2: Steven hired a bunch of leads from EQ/EQ2.
So, while one person hired might not make a difference. I expect a bunch of devs as leads on a game in the same game genre to be interested in retaining the playerbase that worked on their previous game.
3: Ashes Nodes system seems like a simplified version of EQNext.
4: I don’t know anything about L2, so I cannot think of Ashes from the perspective of L2 gamers.
5: Steven answered my question well enough in 2018. At that time, Ashes game design did not have any permanent zones that auto-flag to (Corruption-free) FFA PVP.
The moment Steven announced, a year ago, that they made a significant change to the game design - adding the Open Seas as a permanent zone that auto-flags to (Corruption-free) FFA PVP, I placed Ashes in the same category as EvE Online and ArcheAge.
That change occurred after the EQ/EQ2 leads left IS and a year after Steven began acting as Lead Game Designer.
Which is OK.
But when people ask why were you thinking you might play after launch right up until the announcement of the Open Seas - that’s the answer.
6: Also, after the EQ/EQ2 Leas devs left IS and Steven took over as Lead Game Designer is when Steven began to, more and more, stress the adrenaline rush of Risk v Reward being tied to every aspect of the game, rather than discussing Meaningful Conflict.
Meaningful Conflict is a hype for me.
Obsession with Risk v Reward is anti-hype for me.
7: If you look at the Wiki, you will see now that it says EvE Online and ArcheAge and L2 are inspirations for Ashes, so I’m not sure why it would be surprising for me to ask Steven to compare the levels of PvP he hopes Ashes will have with the levels of PvP in those games.
8: If Ashes did not have so many Lead devs from EQ/EQ2 and if Steven had always been the Lead Game Designer and if the Node system did not seem to be a simplified version of EQNext’s StoryBricks, I would have had 0 interest in backing the Ashes Kickstarter.
(I also notice that we’ve had no updates on Nodes since the EQ/EQ2 left IS and that our new info on Nodes will be coming a few months after another EQ/EQ2 dev becomes Lead Game Designer.
Which could be coincidence, but again makes it seem to me that the Nodes system is a simplified version of StoryBricks.)
This thread is steering away from its original purpose. Please keep conversations constructive, and be well unto one another.
It's generally not awesome to commandeer a thread for personal arguments that are generally irrelevant or not conducive to the overall conversation. Those can be had in DMs. I'd prefer not to close this thread or issue warnings because there are meaningful conversations to be had
Thanks, all
This is your strongest reply to a topic yet. I think as we get deeper in development there needs to be more order in topics. Also the official Dev Feedback threads dont need people quoting one another, rather just straight, direct answers to the Dev positions.
This is why I rarely post in those threads.
They are for telling Intrepid what we think, the rest of the threads are for discussion.
This thread is steering away from its original purpose. Please keep conversations constructive, and be well unto one another.
It's generally not awesome to commandeer a thread for personal arguments that are generally irrelevant or not conducive to the overall conversation. Those can be had in DMs. I'd prefer not to close this thread or issue warnings because there are meaningful conversations to be had
Thanks, all
This is your strongest reply to a topic yet. I think as we get deeper in development there needs to be more order in topics. Also the official Dev Feedback threads dont need people quoting one another, rather just straight, direct answers to the Dev positions.
This is why I rarely post in those threads.
They are for telling Intrepid what we think, the rest of the threads are for discussion.
I prefer discussion.
you would rather discuss with idiots than address the developers?
You are a strange man. (or woman or nonbinary or furry or what ever)
This thread is steering away from its original purpose. Please keep conversations constructive, and be well unto one another.
It's generally not awesome to commandeer a thread for personal arguments that are generally irrelevant or not conducive to the overall conversation. Those can be had in DMs. I'd prefer not to close this thread or issue warnings because there are meaningful conversations to be had
Thanks, all
This is your strongest reply to a topic yet. I think as we get deeper in development there needs to be more order in topics. Also the official Dev Feedback threads dont need people quoting one another, rather just straight, direct answers to the Dev positions.
This is why I rarely post in those threads.
They are for telling Intrepid what we think, the rest of the threads are for discussion.
I prefer discussion.
you would rather discuss with idiots than address the developers?
You are a strange man. (or woman or nonbinary or furry or what ever)
Vaknar does a good enough job of collating relevant opinions from the forums in general and passing them on to Steven and co. Steven also often reads the forums.
Since I do post fairly frequently (not sure if you noticed), I am quite confident Steven has a base level understanding of my opinions on most matters.
As such, I dont see a need to post those opinions in the threads in question. Rather, I leave them for those people that come in to the forums every so often to read, and maybe once a month or so post their opinion on a discussion topic.
These people probably dont want those opinions questioned.
So, if I am not going to question others opinions, and if I am satisfied Intrepid already understand mine - why add to the clutter?
Yes, the video is embedded on the page, but still.
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.
If you are investing in any Kickstarter about literally ANYTHING and you do not do your due diligence to read/watch the information given to you, that's your problem lol. Lack of accountability on the individual is where that blame would lay.
Yes, the video is embedded on the page, but still.
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.
If you are investing in any Kickstarter about literally ANYTHING and you do not do your due diligence to read/watch the information given to you, that's your problem lol. Lack of accountability on the individual is where that blame would lay.
If you are replying to a post about literally ANYTHING and you don't do your due diligence and read the actual post and the discussion after it, that's your problem lol.
I didn't attempt to lay blame, nor did I talk about accountability.
What I said was there is no mention of PvP on the kickstarter page.
Based on that, you have three reasonable options. Show me where I am wrong and it does indeed say it on the page, post that actually I am right and it doesn't say it on the page, or just not post anything.
You though, like a few others, opted for a fourth path. You instead pretended I said something I very clearly did not, and instead of replying to what I actually said, you replied to the thing you pretended I said.
The PvP depends on how corruption is balanced.
When Alpha 2 ends, it could be harsh.
The game could be closer to PvE than PvP.
Actually I find it quite unlikely Steven to start with a harsh corruption and to make it more lenient toward the end of Alpha, to encourage PvP everywhere.
well said. with a system as in depth as ashes, the deployment of said systems will decide how this game is played.
What I said was there is no mention of PvP on the kickstarter page.
It's hard not to laugh when I remember you said that, that was dumb lol
video is literally the first thing on the page and first 2 minutes in the video, PvP is mentioned as the second game pilar ahahah
even funnier because we all know the KS video was the Main marketing piece of the Kickstarter campaign that reached the most audience and brought people to the KS page xDDDD
Also @Noaani if you search there's no mention to "PVE" on the KS page, nor the video 😂😂 imagine how dumb someone would sound if they said they thought there was no PVE because the word "PVE" wasn't mentioned lol
It's hard not to laugh when I remember you said that, that was dumb lol
video is literally the first thing on the page and first 2 minutes in the video
I didn't say it wasn't in the video, I said it wasn't on the page.
You can make all the excuses in the world for it that you want. Fact is, it wasn't mentioned on the page - and we all know it should have been.
No one is trying to say it was on there, or trying to defend Intrepid for not having it on there, because everyone knows it wasn't on there and should have been.
Instead, you are all just blindly pointing out other things that are not what I said.
Me looking at the page and seeing the video on the "page". And than seeing a random trying to spin it on the forum like pvp isn't mentioned. Legit looking for a loop hole, to argue pointless dialogue on a forum trying to say the devs didn't say something.
Like this is literally a Karen post. Don't understand putting effort in this, just take accountability for your mistake and move on. And let people talk about more positive things with the thread.
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.
Then it seems they were not trying to present PvP as the main selling point.
Not even the meaningful PvP.
From marketing point of view, even now, I don't see them presenting the PvP and a few people who told me they know about the game and love PvP, were surprised to hear it has PvP.
Even now, if I visit the main site, the focus is on sieges. And here on forums I do not see anyone worried that there is no full loot. The worry is that players will be 'ganked'.
Even the deep ocean where is supposed to be more PvP, is never shown in streams. It's purpose is more to drive hardcore PvPers away from nodes and allow a safe area for PvEers and casual PvPers who would just leave the game if their gear would be looted be somebody else.
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.
Then it seems they were not trying to present PvP as the main selling point.
Not even the meaningful PvP.
From marketing point of view, even now, I don't see them presenting the PvP and a few people who told me they know about the game and love PvP, were surprised to hear it has PvP.
Even now, if I visit the main site, the focus is on sieges. And here on forums I do not see anyone worried that there is no full loot. The worry is that players will be 'ganked'.
Even the deep ocean where is supposed to be more PvP, is never shown in streams. It's purpose is more to drive hardcore PvPers away from nodes and allow a safe area for PvEers and casual PvPers who would just leave the game if their gear would be looted be somebody else.
Why would they be showing oceans when they have not finished it yet?
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.
Then it seems they were not trying to present PvP as the main selling point.
Not even the meaningful PvP.
From marketing point of view, even now, I don't see them presenting the PvP and a few people who told me they know about the game and love PvP, were surprised to hear it has PvP.
Even now, if I visit the main site, the focus is on sieges. And here on forums I do not see anyone worried that there is no full loot. The worry is that players will be 'ganked'.
Even the deep ocean where is supposed to be more PvP, is never shown in streams. It's purpose is more to drive hardcore PvPers away from nodes and allow a safe area for PvEers and casual PvPers who would just leave the game if their gear would be looted be somebody else.
Why would they be showing oceans when they have not finished it yet?
Well, it is not the main selling point so they have no reason to show it before other features. That area acts as a valve and not as main point of attraction at this moment. If some hardcore PvPers will try the game out just because the ocean, remains to be seen if they are also happy with the corruption on the land.
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.
Then it seems they were not trying to present PvP as the main selling point.
Not even the meaningful PvP.
From marketing point of view, even now, I don't see them presenting the PvP and a few people who told me they know about the game and love PvP, were surprised to hear it has PvP.
Even now, if I visit the main site, the focus is on sieges. And here on forums I do not see anyone worried that there is no full loot. The worry is that players will be 'ganked'.
Even the deep ocean where is supposed to be more PvP, is never shown in streams. It's purpose is more to drive hardcore PvPers away from nodes and allow a safe area for PvEers and casual PvPers who would just leave the game if their gear would be looted be somebody else.
Why would they be showing oceans when they have not finished it yet?
Well, it is not the main selling point so they have no reason to show it before other features. That area acts as a valve and not as main point of attraction at this moment. If some hardcore PvPers will try the game out just because the ocean, remains to be seen if they are also happy with the corruption on the land.
I'm pointing out you are trying to use them not showing ocean stuff as a means that they are not focusing on PvX?
I honestly don't understand your take, a lot of they systems are tied to pvp, pvp is constantly talked about and kept in mind....
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.
Then it seems they were not trying to present PvP as the main selling point.
Not even the meaningful PvP.
From marketing point of view, even now, I don't see them presenting the PvP and a few people who told me they know about the game and love PvP, were surprised to hear it has PvP.
Even now, if I visit the main site, the focus is on sieges. And here on forums I do not see anyone worried that there is no full loot. The worry is that players will be 'ganked'.
Even the deep ocean where is supposed to be more PvP, is never shown in streams. It's purpose is more to drive hardcore PvPers away from nodes and allow a safe area for PvEers and casual PvPers who would just leave the game if their gear would be looted be somebody else.
Why would they be showing oceans when they have not finished it yet?
Well, it is not the main selling point so they have no reason to show it before other features. That area acts as a valve and not as main point of attraction at this moment. If some hardcore PvPers will try the game out just because the ocean, remains to be seen if they are also happy with the corruption on the land.
I'm pointing out you are trying to use them not showing ocean stuff as a means that they are not focusing on PvX?
I honestly don't understand your take, a lot of they systems are tied to pvp, pvp is constantly talked about and kept in mind....
Now that you mention PvX, I remembered that I stopped posting on a thread the moment it became a discussion about semantics, and somehow PvP and PvX being the same in the context of mmorpg games.
I don't want to start such a discussion again.
Regarding AoC, I think those who like playing PvE mmorpgs will not get that kind of PvE because the game has PvP.
And a certain category of PvPers will not like the corruption and the loot limited to resources only.
The game can be balanced to make resources very very important, enough to make sense attacking with intention to kill any solo player you see with a mule, wether they flag up or not. If they do that, then the game is PvP enough and I will not refer to it as PvX. You can call it PvX if you want.
so when you open a page with a youtube video, you just read the description? an embedded video is not part of a page? lmao you are killing me pls just stop, I lose IQ points every time I engage with you.
My point was and still is - there should be mention of important aspects of the game on the kickstarter page.
You may well note that you still aren't saying they shouldn't have these things on the page in question, you are simply pointing out that the information is page-adjacent.
I never said the information wasn't page-adjacent, I just said it wasn't on the page.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2023
I mean... I'm old.
I rarely look at Kickstarter. Usually only when one of my co-hosts mentions there is some MMORPG similar to EQNext. I probably go through all of the stuff on the page before I back something, but...
I'm not on there often enough to expect there to be a video for every project.
And, in the last couple of years, when I was trying to find where on the Ashes Kickstarter page it talks about the Core Pillars and Risk v Reward and Meaningful Conflict, I would do a text search for core and risk and meaningful and not find anything.
Might take me a couple of days to remember there was a video on the page.
For YouTube... I'm more likely to watch the video and not think that the key info I was looking for was text only on the YouTube page and not mentioned in the video. Especially if it's years after I first watched it.
Ya'll youngins who spend time on a bunch of Kickstarters might be savvy enough to know that a video is a required component when you create a Kickstarter Project.
Ya'll youngins who spend time on a bunch of Kickstarters might be savvy enough to know that a video is a required component when you create a Kickstarter Project.
Is not that they know... it's more about not being able to read. Wait to see the next generations growing up with these more advanced AI technologies. Writing with pencil on paper will be a lost art.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Yeah... 20 years ago, I would be learning about new games via PC Gamer magazine.
10 years ago, I was still subscribed to pen and paper Wired magazine.
Now, pretty much everything I read is digital.
If I want to check out new MMORPGs scheduled to release soon, I would search for that on YouTube.
I never think about searching Kickstarter just to see what new projects are on the horizon.
And I've never thought about the required components of a Kickstarter page.
But, yes... I'm old...
And I'm always wondering what it's gonna be that has me stuck.
[derail]Couple months ago my boss (5 years older than I am) was looking for the MAC address on the back of an internet-capable phone. squint-squint-squint He asked me if I could see it.
My eyes are still pretty good (near-sighted but not far-sighted). But, I couldn't find it.
I pulled out my I-phone so I could take a pic and then zoom in.
Hovered my I-phone over - and *poof* the QR Code popped-up the MAC address to my screen.
We old geezers were expecting the MAC address to still be printed on the phone, but don't even have to do that anymore. All covered by the damned QR Code! LMAO [/derail]
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.
Then it seems they were not trying to present PvP as the main selling point.
Not even the meaningful PvP.
From marketing point of view, even now, I don't see them presenting the PvP and a few people who told me they know about the game and love PvP, were surprised to hear it has PvP.
Even now, if I visit the main site, the focus is on sieges. And here on forums I do not see anyone worried that there is no full loot. The worry is that players will be 'ganked'.
Even the deep ocean where is supposed to be more PvP, is never shown in streams. It's purpose is more to drive hardcore PvPers away from nodes and allow a safe area for PvEers and casual PvPers who would just leave the game if their gear would be looted be somebody else.
Why would they be showing oceans when they have not finished it yet?
Well, it is not the main selling point so they have no reason to show it before other features. That area acts as a valve and not as main point of attraction at this moment. If some hardcore PvPers will try the game out just because the ocean, remains to be seen if they are also happy with the corruption on the land.
I'm pointing out you are trying to use them not showing ocean stuff as a means that they are not focusing on PvX?
I honestly don't understand your take, a lot of they systems are tied to pvp, pvp is constantly talked about and kept in mind....
Now that you mention PvX, I remembered that I stopped posting on a thread the moment it became a discussion about semantics, and somehow PvP and PvX being the same in the context of mmorpg games.
I don't want to start such a discussion again.
Regarding AoC, I think those who like playing PvE mmorpgs will not get that kind of PvE because the game has PvP.
And a certain category of PvPers will not like the corruption and the loot limited to resources only.
The game can be balanced to make resources very very important, enough to make sense attacking with intention to kill any solo player you see with a mule, wether they flag up or not. If they do that, then the game is PvP enough and I will not refer to it as PvX. You can call it PvX if you want.
Unsure why you are talking about semantics that is the game being PvX pve and pvp are both going to be important together. Trying to divide it like they aren't talking about pvp or pve enough feels like you are missing the point.
This is a comment that feels like you don't understand pvp players or have not played games with pvp and such. It also makes me think you are trying to use it as a point to push towards more pve.
Corruption is not a deterrent o players that enjoy pvp and world conflict in a mmorpg, rules and boundaries are there for a reason and part of the experience. The idea you think a pvp only wants a world of pvp without limits sounds like WoW or faction based levels where the only rule is you can't attack your own faction, which leads to issues in itself.
I also really think you are not understand the amount of pvp that is in the game, pvp isn't only going to be limited to corruption there is going to be other forums, guild wars and node wars. It is really really really obvious to me, but I guess ti is my experience playing these types of games compared to people that come from WoW style games (pvp wow servers aren't pvp to me it is just tacked on thoughtlessly). There is going to be plenty of pvp int he game and meaningful conflicts do not get it twisted.
If you hate pvp and do not like it at all and are thinking corruption will be your protection at all times you are going to find out that will most likely not be the case. Chaotic random ganking will be high difficult and not worth it 90% of the time because of corruption. But there are going to be zones with pvp intention (open sea, after node war ruins, freeholds after war, and more potentially), node wars and guild wars will surely have open flagging between guilds and groups when you declare on them. If you avoid being in guilds or maybe even nodes you can avoid group pvp fights that allow players to freely attack you more than likely. It it means you have to go more and more out of your way to not get attacked.
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.
Then it seems they were not trying to present PvP as the main selling point.
Not even the meaningful PvP.
From marketing point of view, even now, I don't see them presenting the PvP and a few people who told me they know about the game and love PvP, were surprised to hear it has PvP.
Even now, if I visit the main site, the focus is on sieges. And here on forums I do not see anyone worried that there is no full loot. The worry is that players will be 'ganked'.
Even the deep ocean where is supposed to be more PvP, is never shown in streams. It's purpose is more to drive hardcore PvPers away from nodes and allow a safe area for PvEers and casual PvPers who would just leave the game if their gear would be looted be somebody else.
Why would they be showing oceans when they have not finished it yet?
Well, it is not the main selling point so they have no reason to show it before other features. That area acts as a valve and not as main point of attraction at this moment. If some hardcore PvPers will try the game out just because the ocean, remains to be seen if they are also happy with the corruption on the land.
I'm pointing out you are trying to use them not showing ocean stuff as a means that they are not focusing on PvX?
I honestly don't understand your take, a lot of they systems are tied to pvp, pvp is constantly talked about and kept in mind....
Now that you mention PvX, I remembered that I stopped posting on a thread the moment it became a discussion about semantics, and somehow PvP and PvX being the same in the context of mmorpg games.
I don't want to start such a discussion again.
Regarding AoC, I think those who like playing PvE mmorpgs will not get that kind of PvE because the game has PvP.
And a certain category of PvPers will not like the corruption and the loot limited to resources only.
The game can be balanced to make resources very very important, enough to make sense attacking with intention to kill any solo player you see with a mule, wether they flag up or not. If they do that, then the game is PvP enough and I will not refer to it as PvX. You can call it PvX if you want.
...
I also really think you are not understand the amount of pvp that is in the game,
You are correct. I am looking forward to find that out during Alpha 2.
I know about sieges, caravans and the corruption mechanic. And the deep sea.
Thanks for not pulling me into a debate
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.
Then it seems they were not trying to present PvP as the main selling point.
Not even the meaningful PvP.
From marketing point of view, even now, I don't see them presenting the PvP and a few people who told me they know about the game and love PvP, were surprised to hear it has PvP.
Even now, if I visit the main site, the focus is on sieges. And here on forums I do not see anyone worried that there is no full loot. The worry is that players will be 'ganked'.
Even the deep ocean where is supposed to be more PvP, is never shown in streams. It's purpose is more to drive hardcore PvPers away from nodes and allow a safe area for PvEers and casual PvPers who would just leave the game if their gear would be looted be somebody else.
Why would they be showing oceans when they have not finished it yet?
Well, it is not the main selling point so they have no reason to show it before other features. That area acts as a valve and not as main point of attraction at this moment. If some hardcore PvPers will try the game out just because the ocean, remains to be seen if they are also happy with the corruption on the land.
I'm pointing out you are trying to use them not showing ocean stuff as a means that they are not focusing on PvX?
I honestly don't understand your take, a lot of they systems are tied to pvp, pvp is constantly talked about and kept in mind....
Now that you mention PvX, I remembered that I stopped posting on a thread the moment it became a discussion about semantics, and somehow PvP and PvX being the same in the context of mmorpg games.
I don't want to start such a discussion again.
Regarding AoC, I think those who like playing PvE mmorpgs will not get that kind of PvE because the game has PvP.
And a certain category of PvPers will not like the corruption and the loot limited to resources only.
The game can be balanced to make resources very very important, enough to make sense attacking with intention to kill any solo player you see with a mule, wether they flag up or not. If they do that, then the game is PvP enough and I will not refer to it as PvX. You can call it PvX if you want.
...
I also really think you are not understand the amount of pvp that is in the game,
You are correct. I am looking forward to find that out during Alpha 2.
I know about sieges, caravans and the corruption mechanic. And the deep sea.
Thanks for not pulling me into a debate
There is going to be plenty of pvp int he game and meaningful conflicts do not get it twisted.
I don't understand the "do not get it twisted" part.
But I am curious what is meaningless conflict as opposite of the meaningful one in your opinion.
As in don't get it twisted thinking the game is not going to have a ton of PvP as well.
Pretty much pvp around corruption will be more meaningless fights (though they can spark into larger fights that can have more meaning if it starts a guild war). So pretty must pvp flagging that is random, without merit ,between a singular person.
More meaningful fights would be over spawns, guild wars, node wars, objective based and such along those lines. Fights that involve more people than random small chaotic ones everywhere which the corruption will suppress them.
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.
Then it seems they were not trying to present PvP as the main selling point.
Not even the meaningful PvP.
From marketing point of view, even now, I don't see them presenting the PvP and a few people who told me they know about the game and love PvP, were surprised to hear it has PvP.
Even now, if I visit the main site, the focus is on sieges. And here on forums I do not see anyone worried that there is no full loot. The worry is that players will be 'ganked'.
Even the deep ocean where is supposed to be more PvP, is never shown in streams. It's purpose is more to drive hardcore PvPers away from nodes and allow a safe area for PvEers and casual PvPers who would just leave the game if their gear would be looted be somebody else.
Why would they be showing oceans when they have not finished it yet?
Well, it is not the main selling point so they have no reason to show it before other features. That area acts as a valve and not as main point of attraction at this moment. If some hardcore PvPers will try the game out just because the ocean, remains to be seen if they are also happy with the corruption on the land.
I'm pointing out you are trying to use them not showing ocean stuff as a means that they are not focusing on PvX?
I honestly don't understand your take, a lot of they systems are tied to pvp, pvp is constantly talked about and kept in mind....
Now that you mention PvX, I remembered that I stopped posting on a thread the moment it became a discussion about semantics, and somehow PvP and PvX being the same in the context of mmorpg games.
I don't want to start such a discussion again.
Regarding AoC, I think those who like playing PvE mmorpgs will not get that kind of PvE because the game has PvP.
And a certain category of PvPers will not like the corruption and the loot limited to resources only.
The game can be balanced to make resources very very important, enough to make sense attacking with intention to kill any solo player you see with a mule, wether they flag up or not. If they do that, then the game is PvP enough and I will not refer to it as PvX. You can call it PvX if you want.
...
I also really think you are not understand the amount of pvp that is in the game,
You are correct. I am looking forward to find that out during Alpha 2.
I know about sieges, caravans and the corruption mechanic. And the deep sea.
Thanks for not pulling me into a debate
There is going to be plenty of pvp int he game and meaningful conflicts do not get it twisted.
I don't understand the "do not get it twisted" part.
But I am curious what is meaningless conflict as opposite of the meaningful one in your opinion.
As in don't get it twisted thinking the game is not going to have a ton of PvP as well.
Pretty much pvp around corruption will be more meaningless fights (though they can spark into larger fights that can have more meaning if it starts a guild war). So pretty must pvp flagging that is random, without merit ,between a singular person.
More meaningful fights would be over spawns, guild wars, node wars, objective based and such along those lines. Fights that involve more people than random small chaotic ones everywhere which the corruption will suppress them.
To me, a meaningless PvP is an arena fight where you cannot gain or lose anything.
1 vs 1 fights in open world are meaningful in that moment for those involved into it. One player will gain something and the other will lose.
Fights to defend a caravan which is being sent automatically by a node to another by the game mechanic feels meaningless to me, like a daily quest. Even though by your definition, because it involves more people and is less random and chaotic, it is meaningful.
The same caravans being launched by players might be meaningful because players are really interested into defending their goods.
But then, node sieges while sound to be really a problem for the freehold owners I cannot say how it will feel for the rest of players.
Being part of a very large guild may be more satisfying as they could coordinate better the defense of the metropolis and it's vassals. Yet the forum seems against them and wants many small guilds which leads to "random" and "chaotic" actions, to use your words.
I do not see many small PvP guilds interested to work together for the greater good of 2000 players of a metropolis, in order to have some PvE dungeons there.
But I wait to get further updates and to see them applied in Alpha 2.
@Raven016 Protecting your good from other players is objective base and has meaning to it with intent. There for it is not meaningless, though it can be content you have no interest in and that way you have no care for it.
It is fine to have your own subjective desire for certain kinds of content, but you can not deny that the content in meaningful to players in how it can affect their goods and the market of the overall game. I'm unsure how you are trying to compare it to a daily quest. When players are involves things are more chaotic by default, different people and different stories during such pvp. How are you trying to compare the chaotic element players bring to a daily quest in all current mmorpgs are very brain dead where you kill some mobs and there is no actual challenge in it. It seems like you are using an extremely bad example here that doesn't hold weight based on actual mmorpg experience.
So 1v1 open world conflict is meaningful because you can potentially grief all players and get their loot? That would simply be meaningful to yourself. I mentioned earlier what made meaningful conflict, it isn't about single players pvping everyone in order to steal loot they may not be able to carry or that may not even drop from players. I will stress again one player will not always lose loot, you don't know if they have gatherable mats to even be taken, or if it will be worth the risk based on corruption.
You are missing the plot when... pvp is chaotic yes but the systems in place control where it happens and how much it can happen as well as limit players with consequences. Unsure what mmorpgs you have played, but flagging without consequences turns into everyone simply flagging on anyone without asking questions. That is not meaningful pvp, it is simply people pvping for the sake of doing so, or so they don't get killed themselves. There is no greater war that is going on but simply a threat of constantly being pked for no reason.
A server where everyone just pks each other for no reason, is not meaningful conflict it is just random ganking - griefing.
The forum isn't against large guilds, I'm unsure what kind of bias points you are reading as well from a tiny sample size. Large guilds will be the most influential in the game and many people will seek to be in large and medium level guilds. I'm unsure what large guilds has to do with any of my points this seems like it is derailing into another conversation . I don't really care if you like large guilds or dislike them has nothing to do with the conversation/b].
Meaningful conflict isn't just about large guilds btw, it can be small, medium, large, no guilds and between nodes, etc. You could have a 8v8 and for it to be a meaningful conflict.
I feel you are not understanding my points when I talk about meaningful conflict and also what is chaotic.
Meaningful conflict -any size group based combat, combat around controlling certain points or dungeons, conflict between guilds and nodes, sieges, objective based combat.
Chaotic - uncontrollable and can spark quickly. The systems in place add parameters to cap the level of effect it can have. *ie corruption - conflict not around guild / node battles will add the corruption consequence to players which will increase the threshold of players to meet to be willing to flag and attack others in open world and even more so reduce amount of players willing to kill greens. Again effectively reducing the the amount chaotic element of pvp players would have to deal with.
I'm unsure how you are trying to compare it to a daily quest.
That's how it feels to me.
Sieges will probably not happen often. The game offers similar content as castle sieges. https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Castle_sieges
At the end of each week leading up to a castle siege there is a period of time in the weekend where NPC generated caravans start moving toward one of the castle nodes carrying castle taxes from the nodes that fall under the castle's purview.[27][36]
Not daily but weekly.
Eventually you will start seeing all caravans the same, whether initiated by NPC, mayor or guild leader.
Walking along the caravan and maybe nothing happening. For the greater benefit of some group.
A server where everyone just pks each other for no reason, is not meaningful conflict it is just random ganking - griefing.
Without evil there is no good.
If the game prevents evil and chaos, players will feel less rewarded achieving order.
How can you balance this?
Who is the target audience?
Open world PvPers are those who cause the ganking. It is a normal reality for them. The way how conflict rules are set, seems that PvPers are pushed away. But is not a PvE game either because they have to PvP.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2023
Corruption does not prevent ganking. Corruption deters repeat ganking in rapid succession.
The target audience is gamers who enjoyed play Lineage II, EvE Online, and ArcheAge.
Hopefully also attracting some of the EQ/EQ2/WoW players who played on PvP servers.
Comments
you have issues, dude.
This is why I rarely post in those threads.
They are for telling Intrepid what we think, the rest of the threads are for discussion.
I prefer discussion.
you would rather discuss with idiots than address the developers?
You are a strange man. (or woman or nonbinary or furry or what ever)
Vaknar does a good enough job of collating relevant opinions from the forums in general and passing them on to Steven and co. Steven also often reads the forums.
Since I do post fairly frequently (not sure if you noticed), I am quite confident Steven has a base level understanding of my opinions on most matters.
As such, I dont see a need to post those opinions in the threads in question. Rather, I leave them for those people that come in to the forums every so often to read, and maybe once a month or so post their opinion on a discussion topic.
These people probably dont want those opinions questioned.
So, if I am not going to question others opinions, and if I am satisfied Intrepid already understand mine - why add to the clutter?
If you are investing in any Kickstarter about literally ANYTHING and you do not do your due diligence to read/watch the information given to you, that's your problem lol. Lack of accountability on the individual is where that blame would lay.
I didn't attempt to lay blame, nor did I talk about accountability.
What I said was there is no mention of PvP on the kickstarter page.
Based on that, you have three reasonable options. Show me where I am wrong and it does indeed say it on the page, post that actually I am right and it doesn't say it on the page, or just not post anything.
You though, like a few others, opted for a fourth path. You instead pretended I said something I very clearly did not, and instead of replying to what I actually said, you replied to the thing you pretended I said.
Go you!
well said. with a system as in depth as ashes, the deployment of said systems will decide how this game is played.
It's hard not to laugh when I remember you said that, that was dumb lol
video is literally the first thing on the page and first 2 minutes in the video, PvP is mentioned as the second game pilar ahahah
even funnier because we all know the KS video was the Main marketing piece of the Kickstarter campaign that reached the most audience and brought people to the KS page xDDDD
Also @Noaani if you search there's no mention to "PVE" on the KS page, nor the video 😂😂 imagine how dumb someone would sound if they said they thought there was no PVE because the word "PVE" wasn't mentioned lol
I didn't say it wasn't in the video, I said it wasn't on the page.
You can make all the excuses in the world for it that you want. Fact is, it wasn't mentioned on the page - and we all know it should have been.
No one is trying to say it was on there, or trying to defend Intrepid for not having it on there, because everyone knows it wasn't on there and should have been.
Instead, you are all just blindly pointing out other things that are not what I said.
Like this is literally a Karen post. Don't understand putting effort in this, just take accountability for your mistake and move on. And let people talk about more positive things with the thread.
Then it seems they were not trying to present PvP as the main selling point.
Not even the meaningful PvP.
From marketing point of view, even now, I don't see them presenting the PvP and a few people who told me they know about the game and love PvP, were surprised to hear it has PvP.
Even now, if I visit the main site, the focus is on sieges. And here on forums I do not see anyone worried that there is no full loot. The worry is that players will be 'ganked'.
Even the deep ocean where is supposed to be more PvP, is never shown in streams. It's purpose is more to drive hardcore PvPers away from nodes and allow a safe area for PvEers and casual PvPers who would just leave the game if their gear would be looted be somebody else.
Why would they be showing oceans when they have not finished it yet?
Well, it is not the main selling point so they have no reason to show it before other features. That area acts as a valve and not as main point of attraction at this moment. If some hardcore PvPers will try the game out just because the ocean, remains to be seen if they are also happy with the corruption on the land.
I'm pointing out you are trying to use them not showing ocean stuff as a means that they are not focusing on PvX?
I honestly don't understand your take, a lot of they systems are tied to pvp, pvp is constantly talked about and kept in mind....
Now that you mention PvX, I remembered that I stopped posting on a thread the moment it became a discussion about semantics, and somehow PvP and PvX being the same in the context of mmorpg games.
I don't want to start such a discussion again.
Regarding AoC, I think those who like playing PvE mmorpgs will not get that kind of PvE because the game has PvP.
And a certain category of PvPers will not like the corruption and the loot limited to resources only.
The game can be balanced to make resources very very important, enough to make sense attacking with intention to kill any solo player you see with a mule, wether they flag up or not. If they do that, then the game is PvP enough and I will not refer to it as PvX. You can call it PvX if you want.
The video is on the page you muppet ahah its first thing on the page,
whenever people look at a KS project the first thing they do is watch the presentation video its the most important marketing piece on the page
Oh, so you don't know what a page is.
Cool.
so when you open a page with a youtube video, you just read the description? an embedded video is not part of a page? lmao you are killing me pls just stop, I lose IQ points every time I engage with you.
My point was and still is - there should be mention of important aspects of the game on the kickstarter page.
You may well note that you still aren't saying they shouldn't have these things on the page in question, you are simply pointing out that the information is page-adjacent.
I never said the information wasn't page-adjacent, I just said it wasn't on the page.
I rarely look at Kickstarter. Usually only when one of my co-hosts mentions there is some MMORPG similar to EQNext. I probably go through all of the stuff on the page before I back something, but...
I'm not on there often enough to expect there to be a video for every project.
And, in the last couple of years, when I was trying to find where on the Ashes Kickstarter page it talks about the Core Pillars and Risk v Reward and Meaningful Conflict, I would do a text search for core and risk and meaningful and not find anything.
Might take me a couple of days to remember there was a video on the page.
For YouTube... I'm more likely to watch the video and not think that the key info I was looking for was text only on the YouTube page and not mentioned in the video. Especially if it's years after I first watched it.
Ya'll youngins who spend time on a bunch of Kickstarters might be savvy enough to know that a video is a required component when you create a Kickstarter Project.
10 years ago, I was still subscribed to pen and paper Wired magazine.
Now, pretty much everything I read is digital.
If I want to check out new MMORPGs scheduled to release soon, I would search for that on YouTube.
I never think about searching Kickstarter just to see what new projects are on the horizon.
And I've never thought about the required components of a Kickstarter page.
But, yes... I'm old...
And I'm always wondering what it's gonna be that has me stuck.
[derail]Couple months ago my boss (5 years older than I am) was looking for the MAC address on the back of an internet-capable phone. squint-squint-squint He asked me if I could see it.
My eyes are still pretty good (near-sighted but not far-sighted). But, I couldn't find it.
I pulled out my I-phone so I could take a pic and then zoom in.
Hovered my I-phone over - and *poof* the QR Code popped-up the MAC address to my screen.
We old geezers were expecting the MAC address to still be printed on the phone, but don't even have to do that anymore. All covered by the damned QR Code! LMAO [/derail]
Unsure why you are talking about semantics that is the game being PvX pve and pvp are both going to be important together. Trying to divide it like they aren't talking about pvp or pve enough feels like you are missing the point.
This is a comment that feels like you don't understand pvp players or have not played games with pvp and such. It also makes me think you are trying to use it as a point to push towards more pve.
Corruption is not a deterrent o players that enjoy pvp and world conflict in a mmorpg, rules and boundaries are there for a reason and part of the experience. The idea you think a pvp only wants a world of pvp without limits sounds like WoW or faction based levels where the only rule is you can't attack your own faction, which leads to issues in itself.
I also really think you are not understand the amount of pvp that is in the game, pvp isn't only going to be limited to corruption there is going to be other forums, guild wars and node wars. It is really really really obvious to me, but I guess ti is my experience playing these types of games compared to people that come from WoW style games (pvp wow servers aren't pvp to me it is just tacked on thoughtlessly). There is going to be plenty of pvp int he game and meaningful conflicts do not get it twisted.
If you hate pvp and do not like it at all and are thinking corruption will be your protection at all times you are going to find out that will most likely not be the case. Chaotic random ganking will be high difficult and not worth it 90% of the time because of corruption. But there are going to be zones with pvp intention (open sea, after node war ruins, freeholds after war, and more potentially), node wars and guild wars will surely have open flagging between guilds and groups when you declare on them. If you avoid being in guilds or maybe even nodes you can avoid group pvp fights that allow players to freely attack you more than likely. It it means you have to go more and more out of your way to not get attacked.
I know about sieges, caravans and the corruption mechanic. And the deep sea.
Thanks for not pulling me into a debate
I don't understand the "do not get it twisted" part.
But I am curious what is meaningless conflict as opposite of the meaningful one in your opinion.
As in don't get it twisted thinking the game is not going to have a ton of PvP as well.
Pretty much pvp around corruption will be more meaningless fights (though they can spark into larger fights that can have more meaning if it starts a guild war). So pretty must pvp flagging that is random, without merit ,between a singular person.
More meaningful fights would be over spawns, guild wars, node wars, objective based and such along those lines. Fights that involve more people than random small chaotic ones everywhere which the corruption will suppress them.
To me, a meaningless PvP is an arena fight where you cannot gain or lose anything.
1 vs 1 fights in open world are meaningful in that moment for those involved into it. One player will gain something and the other will lose.
Fights to defend a caravan which is being sent automatically by a node to another by the game mechanic feels meaningless to me, like a daily quest. Even though by your definition, because it involves more people and is less random and chaotic, it is meaningful.
The same caravans being launched by players might be meaningful because players are really interested into defending their goods.
But then, node sieges while sound to be really a problem for the freehold owners I cannot say how it will feel for the rest of players.
Being part of a very large guild may be more satisfying as they could coordinate better the defense of the metropolis and it's vassals. Yet the forum seems against them and wants many small guilds which leads to "random" and "chaotic" actions, to use your words.
I do not see many small PvP guilds interested to work together for the greater good of 2000 players of a metropolis, in order to have some PvE dungeons there.
But I wait to get further updates and to see them applied in Alpha 2.
It is fine to have your own subjective desire for certain kinds of content, but you can not deny that the content in meaningful to players in how it can affect their goods and the market of the overall game. I'm unsure how you are trying to compare it to a daily quest. When players are involves things are more chaotic by default, different people and different stories during such pvp. How are you trying to compare the chaotic element players bring to a daily quest in all current mmorpgs are very brain dead where you kill some mobs and there is no actual challenge in it. It seems like you are using an extremely bad example here that doesn't hold weight based on actual mmorpg experience.
So 1v1 open world conflict is meaningful because you can potentially grief all players and get their loot? That would simply be meaningful to yourself. I mentioned earlier what made meaningful conflict, it isn't about single players pvping everyone in order to steal loot they may not be able to carry or that may not even drop from players. I will stress again one player will not always lose loot, you don't know if they have gatherable mats to even be taken, or if it will be worth the risk based on corruption.
You are missing the plot when... pvp is chaotic yes but the systems in place control where it happens and how much it can happen as well as limit players with consequences. Unsure what mmorpgs you have played, but flagging without consequences turns into everyone simply flagging on anyone without asking questions. That is not meaningful pvp, it is simply people pvping for the sake of doing so, or so they don't get killed themselves. There is no greater war that is going on but simply a threat of constantly being pked for no reason.
A server where everyone just pks each other for no reason, is not meaningful conflict it is just random ganking - griefing.
The forum isn't against large guilds, I'm unsure what kind of bias points you are reading as well from a tiny sample size. Large guilds will be the most influential in the game and many people will seek to be in large and medium level guilds. I'm unsure what large guilds has to do with any of my points this seems like it is derailing into another conversation . I don't really care if you like large guilds or dislike them has nothing to do with the conversation/b].
Meaningful conflict isn't just about large guilds btw, it can be small, medium, large, no guilds and between nodes, etc. You could have a 8v8 and for it to be a meaningful conflict.
I feel you are not understanding my points when I talk about meaningful conflict and also what is chaotic.
Meaningful conflict -any size group based combat, combat around controlling certain points or dungeons, conflict between guilds and nodes, sieges, objective based combat.
Chaotic - uncontrollable and can spark quickly. The systems in place add parameters to cap the level of effect it can have. *ie corruption - conflict not around guild / node battles will add the corruption consequence to players which will increase the threshold of players to meet to be willing to flag and attack others in open world and even more so reduce amount of players willing to kill greens. Again effectively reducing the the amount chaotic element of pvp players would have to deal with.
Sieges will probably not happen often. The game offers similar content as castle sieges.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Castle_sieges
At the end of each week leading up to a castle siege there is a period of time in the weekend where NPC generated caravans start moving toward one of the castle nodes carrying castle taxes from the nodes that fall under the castle's purview.[27][36]
Not daily but weekly.
Eventually you will start seeing all caravans the same, whether initiated by NPC, mayor or guild leader.
Walking along the caravan and maybe nothing happening. For the greater benefit of some group.
Without evil there is no good.
If the game prevents evil and chaos, players will feel less rewarded achieving order.
How can you balance this?
Who is the target audience?
Open world PvPers are those who cause the ganking. It is a normal reality for them. The way how conflict rules are set, seems that PvPers are pushed away. But is not a PvE game either because they have to PvP.
The target audience is gamers who enjoyed play Lineage II, EvE Online, and ArcheAge.
Hopefully also attracting some of the EQ/EQ2/WoW players who played on PvP servers.