives, like capturing flags/pylons or saboutaging structures or stealing key items from rooms.
I usually mostly ignore the combat, if possible.)
Sieges seemed to be a wonderful solution to being stuck in Endgame for 2+ years, repeating dungeons over and over again while waiting on new content from the next expansion.

I was expecting that the former SOE/Daybreak/EQ2 Lead Game Designer and SOE/Daybreak devs would want to retain those players who typically play MMORPGs on PvE-Only servers.
Especially because Steven would say things like:
"Traditionally in MMORPGs you're going to see a larger population of Casual players than you do of Hardcore players; and that's just the way the cookie crumbles from a population standpoint. And because of that and the way that Nodes collect experience and advance as a result of player activity, those Casual players will actually have more impact on Node progression than the Hardcore players will: at least as I predict, because of the sheer quantity disproportionate between the two different groups of people.
You may see in Ashes, the smaller Hardcore group of players progress further into the late-game content, right. But they don't have the numbers to influence the Nodes in those locations as quickly as the more Casual... larger population has near the outskirts."
– Steven Sharif

Also:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsPR_a2n5SM&t=2646s
mark: 44:11
(Great hearing Akil speak...) My Bartle Score is Explorer 87%; Socializer 73% ; Achiever 47%; Killer 0%

Liniker wrote: »

they just posted the relevant experience developers had at the time, that's about it, stop trying to make these random correlations to push your wrong ideas

Ri----iiight, but... the key positions, like Lead Game Designer, Lead Technical Designer, Lead Programmer all worked on EQ/EQ2. So... yes... I was expecting them to want to retain those MMORPG players for the new MMORPG their currently working. Especially, since so many of the Ashes features seemed like a watered down version of key EQNext features.

Liniker wrote: »

now, 2nd, and most importantly.....
Literally the first thing on the Kickstarter is the damn video and 02:47 fucking minutes in the video Steven says "Ashes of Creation is about 4 PRIMARY PILLARS" and he mentions 1st the Node system and the fucking second thing he talks about in regards to the 4 primary pillars is meaningful conflict trough PVP and how it can catalyze change in the environment around you.... the second pillar for AoC is literally pvp

the 4 pillars mentioned in the first 02:47 minutes of the video which is the first thing in the kickstarter page

You're not wrong, but... to be fair... I keep forgetting that you can't do a text search for the 4 core pillars - instead you have to watch the video.
Same if you do a text search for PvP - at least when I tried it now.
I go to the page, do a text search. Scroll down looking for text. And completely forget there was video with info on the Kickstarter page.
I found the original 4 core pillars in the Kickstarter video by reviewing an Ashen Forge episode where Fantm mentions that they are in the Kickstarter video.

But... I feel you...you ain't wrong.

Liniker wrote: »

- Nodes
- PVP
- Economy
- Narrative

I think it's more "honest" to present that as:
Nodes
Meaningful Conflict (PvP: Sieges, Caravans, Guild Wars...)
Economy
Narrative[/quote]

Liniker wrote: »

just another day with Noaani being wrong.

Mmmm hmmmn!

Dygz wrote: »

Liniker wrote: »

just another day with Noaani being wrong.

Mmmm hmmmn!

The problem is Dygz - I agree with what you are saying here.

Garrtok

I actually don't get why there are players of MMORPGs that consider themself as PVE players only. For me pvp and PVE were always both part of mmorpgs

Garrtok wrote: »

I actually don't get why there are players of MMORPGs that consider themself as PVE players only. For me pvp and PVE were always both part of mmorpgs

The reason is simple.

The challenge types available to players differ greatly between PvP and PvE. It is not possible to have the same types of challenge as you can have in pure PvE if PvP is possible, but PvP in and of itself also presents it's own challenges.

This isn't about the scale or amount of challenge, but rather it is about the type of challenge.

Unsurprisingly, different people have different preferences for types of challenge.

Garrtok wrote: »

I actually don't get why there are players of MMORPGs that consider themself as PVE players only. For me pvp and PVE were always both part of mmorpgs

Exactly. I like to think this way as well. Not everyone can however. Sometimes a person can't help letting emotions control a person and then it becomes personal. I strive to not look at the person behind the monitor. Instead I try to think of that toon as an NPC, just more pixles. Then to me its all just a part of game play.

Garrtok

Noaani wrote: »

Garrtok wrote: »

I actually don't get why there are players of MMORPGs that consider themself as PVE players only. For me pvp and PVE were always both part of mmorpgs

The reason is simple.

The challenge types available to players differ greatly between PvP and PvE. It is not possible to have the same types of challenge as you can have in pure PvE if PvP is possible, but PvP in and of itself also presents it's own challenges.

This isn't about the scale or amount of challenge, but rather it is about the type of challenge.

Unsurprisingly, different people have different preferences for types of challenge.

But why should you cancel yourself out of an aspect of a game?

Garrtok wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Garrtok wrote: »

I actually don't get why there are players of MMORPGs that consider themself as PVE players only. For me pvp and PVE were always both part of mmorpgs

The reason is simple.

The challenge types available to players differ greatly between PvP and PvE. It is not possible to have the same types of challenge as you can have in pure PvE if PvP is possible, but PvP in and of itself also presents it's own challenges.

This isn't about the scale or amount of challenge, but rather it is about the type of challenge.

Unsurprisingly, different people have different preferences for types of challenge.

But why should you cancel yourself out of an aspect of a game?

I personally enjoy both PvP and PvE. My arguments in relation to PvE only content are due to wanting some of the challenge type that is only available when PvE exists without PvP.

Since this is *MY* preference (essentially broken down to; I want all challenge types to exist in a PvX game, which means there needs to be PvP, PvE with PvP and PvE without PvP in order to cover all potential challenge bases), all I can do is state what I have heard such people say.

Essentially this breaks down to people wanting one challenge type, but not enjoying the other type. It's like someone that enjoys Sudoku, but doesn't like crossword puzzles. They are different challenges. Most people that enjoy puzzles will like both to an extent, most people will have a preference one way or the other, and some people will only enjoy one or the other.

That said, I can't actually think of any PvE only players on these forums.

BlackBrony

I have an alpha 2 key and I will test the game. I will also play it because it's only 15 a month. In the long run? I don't think the game will be for me. I am def playing LOTRO from Amazon. I lost the chance at the other one, not doing it this time.
I know what type of players usually PvP games attrack. Mindless banter and attacking enemies just because. I also know that I will have to play this game with people 24/7. I don't believe you can go farming to your hearts content. I think that's a little bit of a lie from people when they tell it.
Since I also don't think corruption will help the average PvE player.
There's a lot of PvE games coming, and I am def trying those.

Vyril

I'm not really seeing anyone really point out a PvE system that they're excited for, or there are a lot of "PvX" responses.

I personally don't think crafting / gathering is a PvE activity.

The modern WoW, and FF14 players will really struggle to play Ashes. Don't get me wrong I don't think they have to, but there is always an argument in some random thread how this game will have nobody playing because of the lack of PvE first game systems.

So far I'm not seeing why any of those PvE first players even want to look at Ashes.

I know i know, small sample size on a forum.

Vyril wrote: »

I'm not really seeing anyone really point out a PvE system that they're excited for, or there are a lot of "PvX" responses.

That is because there aren't any.

I don't see any reason for someone that prefers PvE at all (as in, 49/51 split) to be looking at the game right now - other than in hopes the game will swing back a little as I talked about above.

It doesn't help the PvE crowd that the game didn't have a lead developer for a long while, and Steven doesn't really "get" PvE. In that time, there was basically nothing PvE related even mentioned from Intrepid. This isn't necessarily to say it wasn't worked on - just that Steven is far more inclined to talk about the things he is more passionate about (not a character fault).

Garrtok wrote: »

I actually don't get why there are players of MMORPGs that consider themself as PVE players only. For me pvp and PVE were always both part of mmorpgs

Depends on what MMORPGs you played and what servers you played on.
I played MMORPGs so I could get my D&D fix 24/7 with bunches of other D&D fans.
And in D&D, you didn't PvP. I play RPGs - including MMORPGs - to cooperate with other players; not to fight them.

Sathrago

Noaani wrote: »

Vyril wrote: »

I'm not really seeing anyone really point out a PvE system that they're excited for, or there are a lot of "PvX" responses.

That is because there aren't any.

I don't see any reason for someone that prefers PvE at all (as in, 49/51 split) to be looking at the game right now - other than in hopes the game will swing back a little as I talked about above.

It doesn't help the PvE crowd that the game didn't have a lead developer for a long while, and Steven doesn't really "get" PvE. In that time, there was basically nothing PvE related even mentioned from Intrepid. This isn't necessarily to say it wasn't worked on - just that Steven is far more inclined to talk about the things he is more passionate about (not a character fault).

So that whole tower of karthan thing and the cyclops showcase were just things they made by accident for pvp? lol

Can you point to a single video outside of alpha 1 footage that was about showcasing pvp?

Vyril wrote: »

The modern WoW, and FF14 players will really struggle to play Ashes. Don't get me wrong I don't think they have to, but there is always an argument in some random thread how this game will have nobody playing because of the lack of PvE first game systems.

So far I'm not seeing why any of those PvE first players even want to look at Ashes.

At this point, they probably don't.

Ravicus wrote: »

Exactly. I like to think this way as well. Not everyone can however. Sometimes a person can't help letting emotions control a person and then it becomes personal. I strive to not look at the person behind the monitor. Instead I try to think of that toon as an NPC, just more pixles. Then to me its all just a part of game play.

Has nothing to do with emotions. I don't play RPGs to compete against or fight other players because that was not a thing when I played D&D. So, if I'm going to play an MMORPG, I'm probably going to play on a server where I very rarely, if ever encounter PvP.
And I'm not going to play on a server with players who don't respect the concept of non-consensual PvP.
Which means I'm not going to play on a server that has permanent zones with auto-consent PvP.

Sathrago wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Vyril wrote: »

I'm not really seeing anyone really point out a PvE system that they're excited for, or there are a lot of "PvX" responses.

That is because there aren't any.

I don't see any reason for someone that prefers PvE at all (as in, 49/51 split) to be looking at the game right now - other than in hopes the game will swing back a little as I talked about above.

It doesn't help the PvE crowd that the game didn't have a lead developer for a long while, and Steven doesn't really "get" PvE. In that time, there was basically nothing PvE related even mentioned from Intrepid. This isn't necessarily to say it wasn't worked on - just that Steven is far more inclined to talk about the things he is more passionate about (not a character fault).

So that whole tower of karthan thing and the cyclops showcase were just things they made by accident for pvp? lol

Can you point to a single video outside of alpha 1 footage that was about showcasing pvp?

You are taking comments out of context - unsure if on purpose or not - but since I am sick of this shit on these forums, I'm calling it out early.

For reference, in this thread, we are talking about things players that only enjoy PvE are excited about. I am specifically not talking about my perspective or my opinions, and was VERY clear about that at the start of the thread.

So cut this bullshit out right fucking now.