So you are saying that people could go on a raid and bring a character out of party (because you cant flag on your group, and you cant flag without attacking a player), and then the whole raid should attack that character every 90s, have a healer grouped with that character to make sure nobody goes red by accident, INSTEAD of focusing on bringing down the boss, AND leave themselves open to CC from rival players that could show up, BECAUSE it's good to plan for failure (less xp debt while purple)?
Tell me about more devilishly details so we can make this a 40page thread of unrealistic scenarios and definitions.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Well, I mean... also if the raid is fighting that boss as Non-Combatants, it's normal death penalties.
If the raid is fighting that boss as Combatants, it's half-normal death penalties.
So... it's more "Risk" attempting to complete that dungeon as Non-Combatants than it is as Combatants.
I think Noaani doesn't want to waste more time being distracted from defeating the boss by other players who love PvP.
Your words.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
That's just your demented mind trying to re-interpret what I wrote.
Killed the boss with 400 people and PvP from two other factions. Took a few hours.
Killed the same boss the next spawn with no PvP, 15 or so players and it took less than 10 minutes.
This is why I dont consider these encounters to be PvE content. With PvP, they are great. Without PvP, they are shit.
And that's why I hope Intrepid manage to design their bosses with this in mind in such a way where both situations are fun and difficult for everyone involved.
It's realizing after 5 years... that PvP is intended to be inextricably tied to everything.
Because, for Steven, PvE is not fun without the adrenaline rush PvP provides.
That was my understanding when I first heard the word "PvX", it sounds strange to me that people think PvX meant a game with both PvP and PvE, instead of... well.. PvX...
For me, as a "PvX" player, yes PvE is not fun without PvP - and PvP is not fun without PvE, I want both, living together, in the same systems, in the same game, as it was with L2 and other games in the past that AoC always clearly stated they were inspired on, I don't know what else to say about this it seems really obvious to me
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2023
I haven't played L2.
Really, the only thing I know about L2 is that people who played L2 told me that they expect Corruption to work well enough that everyone should be comfortable with the frequencey of PvP in Ashes - except for players who never want to experience PvP.
Since I am a player who enjoys PvP sometimes - especially PvP similar to Castle, City and Caravan defense - and Corruption was said to be active everywhere - that L2 explanation seemed to be acceptable.
But, again... no... Steven has not always clearly stated that Ashes is inspired by EvE Online and ArcheAge.
I specifically asked Steven about Ashes PvP compared to EvE and ArcheAge PvP and he said the PvP for Ashes was not like those games. And then Steven announced a year ago that they recently changed that.
It's OK that it seemed really obvious to you.
But, the fact is that Steven admits to making significant changes.
Also, while you use PvP-centric and PvX to refer to the same games.
When I told Steven EvE-Online and ArcheAge were too PvP-centric for me, Steven said, "Ashes is not PvP-centric. Ashes is PvX."
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/PvX Ashes of Creation is a PvX game. Players will naturally encounter both PvP and PvE elements. We're very clear with our objective and philosophy on the game and we understand that they may not appeal to everybody. But you know it is an important reciprocal relationship between the content that's related to PvE and the content that's related to PvP and they feed off of each other.
---Steven
I now think what Steven means by PvX is that, as much as possible, PvP is fused with everything in the game.
Specifically to induce adrenaline rush from competition in everything.
It now seems to me that Steven is not attempting to have PvP elements and PvE elements. It's not a reciprocal relationship, rather he's striving for a symbiotic relationship.
A reciprocal relationship could be OK.
A symbiotic relationship is too PvP-centric for me.
Killed the boss with 400 people and PvP from two other factions. Took a few hours.
Killed the same boss the next spawn with no PvP, 15 or so players and it took less than 10 minutes.
This is why I dont consider these encounters to be PvE content. With PvP, they are great. Without PvP, they are shit.
And that's why I hope Intrepid manage to design their bosses with this in mind in such a way where both situations are fun and difficult for everyone involved.
The more I think about this, the more I come to the conclusion that the way to achieve both groups being happy is to give them different encounters.
That said, calling then different groups isnt quite accurate. Everyone that I know that wants the content I want to see in Ashes also wants encounters like the one described above.
They are just different types of content, and should be treated as different types of content rather than trying to have one piece of content attempt to fulfill both sets of desires.
I don't know why I'm still paying attention to this game after 6 years, honestly...
I guess the class system holds a lot of promise, for unique and flavorful gameplay. And the story arcs sound interesting. I wanna see how they unfold according to the whims of the community.
Maybe it's the promise of a complete and complex game, more than just two gimmick mechanics stapled onto a generic "RPG". Same reason people have been enamored with Baldur's Gate 3. There's so much potential and creativity surrounding it.
Also, I've done enough quests, looted enough gear, and grinded enough levels for a lifetime already (and I'm not that old). It sounds nice to work towards other goals like node progression or a freehold. Especially since those things aren't just meaningless numbers or decorations. I'll admit, it's not healthy, but I play MMOs partially for the sense of pride in accomplishing dumb video game tasks. And AoC offers a lot of opportunities for that. Pride in your character/build (since it's supposedly not cookie-cutter). Pride in your node/guild/community. Pride in your artisan mastery and products (since it's so important to the economy). Pride in the player/community stories you help create. Not to mention all the PvP-focused "prides".
But anyways, despite all that wishful thinking, I'll probably burn-out on the game pretty fast because of the heavy PvP and competition. Hopefully it'll still be fun to watch content creators. Ya know, the ones who will have all the power and sway over most of the features in the game.
I don't know why I'm still paying attention to this game after 6 years, honestly...
I guess the class system holds a lot of promise, for unique and flavorful gameplay. And the story arcs sound interesting. I wanna see how they unfold according to the whims of the community.
Maybe it's the promise of a complete and complex game, more than just two gimmick mechanics stapled onto a generic "RPG". Same reason people have been enamored with Baldur's Gate 3. There's so much potential and creativity surrounding it.
Also, I've done enough quests, looted enough gear, and grinded enough levels for a lifetime already (and I'm not that old). It sounds nice to work towards other goals like node progression or a freehold. Especially since those things aren't just meaningless numbers or decorations. I'll admit, it's not healthy, but I play MMOs partially for the sense of pride in accomplishing dumb video game tasks. And AoC offers a lot of opportunities for that. Pride in your character/build (since it's supposedly not cookie-cutter). Pride in your node/guild/community. Pride in your artisan mastery and products (since it's so important to the economy). Pride in the player/community stories you help create. Not to mention all the PvP-focused "prides".
But anyways, despite all that wishful thinking, I'll probably burn-out on the game pretty fast because of the heavy PvP and competition. Hopefully it'll still be fun to watch content creators. Ya know, the ones who will have all the power and sway over most of the features in the game.
This is probably the most succinct answer I could imagine for what is a rather complex question.
There are many, many players that are thinking exactly the same as this.
The only reason my guild isnt thinking this is due to our experiences in Archeage. Basically the above happened, then we realized how poor quality the "PvE" was, and then most of us stopped playing MMO's for 3 or 4 years.
If it weren't for that experience, the guild as a whole would likely be in the above exact mindset.
There is *so much* potential in this game, but Intrepid look determined to not realize 90% of it.
But, again... no... Steven has not always clearly stated that Ashes is inspired by EvE Online and ArcheAge.
I'm sorry man, I need to call you out on that, theres literal quotes from 2017 and 2018 where they say the game is inspired by AA, L2 and EVE, I don't know why you are saying that..
I specifically asked Steven about Ashes PvP compared to EvE and ArcheAge PvP and he said the PvP for Ashes was not like those games. And then Steven announced a year ago that they recently changed that.
But Dygz... what did you expect him to say? if you ask him that same question today in 2023 he will give the same answer - PvP in Ashes will Not be like it was in EVE or AA they are different systems man.... AA is faction based theres literally no penalties to murdering the opposite faction countless times, EVE is based on outlaw regions
Aoc has a non-faction based flagging system with severe penalties and open seas, that is literally Different from all those games
I don't why you hold on to this narrative it makes no sense they are different systems Steven would be factually incorrect if he said "oh yea Ashes open world PvP will be the same as EVE or AA" when they are Not.
I would say that a PvP server in any MMORPG is PvX.
Not when the endgame is based around PVE-only raids or PVP-only battlegrounds... sure you can try to emulate PvX with having open world pvp but if all your meaningful content is PVE only or PVP only your game is Not PvX by design,
in WoW, for PvE you have is DGs, Raids and for PvP you have Battleground/Arenas, and that's the real "content" the game is simply not a PvX game, it offers both and that's about it,
the open world pvp in WoW means absolutely nothing in a WoW PvP server, its pointless, irrelevant, useless, and that's why they can have PVE servers because the game by design doesn't need that PVP to work - a PvX game would/should NOT work with PvP/PvE servers,
removing open-world/non-consensual PvP from L2, AA, EVE, would fundamentally break those games, because PvP is a core part of it, they can not work without it - that's what makes them PvX
saying a WoW PvP server is PvX when the game itself is not - makes no sense, and maybe thats why these conversations are stuck in an endless loop,
your whole definition of PvX is confusing, but using your words, yes a PvX game is/should be "symbiotic" and not "reciprocal"
The more I think about this, the more I come to the conclusion that the way to achieve both groups being happy is to give them different encounters.
That said, calling then different groups isnt quite accurate. Everyone that I know that wants the content I want to see in Ashes also wants encounters like the one described above.
They are just different types of content, and should be treated as different types of content rather than trying to have one piece of content attempt to fulfill both sets of desires.
I was talking more about the situations themselves. I hope Intrepid can make an adaptable AI/boss design where the fight w/o additional/flagged people is super hard, while a fight with a ton of people near the boss is hard due to the amount of people rather than purely due to the boss itself.
I realize that it's very very hard to design correctly with as few abuses as possible, but I hope they can pull it off.
The more I think about this, the more I come to the conclusion that the way to achieve both groups being happy is to give them different encounters.
That said, calling then different groups isnt quite accurate. Everyone that I know that wants the content I want to see in Ashes also wants encounters like the one described above.
They are just different types of content, and should be treated as different types of content rather than trying to have one piece of content attempt to fulfill both sets of desires.
I was talking more about the situations themselves. I hope Intrepid can make an adaptable AI/boss design where the fight w/o additional/flagged people is super hard, while a fight with a ton of people near the boss is hard due to the amount of people rather than purely due to the boss itself.
I realize that it's very very hard to design correctly with as few abuses as possible, but I hope they can pull it off.
Can they not make both kind of AI separately and player presence and behavior to trigger a change of the AI too?
The issue with what want is the rewards. Not only is there no risk in the rewards but more importantly, by being easier to acquire (because of the decreased risk), It devalues all the rewards in the world, especially those with less power and/or value.
Pvp has no rewards on it's own. All the rewards from it come from what you choose to fight over so by devaluing the rewards from the world, you are devaluing the PVP.
To be honest, I disagree with your entire premise here.
The value of any reward in the game is directly tied to the time spent to get it including any PvP, not just on the PvP.
I'm not sure what you mean. You seem to be implying that the more time it takes to get something, the more value it has which is false. Yes, more valuable things usually take longer to acquire but the more time it takes to acquire something doesn't increase it's value. If i auto-attack a boss to death, it's not going to drop more valuable loot because i took longer to kill it.
While this is true, it is also true that if I fight you for a boss, it isnt going to drop better gear. It may be that if I fight you for it, you dont get any gear and I do, but if you just auto attack a boss you wont get any either.
Again, time is the only thing players put in to an MMO, this is the baseline. You need to put time in to getting geared up, time in to learning your class, your role in a raid, and the encounter itself, then you can spend time working to kill the encounter.
If I am working on an open world encounter and you are trying to stop me, you are spending your time in order to prevent me getting the rewards I was after by spending my time on that boss.
If I go out harvesting and you attack me, you are risking your time via PvP and potential corruption in order to take the results of the time I spent harvesting.
Spending time on something isnt always a guarantee, but time is the only thing we have to spend.
If I take something from you in PvP, you have three options to get it back. Spend time fighting me for it, spend time earning gold to buy it, or spend time to get a new one.
It literally all comes down to spending time.
That doesnt mean we can increase our rewards for time spent by working slowly, all that amounts to is an inefficient use of time.
Yes but you kind of jumped past my point in my original reply. As you pointed out, PvP can add time to an encounter which is something you don't have to worry about in an instance. This means the rewards from instances are easier to get when compared to open-world items so people are going to go after the instanced rewards and ignore any rewards in the world that are as good or less powerful than them. Not good if there are a few pieces of instanced content that invalidate almost everything in the world.
All the class choices. Will be hard to find that one specific combination of archetype/secondary that is "me" because there are so many choices (and that's a great thing, I love all the choices). I don't like to be shoehorned into a specific cookie-cutter role. Trying them all out will take a lot of time, which is something else that is a big draw for me. I don't want a game that gets you to the end in 5 hours and then what?
Also, the gorgeous graphics are a huge draw. I try to think, "what if this game was pvp only - would I still be following," and the answer is yes. The game is so beautiful, the world so large - how could I not?
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I'm sorry man, I need to call you out on that, theres literal quotes from 2017 and 2018 where they say the game is inspired by AA, L2 and EVE, I don't know why you are saying that..
You can call me out all you want.
In 2017 and 2018 - the key Lead devs were from SOE/EQ/EQ2.
Which is why I asked him to compare Ashes PvP to EvE online PvP and ArcheAge PvP.
"You have said several times that you don't want Ashes of Creation to be a murderbox, so I'm wondering what are two examples of MMORPGs that you would put in the murderbox category so we have a better idea of what games you consider to be murderboxes..."
---Dygz
"I would say that when I played Lineage 2, there was, on occasion, that it had the ability to be a murderbox. And the reason for that is because, although it had a flaggin system that was similar, it did not have certain safeguards in place for people creating PK alts.
But, I would say that generally, I tend to stay away from murderbox games, so I would have a difficult time referencing what game I've played in the past that I would consider a murderbox."
---Steven
"So...how do you know you're staying away from a murderbox game if you don't know which one it is?!?
So... EvE is one for me."
---Dygz
Again... the only thing I know about L2 is that people who play L2 always say that Karma worked fine to keep PKing to a comfortable minimum and Corruption is harsher than Karma, so Corruption should make Ashes feel comfortable for all MMORPG players except for those who never wish to PvP.
This turns out not to be the case. There are a bunch of folk who enjoy PvP sometimes who - now that we have more info - we realize Ashes as more of a focus on PvP than we are comfortable with.
Now what we tend to hear is - "Well, EQ/EQ2/WoW are shit games. So, yeah, if you liked those games you have a fucked up view of PvP and PvE."
And, I notice that these changes and reveals that caused us to notice we are not in the target audience occurred after the Lead devs from SOE/EQ/EQ2 left IS and Steven took on the role of Lead Game Designer.
But Dygz... what did you expect him to say? if you ask him that same question today in 2023 he will give the same answer - PvP in Ashes will Not be like it was in EVE or AA they are different systems man.... AA is faction based theres literally no penalties to murdering the opposite faction countless times, EVE is based on outlaw regions
He cannot give the same answer today that he gave to me in 2018.
"So...how do you know you're staying away from a murderbox game if you don't know which one it is?!?
So... EvE is one for me."
---Dygz
"Well, EvE is one if you choose to go to the appropriate sectors, right??
---Steven
"I don't know. I stay away from EvE because it's too PvP-centric for me. So, that's why I'm asking.
Are you hoping that Ashes PvP will be at the same level as EvE? Or are you hoping for something different?"
---Dygz
"Well, it is different. My hopes with regard to our battle is that it is Meaningful. So that means that it is a decision on behalf of the risk-taker whether or not the reward is worthy of the risk. And then, additionally, as a player who might be on the receiving end of a PK, they are aware that this choice of an opponent directly impacts them (the PKer) probably more than the death of their character. And I think there is a recourse for that character who got killed to go out and pursue that character as well, and exact their revenge. Also, they can participate with other members of the community who are Bounty Hunters who will have an opportunity to locate in real time the location of that person on the map and that will sort of limit the ability of those players who really go out to cause havoc.
---Steven
What I find interesting, here, is that I was trying to get Steven to discuss the intensity of PvP.
Does he hope Ashes will be as PvP-centric as EvE Online.
First he answers: "Well, it is different."
And I understood that to mean that he hopes Ashes will not be as PvP-centric as EvE.
But... his detailed answer side-steps my concern - I was asking about how much of a focus on PvP does the game have. What Steven explained instead is that Corruption should minimize PKing.
Because, of course, the PvPers concern is about how much PKing there is. While the PvEer concern is truly about how much PvP there will be.
I like PvP sometimes - but I want to be able to control when I encounter PvP. Not just when I will encounter PKing, but also when I will encounter PvP.
Ideally that would be by participating in Castle Sieges - which occur once a month. Or in Node Sieges, which are scheduled weeks and sometimes months in advance. Or Caravans - which I don't necessarily plan to initiate frequently, but I can choose to flag Combatant or remain a Non-Combatant when I stumble upon a Caravan attack.
Sure... Corruption sounds like a reasonable compromise regarding non-consensual PvP. But, my question was not about PKing or non-consensual PvP.
I was trying to gauge how much of a focus on PvP Ashes is intended to have. Is the goal for Ashes to have as much of a focus on PvP as EvE Online.
Steven answered, "Well, no. It's different." And then appeared to me to indicate that Ashes will not be as focused on PvP as EvE Online."
You seem to be want to argue that Steven clearly answered that his goal is for Ashes to have the same focus or similar focus on PvP as EvE?
I don't understand how that can be clear when his first response is, "Well, no. It's different."
Was I intended to understand that the level of PvP will be higher in Ashes than it is in EvE?? ?? ??
"What about PvP in comparison to ArcheAge? "
---Dygz
"Well, ArcheAge, there were really very little penalties applied to character deaths. Obviously, there was experience debt. and the experience debt was trivial because you could visit a Nui(sp?) shrine or whatever... and pay a small gold amount that never really scaled with the development of the economy...and then that was gone. Additionally, it was a faction-based game so you were told who your opponents were. You were told who your friends were and you had no choice over the matter.
You pretty much knew in any territory that you wnet to what the system of PvP mechanics were, whether it was a peace zone or whether it was a PvP zone. So, if you were to take risks, it was of your time and choosing, depending on how you moved your packs and what zones you went through in order to move them.
So, that doesn't really relate well to what Ashes is trying to do.
Because Ashes is an Open World and there are no (permanent) zoned flagged PvP areas instead there is just the flagging system (Corruption) that relates to the other players. Additionally, there is a greater degree of risk on death and that includes the ability to drop material and resource goods. Now, you can choose whether or not to carry those resource goods, thereby eliminating that risk, but it is something that is present. And I think that another system with regards to PvP is that it's not all about the flagging system and the Open World kind of dynamic (Corruption), it's about (Meanigful Conflict) how Guild Wars are prevalent and about how these Node Sieges can occur and the Castle Sieges and the fights for Fortresses and the movement of goods and the Caravans. And these different systems all place a relevancy to the occurence of PvP so that something's at stake and it feels Meaningful. It's not just a 'I am told this person is my enemy and they're on the enemy faction and I need to kill them because they are here.
---Steven
"Someone was saying on the Forums, today, that raiding Caravans at max level is going tobecome so boring that you're just going to be farming them. Adn I was like, 'The reason to attack Caravans is not to farm. The reason is that they're gonna be moving goods that will help them build up their defenses or they're going to help them build up their siege engines and you need to stop them. Or they need these resources to build a Metropolis and you don't want them to build a Metropolis because you want your Node to be the Metropolis, so you gotta raid their Caravan.' So, the focus is not, "Oh, there's a Caravan and I like PvP, so I'm gonna go farm.' What I like about Ashes is that it has the potential to make myself, who is a pacifist Carebear, fight because I want to get my Metropolis built and that's what I have to do. I don't necessarily want to kill [other player characters] but if I gotta kill [them] to get my Metropolis I might have to do that."
----Dygz
I don't why you hold on to this narrative it makes no sense they are different systems Steven would be factually incorrect if he said "oh yea Ashes open world PvP will be the same as EVE or AA" when they are Not.
I strive to be very precise about the words and phrases I use.
Notice that I did not ask Steven to compare systems.
I first asked Steven to name MMORPGs that he considers to be a murderbox. Specifically so that those of us who consider EvE or ArcheAge to be murderboxes could clearly understand that we are not part of the target audience.
And, when he tried to side-step that answer...
I next asked Steven to compare the LEVEL of PvP he hopes Ashes will have with the level of PvP in EvE and in ArcheAge.
I did not ask Steven if Ashes has the same PvP systems as EvE and ArcheAge.
I clearly stated that I don't play EvE and ArcheAge because they are to PvP-centric for me. You label those games as PvP-centric and then claim it should be clear that Ashes is also PvP-centric. But, Steven says that Ashes is not PvP-centric.
If you want to label EvE Online and ArcheAge as PvX MMORPGs - that's fine. But, I think the only thing clear about my discussion with Steven is that I was trying to get Steven to clearly state that Ashes is intended to be similar - not the SAME - but similar enough to EvE and ArcheAge in terms of the amount of PvP (not PKing) that Ashe would be in the same category.
MMORPGs I don't play. MMORPGs that players who enjoy PvP sometimes - occassionally - but don't want to have to be thinking about PvP constantly... are not interested in playing.
What Steven answered in this interview is:
1: Steven hopes the level of PvP in Ashes will be different than EvE and ArcheAge. (Seemingly not as intense as those PvP-centric MMORPGs.)
2: Corruption should be punishing enough that it makes PvP less frequent than in Ashes than it is in EvE Online and ArcheAge. (I now understand he meant PKing should be less frequent, but that's not the question I asked him)
3: There are no permanent zones that auto-flag to Combatant (Corruption-Free FFA PvP) when you enter. (That is a signifcant change as of 1 year ago. And it's dealbreaker for me. Steven would not answer this today the same as when I asked him in 2018.)
4: SImilar to the Kickstarter, Steven explains Meaningful Conflict as Guild Wars, Node Sieges, Castle Sieges and Caravans. Those are examples of the objective-based PvP combat I enjoy.
As opposed to, "I'm going to kill you so I can farm this spot." Or, "I'm going to kill you because I love the adrenaline rush of FFA PvP." Or, "I'm going to kill you because I want the loot from that World Boss and I want to prevent you from getting any of that loot." Or, "I'm going to kill you because I see that your bag type collects flowers and I want my flower shop to have a monopoly on flowers for this server."
TL:DR
I think it's obvious that I tried to get Steven to very clearly place Ashes in the same category as PvP-centric MMORPGs, like EvE Online and ArcheAge.
Steven purposefully chose to dodge that question and make it appear that his goal was for Ashes to be in a different PvP category from those games.
1
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
TL:DR
I think it's obvious that I tried to get Steven to very clearly place Ashes in the same category as PvP-centric MMORPGs, like EvE Online and ArcheAge.
Steven purposefully chose to dodge that question and make it appear that his goal was for Ashes to be in a different PvP category from those games.
I think it's more that both the games you mentioned have different pvp systems to ashes so saying it will be like them wouldn't be true.
The system is almost a copy of L2's with some changes to fix what he saw were issues with its system. If you want a comparison, it's going to be like L2.
Why are you asking if it's going to be like other games when there is one it's copying?
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Not when the endgame is based around PVE-only raids or PVP-only battlegrounds...
Yes. The primary appeal of Ashes is that the Node system and Meaningful Conflict (Guild Wars, Node Sieges, Castle Sieges and Caravans) are intended to put an end to Endgame.
I'm pretty sure that everyone still on the Forums for more than a few months expected to enjoy Meaningful Conflict (Guild Wars, Node Sieges, Castle Sieges and Caravans) and expected Corruption to be a reasonable compromise regarding non-consensual PvP.
sure you can try to emulate PvX with having open world pvp but if all your meaningful content is PVE only or PVP only your game is Not PvX by design
in WoW, for PvE you have is DGs, Raids and for PvP you have Battleground/Arenas, and that's the real "content" the game is simply not a PvX game, it offers both and that's about it
PvX means "player vs everything".
PvX server means that PvP and PvE are on the same server.
PvX MMORPG means that there is no separate PvE-Only servers.
A PvX Guild does both PvP and PvE.
I think what you are trying to say is that EQ/EQ2 and WoW are too PvE-centric.
They design the PvE first and then the PvP design feels like an afterthought.
Which is a reasonable complaint from the perspective of a PvPer.
Although, there should be no surprise because the foundation of RPGs is PvE. Traditionally, PvP in RPGs is exceedingly rare.
I play RPGs to emulate the Fantasy novels I read. Not to compete with and fight against fellow players.
Same motivation for CRPGs and ORPGs. I'm not really interested in the "game" aspect of RPGs.
I'm really interested in the RP aspect - playing my characters as if they are the protagonists in a Fantasy novel.
And, if I'm playing with other players - I expect/prefer the other player characters to also be protagonists and mobs and NPCs to be the antagonists.
Gamers who love fighting games and competitive games wanted to bring PvP to MMORPGs once MMORPGs became an RPG option. But, of course, most MMORPG devs would design the PvE first and then tack on PvP.
Gamers who love PvP prefer to play MMORPGs where the PvP does not feel like it's a design after thought.
No surprise there. I feel ya.
WoW PvP servers are PvX - they have both PvP and PvE. WoW PvP servers were also designed for PvE first and then tacked on PvP. And PvP gamers don't like that.
We agree, I think.
the open world pvp in WoW means absolutely nothing in a WoW PvP server, its pointless, irrelevant, useless, and that's why they can have PVE servers because the game by design doesn't need that PVP to work - a PvX game would/should NOT work with PvP/PvE servers
Again, I think what you mean here is that WoW servers are designed for PvE first and have PvP tacked on at the end. And it would be preferable for all servers to have the same (PvP) ruleset and for PvP and PvE to be designed and developed simultaneously - even better if PvP and PvE have a reciprocal relationship.
I think we agree well enough, there.
I think no one who has been in these Forums for more than a few weeks is asking for servers with different (PvP) rulesets. Again, everyone who has remained on the Forums for more than a year expects to enjoy Meaningful Conflict (Guild Wars, Node Sieges, Castle Sieges and Caravans).
removing open-world/non-consensual PvP from L2, AA, EVE, would fundamentally break those games, because PvP is a core part of it, they can not work without it - that's what makes them PvX
I think we agree for L2, AA, and EVE... and we agree with that for Ashes as well. (At least, based on my original understanding of PvX.)
Pax Dei is also PvX -with both PvP and PvE being core aspects of the game instead of one being more important than the other - but not in the same manner that Ashes is.
I'm not aware of anyone who's been on these Forums for more than a few weeks who has asked for Meaningful Conflict (Guild Wars, Node Sieges, Castle Sieges and Caravans) to be removed from the Ashes game design.
saying a WoW PvP server is PvX when the game itself is not - makes no sense, and maybe thats why these conversations are stuck in an endless loop
PvX game typically means no separate PvE-Only server. So, I concede that WoW is not a PvX game.
WoW PvP servers have both PvP and PvE. That is PvX. So the PvP servers are inherently PvX
WoW is not a PvP-centric game. And... it is also designed for PvE first.
What you seem to mean is that for gamers who love PvP in PvP-centric games, the PvP on EQ/EQ2/WoW PvP servers is unsatsifactory.
That is understandable.
your whole definition of PvX is confusing, but using your words, yes a PvX game is/should be "symbiotic" and not "reciprocal"
I think one of the first things that I told you after you were on the Ashen Forge is that I now understand that the terms we use are confusing depending on whether someone is a gamer who not only plays MMORPGs on PvP servers, but also plays PvP-centric MMORPGs and also plays other PvP-centric video games.... as opposed to a player who primarily plays RPGs and plays MMORPGs on PvE-Only servers.
Reciprocal was Steven's term when describing Ashes PvP and PvE.
PvEers (and PvP sometime players, like me and, I think Noaani) who have been following Ashes for more than a few weeks already find a reciprocal relationship to be a significant compromise.
Pax Dei is PvX and will also have a reciprocal relationship between PvP and PvE. It won't be symbiotic, though.
And, I would say PvEers - PvEers who refuse to play games like EvE and ArcheAge - will perceive the symbiotic relationship of PvP and PvE in Ashes to be overkill. Way too much PvP attached to everything in the game.
Obviously, gamers who love PvP will thrive with a symbiotic relationship.
And that's great. There are not many MMORPGs out there with that symbiotic relationship.
So, hopefully Ashes will successfully fill that niche.
Just, no, it was not clear prior to a year ago that Ashes was striving to fill that niche.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The system is almost a copy of L2's with some changes to fix what he saw were issues with its system. If you want a comparison, it's going to be like L2.
Why are you asking if it's going to be like other games when there is one it's copying?
1: Most of the Lead devs from 2017-2021 came from SOE/Daybreak/EQ/EQ2.
And it seemed likely they would want to retain the MMORPG players who play on EQ/EQ2 PvE-Only servers but are OK with some PvP. I'm not aware of Steven hiring devs who worked on Lineage 2.
2: The Node system seemed to me to be a simplified version of EQNext’s StoryBricks.
And with so many IS devs from SOE/Daybreak/EQ/EQ2, again, it seemed likely they would want to retain the MMORPG players who play on EQ/EQ2 PvE-Only servers but are OK with some PvP and who were interested in EQNext.
3: On the EQNext Forums, we never learned what the plan was to get PvPers and PvEers to be content playing on the same servers before EQNext became vaporware. Steven’s answer was that Corruption should work because it is a harsher form of Karma.
4: I don't think I've ever heard Steven or anyone else reference L2 when discussing Nodes or Sieges.
When L2 gamers discuss L2 in relation to Ashes, it is typically comparing Corruption to Karma.
5: I think Liniker is correct in saying that Steven referenced EvE and ArcheAge enough in 2017 and early 2018 for me to wonder if Ashes is intended to be as PvP-centric as those games.
Again... the only thing I know about L2 is that L2 players say that Corruption is harsher than Karma and Karma worked well enough to curtail PKing in L2 that PvP should feel comfortable for any player doesn't hate PvP so much they never want to experience PvP.
I know that EvE and ArcheAge are too PvP-centric for me. Which is why I asked for a comparison for the games I know something about. But, notice the first question I asked was for Steven to name some games that are a "murderbox" (his term).
He said that sometimes Lineage could be a murderbox, but Ashes should not be as much of a murderbox as L2 due to Corruption.
6: Steven has never said, AFAIK, "Ashes is basically just a copy of L2. We are making Ashes for the gamers who loved L2, just Corruption is a bit harsher. If you didn't like the adrenaline rush of L2, you probably won't like Risk v Reward of Ashes."
7: I was not asking Steven to compare systems. I was asking Steven to compare how prevalent PvP was expected to be.
Yes. What he provided is the answer to what L2 gamers considered to be the problem with PvP in L2 - too much PKing. But I did not ask Steven to compare the amount of PKing in Ashes with the amount of PKing in EvE and ArcheAge and L2.
Comments
Tell me about more devilishly details so we can make this a 40page thread of unrealistic scenarios and definitions.
You were the one that assumed it would lower the risk...
Your words.
@Dygz have you been part of a fight with an open world raid boss while engaging in pvp?
What's the real question?
I have a question for you though, have you taken on a fight with an open world raid boss designed for PvP to be a factor, but when there was no PvP?
I have.
Killed the boss with 400 people and PvP from two other factions. Took a few hours.
Killed the same boss the next spawn with no PvP, 15 or so players and it took less than 10 minutes.
This is why I dont consider these encounters to be PvE content. With PvP, they are great. Without PvP, they are shit.
That was my understanding when I first heard the word "PvX", it sounds strange to me that people think PvX meant a game with both PvP and PvE, instead of... well.. PvX...
For me, as a "PvX" player, yes PvE is not fun without PvP - and PvP is not fun without PvE, I want both, living together, in the same systems, in the same game, as it was with L2 and other games in the past that AoC always clearly stated they were inspired on, I don't know what else to say about this it seems really obvious to me
Really, the only thing I know about L2 is that people who played L2 told me that they expect Corruption to work well enough that everyone should be comfortable with the frequencey of PvP in Ashes - except for players who never want to experience PvP.
Since I am a player who enjoys PvP sometimes - especially PvP similar to Castle, City and Caravan defense - and Corruption was said to be active everywhere - that L2 explanation seemed to be acceptable.
But, again... no... Steven has not always clearly stated that Ashes is inspired by EvE Online and ArcheAge.
I specifically asked Steven about Ashes PvP compared to EvE and ArcheAge PvP and he said the PvP for Ashes was not like those games. And then Steven announced a year ago that they recently changed that.
It's OK that it seemed really obvious to you.
But, the fact is that Steven admits to making significant changes.
Also, while you use PvP-centric and PvX to refer to the same games.
When I told Steven EvE-Online and ArcheAge were too PvP-centric for me, Steven said, "Ashes is not PvP-centric. Ashes is PvX."
I would say that a PvP server in any MMORPG is PvX.
https://osgamers.com/frequently-asked-questions/what-does-pvp-pve-and-pvx-mean#:~:text=PvX refers to "player versus,meaning both PvE and PvP.
"All worlds are the same. PvX guilds have a focus on all aspects of the game."
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pvx
"This guild does PvX content. So basically, we do everything."
https://www.reddit.com/r/playarkmobile/comments/n647ag/what_is_pvx_exactly/
its like pve but every day theres a random area that you can pvp and a pretty large one at that its just a mix between the two.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/PvX
Ashes of Creation is a PvX game. Players will naturally encounter both PvP and PvE elements.
We're very clear with our objective and philosophy on the game and we understand that they may not appeal to everybody. But you know it is an important reciprocal relationship between the content that's related to PvE and the content that's related to PvP and they feed off of each other.
---Steven
I now think what Steven means by PvX is that, as much as possible, PvP is fused with everything in the game.
Specifically to induce adrenaline rush from competition in everything.
It now seems to me that Steven is not attempting to have PvP elements and PvE elements. It's not a reciprocal relationship, rather he's striving for a symbiotic relationship.
A reciprocal relationship could be OK.
A symbiotic relationship is too PvP-centric for me.
sounds awesome. what game?
you parse the concepts in a way that makes me question.
Archeage.
Red dragon.
The more I think about this, the more I come to the conclusion that the way to achieve both groups being happy is to give them different encounters.
That said, calling then different groups isnt quite accurate. Everyone that I know that wants the content I want to see in Ashes also wants encounters like the one described above.
They are just different types of content, and should be treated as different types of content rather than trying to have one piece of content attempt to fulfill both sets of desires.
I guess the class system holds a lot of promise, for unique and flavorful gameplay. And the story arcs sound interesting. I wanna see how they unfold according to the whims of the community.
Maybe it's the promise of a complete and complex game, more than just two gimmick mechanics stapled onto a generic "RPG". Same reason people have been enamored with Baldur's Gate 3. There's so much potential and creativity surrounding it.
Also, I've done enough quests, looted enough gear, and grinded enough levels for a lifetime already (and I'm not that old). It sounds nice to work towards other goals like node progression or a freehold. Especially since those things aren't just meaningless numbers or decorations. I'll admit, it's not healthy, but I play MMOs partially for the sense of pride in accomplishing dumb video game tasks. And AoC offers a lot of opportunities for that. Pride in your character/build (since it's supposedly not cookie-cutter). Pride in your node/guild/community. Pride in your artisan mastery and products (since it's so important to the economy). Pride in the player/community stories you help create. Not to mention all the PvP-focused "prides".
But anyways, despite all that wishful thinking, I'll probably burn-out on the game pretty fast because of the heavy PvP and competition. Hopefully it'll still be fun to watch content creators. Ya know, the ones who will have all the power and sway over most of the features in the game.
This is probably the most succinct answer I could imagine for what is a rather complex question.
There are many, many players that are thinking exactly the same as this.
The only reason my guild isnt thinking this is due to our experiences in Archeage. Basically the above happened, then we realized how poor quality the "PvE" was, and then most of us stopped playing MMO's for 3 or 4 years.
If it weren't for that experience, the guild as a whole would likely be in the above exact mindset.
There is *so much* potential in this game, but Intrepid look determined to not realize 90% of it.
The game is for you, more than for the sophisticated specialized players.
I'm sorry man, I need to call you out on that, theres literal quotes from 2017 and 2018 where they say the game is inspired by AA, L2 and EVE, I don't know why you are saying that..
But Dygz... what did you expect him to say? if you ask him that same question today in 2023 he will give the same answer - PvP in Ashes will Not be like it was in EVE or AA they are different systems man.... AA is faction based theres literally no penalties to murdering the opposite faction countless times, EVE is based on outlaw regions
Aoc has a non-faction based flagging system with severe penalties and open seas, that is literally Different from all those games
I don't why you hold on to this narrative it makes no sense they are different systems Steven would be factually incorrect if he said "oh yea Ashes open world PvP will be the same as EVE or AA" when they are Not.
Not when the endgame is based around PVE-only raids or PVP-only battlegrounds... sure you can try to emulate PvX with having open world pvp but if all your meaningful content is PVE only or PVP only your game is Not PvX by design,
in WoW, for PvE you have is DGs, Raids and for PvP you have Battleground/Arenas, and that's the real "content" the game is simply not a PvX game, it offers both and that's about it,
the open world pvp in WoW means absolutely nothing in a WoW PvP server, its pointless, irrelevant, useless, and that's why they can have PVE servers because the game by design doesn't need that PVP to work - a PvX game would/should NOT work with PvP/PvE servers,
removing open-world/non-consensual PvP from L2, AA, EVE, would fundamentally break those games, because PvP is a core part of it, they can not work without it - that's what makes them PvX
saying a WoW PvP server is PvX when the game itself is not - makes no sense, and maybe thats why these conversations are stuck in an endless loop,
your whole definition of PvX is confusing, but using your words, yes a PvX game is/should be "symbiotic" and not "reciprocal"
I realize that it's very very hard to design correctly with as few abuses as possible, but I hope they can pull it off.
Can they not make both kind of AI separately and player presence and behavior to trigger a change of the AI too?
Yes but you kind of jumped past my point in my original reply. As you pointed out, PvP can add time to an encounter which is something you don't have to worry about in an instance. This means the rewards from instances are easier to get when compared to open-world items so people are going to go after the instanced rewards and ignore any rewards in the world that are as good or less powerful than them. Not good if there are a few pieces of instanced content that invalidate almost everything in the world.
Also, the gorgeous graphics are a huge draw. I try to think, "what if this game was pvp only - would I still be following," and the answer is yes. The game is so beautiful, the world so large - how could I not?
In 2017 and 2018 - the key Lead devs were from SOE/EQ/EQ2.
Which is why I asked him to compare Ashes PvP to EvE online PvP and ArcheAge PvP.
"You have said several times that you don't want Ashes of Creation to be a murderbox, so I'm wondering what are two examples of MMORPGs that you would put in the murderbox category so we have a better idea of what games you consider to be murderboxes..."
---Dygz
"I would say that when I played Lineage 2, there was, on occasion, that it had the ability to be a murderbox. And the reason for that is because, although it had a flaggin system that was similar, it did not have certain safeguards in place for people creating PK alts.
But, I would say that generally, I tend to stay away from murderbox games, so I would have a difficult time referencing what game I've played in the past that I would consider a murderbox."
---Steven
"So...how do you know you're staying away from a murderbox game if you don't know which one it is?!?
So... EvE is one for me."
---Dygz
Again... the only thing I know about L2 is that people who play L2 always say that Karma worked fine to keep PKing to a comfortable minimum and Corruption is harsher than Karma, so Corruption should make Ashes feel comfortable for all MMORPG players except for those who never wish to PvP.
This turns out not to be the case. There are a bunch of folk who enjoy PvP sometimes who - now that we have more info - we realize Ashes as more of a focus on PvP than we are comfortable with.
Now what we tend to hear is - "Well, EQ/EQ2/WoW are shit games. So, yeah, if you liked those games you have a fucked up view of PvP and PvE."
And, I notice that these changes and reveals that caused us to notice we are not in the target audience occurred after the Lead devs from SOE/EQ/EQ2 left IS and Steven took on the role of Lead Game Designer.
He cannot give the same answer today that he gave to me in 2018.
"So...how do you know you're staying away from a murderbox game if you don't know which one it is?!?
So... EvE is one for me."
---Dygz
"Well, EvE is one if you choose to go to the appropriate sectors, right??
---Steven
"I don't know. I stay away from EvE because it's too PvP-centric for me. So, that's why I'm asking.
Are you hoping that Ashes PvP will be at the same level as EvE? Or are you hoping for something different?"
---Dygz
"Well, it is different. My hopes with regard to our battle is that it is Meaningful. So that means that it is a decision on behalf of the risk-taker whether or not the reward is worthy of the risk. And then, additionally, as a player who might be on the receiving end of a PK, they are aware that this choice of an opponent directly impacts them (the PKer) probably more than the death of their character. And I think there is a recourse for that character who got killed to go out and pursue that character as well, and exact their revenge. Also, they can participate with other members of the community who are Bounty Hunters who will have an opportunity to locate in real time the location of that person on the map and that will sort of limit the ability of those players who really go out to cause havoc.
---Steven
What I find interesting, here, is that I was trying to get Steven to discuss the intensity of PvP.
Does he hope Ashes will be as PvP-centric as EvE Online.
First he answers: "Well, it is different."
And I understood that to mean that he hopes Ashes will not be as PvP-centric as EvE.
But... his detailed answer side-steps my concern - I was asking about how much of a focus on PvP does the game have. What Steven explained instead is that Corruption should minimize PKing.
Because, of course, the PvPers concern is about how much PKing there is. While the PvEer concern is truly about how much PvP there will be.
I like PvP sometimes - but I want to be able to control when I encounter PvP. Not just when I will encounter PKing, but also when I will encounter PvP.
Ideally that would be by participating in Castle Sieges - which occur once a month. Or in Node Sieges, which are scheduled weeks and sometimes months in advance. Or Caravans - which I don't necessarily plan to initiate frequently, but I can choose to flag Combatant or remain a Non-Combatant when I stumble upon a Caravan attack.
Sure... Corruption sounds like a reasonable compromise regarding non-consensual PvP. But, my question was not about PKing or non-consensual PvP.
I was trying to gauge how much of a focus on PvP Ashes is intended to have. Is the goal for Ashes to have as much of a focus on PvP as EvE Online.
Steven answered, "Well, no. It's different." And then appeared to me to indicate that Ashes will not be as focused on PvP as EvE Online."
You seem to be want to argue that Steven clearly answered that his goal is for Ashes to have the same focus or similar focus on PvP as EvE?
I don't understand how that can be clear when his first response is, "Well, no. It's different."
Was I intended to understand that the level of PvP will be higher in Ashes than it is in EvE?? ?? ??
"What about PvP in comparison to ArcheAge? "
---Dygz
"Well, ArcheAge, there were really very little penalties applied to character deaths. Obviously, there was experience debt. and the experience debt was trivial because you could visit a Nui(sp?) shrine or whatever... and pay a small gold amount that never really scaled with the development of the economy...and then that was gone. Additionally, it was a faction-based game so you were told who your opponents were. You were told who your friends were and you had no choice over the matter.
You pretty much knew in any territory that you wnet to what the system of PvP mechanics were, whether it was a peace zone or whether it was a PvP zone. So, if you were to take risks, it was of your time and choosing, depending on how you moved your packs and what zones you went through in order to move them.
So, that doesn't really relate well to what Ashes is trying to do.
Because Ashes is an Open World and there are no (permanent) zoned flagged PvP areas instead there is just the flagging system (Corruption) that relates to the other players. Additionally, there is a greater degree of risk on death and that includes the ability to drop material and resource goods. Now, you can choose whether or not to carry those resource goods, thereby eliminating that risk, but it is something that is present. And I think that another system with regards to PvP is that it's not all about the flagging system and the Open World kind of dynamic (Corruption), it's about (Meanigful Conflict) how Guild Wars are prevalent and about how these Node Sieges can occur and the Castle Sieges and the fights for Fortresses and the movement of goods and the Caravans. And these different systems all place a relevancy to the occurence of PvP so that something's at stake and it feels Meaningful. It's not just a 'I am told this person is my enemy and they're on the enemy faction and I need to kill them because they are here.
---Steven
"Someone was saying on the Forums, today, that raiding Caravans at max level is going tobecome so boring that you're just going to be farming them. Adn I was like, 'The reason to attack Caravans is not to farm. The reason is that they're gonna be moving goods that will help them build up their defenses or they're going to help them build up their siege engines and you need to stop them. Or they need these resources to build a Metropolis and you don't want them to build a Metropolis because you want your Node to be the Metropolis, so you gotta raid their Caravan.' So, the focus is not, "Oh, there's a Caravan and I like PvP, so I'm gonna go farm.' What I like about Ashes is that it has the potential to make myself, who is a pacifist Carebear, fight because I want to get my Metropolis built and that's what I have to do. I don't necessarily want to kill [other player characters] but if I gotta kill [them] to get my Metropolis I might have to do that."
----Dygz
"Absolutely."
---Steven
I strive to be very precise about the words and phrases I use.
Notice that I did not ask Steven to compare systems.
I first asked Steven to name MMORPGs that he considers to be a murderbox. Specifically so that those of us who consider EvE or ArcheAge to be murderboxes could clearly understand that we are not part of the target audience.
And, when he tried to side-step that answer...
I next asked Steven to compare the LEVEL of PvP he hopes Ashes will have with the level of PvP in EvE and in ArcheAge.
I did not ask Steven if Ashes has the same PvP systems as EvE and ArcheAge.
I clearly stated that I don't play EvE and ArcheAge because they are to PvP-centric for me. You label those games as PvP-centric and then claim it should be clear that Ashes is also PvP-centric. But, Steven says that Ashes is not PvP-centric.
If you want to label EvE Online and ArcheAge as PvX MMORPGs - that's fine. But, I think the only thing clear about my discussion with Steven is that I was trying to get Steven to clearly state that Ashes is intended to be similar - not the SAME - but similar enough to EvE and ArcheAge in terms of the amount of PvP (not PKing) that Ashe would be in the same category.
MMORPGs I don't play. MMORPGs that players who enjoy PvP sometimes - occassionally - but don't want to have to be thinking about PvP constantly... are not interested in playing.
What Steven answered in this interview is:
1: Steven hopes the level of PvP in Ashes will be different than EvE and ArcheAge. (Seemingly not as intense as those PvP-centric MMORPGs.)
2: Corruption should be punishing enough that it makes PvP less frequent than in Ashes than it is in EvE Online and ArcheAge. (I now understand he meant PKing should be less frequent, but that's not the question I asked him)
3: There are no permanent zones that auto-flag to Combatant (Corruption-Free FFA PvP) when you enter. (That is a signifcant change as of 1 year ago. And it's dealbreaker for me. Steven would not answer this today the same as when I asked him in 2018.)
4: SImilar to the Kickstarter, Steven explains Meaningful Conflict as Guild Wars, Node Sieges, Castle Sieges and Caravans. Those are examples of the objective-based PvP combat I enjoy.
As opposed to, "I'm going to kill you so I can farm this spot." Or, "I'm going to kill you because I love the adrenaline rush of FFA PvP." Or, "I'm going to kill you because I want the loot from that World Boss and I want to prevent you from getting any of that loot." Or, "I'm going to kill you because I see that your bag type collects flowers and I want my flower shop to have a monopoly on flowers for this server."
TL:DR
I think it's obvious that I tried to get Steven to very clearly place Ashes in the same category as PvP-centric MMORPGs, like EvE Online and ArcheAge.
Steven purposefully chose to dodge that question and make it appear that his goal was for Ashes to be in a different PvP category from those games.
I think it's more that both the games you mentioned have different pvp systems to ashes so saying it will be like them wouldn't be true.
The system is almost a copy of L2's with some changes to fix what he saw were issues with its system. If you want a comparison, it's going to be like L2.
Why are you asking if it's going to be like other games when there is one it's copying?
I'm pretty sure that everyone still on the Forums for more than a few months expected to enjoy Meaningful Conflict (Guild Wars, Node Sieges, Castle Sieges and Caravans) and expected Corruption to be a reasonable compromise regarding non-consensual PvP.
PvX means "player vs everything".
PvX server means that PvP and PvE are on the same server.
PvX MMORPG means that there is no separate PvE-Only servers.
A PvX Guild does both PvP and PvE.
I think what you are trying to say is that EQ/EQ2 and WoW are too PvE-centric.
They design the PvE first and then the PvP design feels like an afterthought.
Which is a reasonable complaint from the perspective of a PvPer.
Although, there should be no surprise because the foundation of RPGs is PvE. Traditionally, PvP in RPGs is exceedingly rare.
I play RPGs to emulate the Fantasy novels I read. Not to compete with and fight against fellow players.
Same motivation for CRPGs and ORPGs. I'm not really interested in the "game" aspect of RPGs.
I'm really interested in the RP aspect - playing my characters as if they are the protagonists in a Fantasy novel.
And, if I'm playing with other players - I expect/prefer the other player characters to also be protagonists and mobs and NPCs to be the antagonists.
Gamers who love fighting games and competitive games wanted to bring PvP to MMORPGs once MMORPGs became an RPG option. But, of course, most MMORPG devs would design the PvE first and then tack on PvP.
Gamers who love PvP prefer to play MMORPGs where the PvP does not feel like it's a design after thought.
No surprise there. I feel ya.
WoW PvP servers are PvX - they have both PvP and PvE. WoW PvP servers were also designed for PvE first and then tacked on PvP. And PvP gamers don't like that.
We agree, I think.
Again, I think what you mean here is that WoW servers are designed for PvE first and have PvP tacked on at the end. And it would be preferable for all servers to have the same (PvP) ruleset and for PvP and PvE to be designed and developed simultaneously - even better if PvP and PvE have a reciprocal relationship.
I think we agree well enough, there.
I think no one who has been in these Forums for more than a few weeks is asking for servers with different (PvP) rulesets. Again, everyone who has remained on the Forums for more than a year expects to enjoy Meaningful Conflict (Guild Wars, Node Sieges, Castle Sieges and Caravans).
I think we agree for L2, AA, and EVE... and we agree with that for Ashes as well. (At least, based on my original understanding of PvX.)
Pax Dei is also PvX -with both PvP and PvE being core aspects of the game instead of one being more important than the other - but not in the same manner that Ashes is.
I'm not aware of anyone who's been on these Forums for more than a few weeks who has asked for Meaningful Conflict (Guild Wars, Node Sieges, Castle Sieges and Caravans) to be removed from the Ashes game design.
PvX game typically means no separate PvE-Only server. So, I concede that WoW is not a PvX game.
WoW PvP servers have both PvP and PvE. That is PvX. So the PvP servers are inherently PvX
WoW is not a PvP-centric game. And... it is also designed for PvE first.
What you seem to mean is that for gamers who love PvP in PvP-centric games, the PvP on EQ/EQ2/WoW PvP servers is unsatsifactory.
That is understandable.
I think one of the first things that I told you after you were on the Ashen Forge is that I now understand that the terms we use are confusing depending on whether someone is a gamer who not only plays MMORPGs on PvP servers, but also plays PvP-centric MMORPGs and also plays other PvP-centric video games.... as opposed to a player who primarily plays RPGs and plays MMORPGs on PvE-Only servers.
Reciprocal was Steven's term when describing Ashes PvP and PvE.
PvEers (and PvP sometime players, like me and, I think Noaani) who have been following Ashes for more than a few weeks already find a reciprocal relationship to be a significant compromise.
Pax Dei is PvX and will also have a reciprocal relationship between PvP and PvE. It won't be symbiotic, though.
And, I would say PvEers - PvEers who refuse to play games like EvE and ArcheAge - will perceive the symbiotic relationship of PvP and PvE in Ashes to be overkill. Way too much PvP attached to everything in the game.
Obviously, gamers who love PvP will thrive with a symbiotic relationship.
And that's great. There are not many MMORPGs out there with that symbiotic relationship.
So, hopefully Ashes will successfully fill that niche.
Just, no, it was not clear prior to a year ago that Ashes was striving to fill that niche.
And it seemed likely they would want to retain the MMORPG players who play on EQ/EQ2 PvE-Only servers but are OK with some PvP. I'm not aware of Steven hiring devs who worked on Lineage 2.
2: The Node system seemed to me to be a simplified version of EQNext’s StoryBricks.
And with so many IS devs from SOE/Daybreak/EQ/EQ2, again, it seemed likely they would want to retain the MMORPG players who play on EQ/EQ2 PvE-Only servers but are OK with some PvP and who were interested in EQNext.
3: On the EQNext Forums, we never learned what the plan was to get PvPers and PvEers to be content playing on the same servers before EQNext became vaporware. Steven’s answer was that Corruption should work because it is a harsher form of Karma.
4: I don't think I've ever heard Steven or anyone else reference L2 when discussing Nodes or Sieges.
When L2 gamers discuss L2 in relation to Ashes, it is typically comparing Corruption to Karma.
5: I think Liniker is correct in saying that Steven referenced EvE and ArcheAge enough in 2017 and early 2018 for me to wonder if Ashes is intended to be as PvP-centric as those games.
Again... the only thing I know about L2 is that L2 players say that Corruption is harsher than Karma and Karma worked well enough to curtail PKing in L2 that PvP should feel comfortable for any player doesn't hate PvP so much they never want to experience PvP.
I know that EvE and ArcheAge are too PvP-centric for me. Which is why I asked for a comparison for the games I know something about. But, notice the first question I asked was for Steven to name some games that are a "murderbox" (his term).
He said that sometimes Lineage could be a murderbox, but Ashes should not be as much of a murderbox as L2 due to Corruption.
6: Steven has never said, AFAIK, "Ashes is basically just a copy of L2. We are making Ashes for the gamers who loved L2, just Corruption is a bit harsher. If you didn't like the adrenaline rush of L2, you probably won't like Risk v Reward of Ashes."
7: I was not asking Steven to compare systems. I was asking Steven to compare how prevalent PvP was expected to be.
Yes. What he provided is the answer to what L2 gamers considered to be the problem with PvP in L2 - too much PKing. But I did not ask Steven to compare the amount of PKing in Ashes with the amount of PKing in EvE and ArcheAge and L2.