In games like WoW, it's mostly frustration, rather than anxiety. You really lose nothing by getting PK'd, other than your time and maybe pride. The main emotion here is frustration, because someone just interrupted your gameplay.
That's an interesting take.
I mean... in Bless Online... getting PKed was irrelevant.
It took maybe 45 seconds out of my gameplay and happened maybe once per week.
I just let the person kill me. Extremely quick corpse run.
No anxiety and no frustration.
In NWO, PvP was instanced. You chose when to participate. The only reason to go to the instance was to PvP.
It was mostly capture the flag or base defense/destruction.
In both, I pretty much just concentrated on capturing as many flags as possible as quickly as possible.
I let people kill me as much as they wanted to. I didn't waste time fighting back.
No frustration and no anxiety.
I had no frustration and no anxiety in Ashes Alpha 1 Sieges.
So... again...
My issue isn't really about fear and anxiety from being PKed.
It is frustration and annoyance from having my intended goals and gameplay interrupted by non-consnsual PvP when I'm not in the mood for PvP combat.
Some other player is forcing me to do something I'm not in the mood for. How much of a negative impact is that going to have on my game session goals?
If Corruption is in play... and I can punish the person who interrupts my gameplay with Corruption.
I'm probably OK with that... as long as Corruption is a signifcant enough deterrent that it doesn't occur with more frequency than I die from a mob. And as long as the TTK is quick enough that I'm not wasting significant time on an activity I'm not in the mood for.
So, I don't have much fear or anxiety about that.
What I'm not going to do is play on a server that as large permanent zones with auto-consent, Corruption-free PvP. Because that is a PvP ruleset I abhor.
In games like Ashes, Albion Online, etc. it's going to be a little bit different. Here, fear and anxiety are more prominent, because you actually lose stuff when you die. You don't just lose a few minutes of your time, you lose all that time you previously spent gathering materials, or getting gear. It feels like you spent all that time for nothing, because you now have to do it all over again, because someone just PK'd you. Alternatively, you could go back and try to PK that person and get your stuff back, but if you're someone who dislikes PvP, it's unlikely you would do that.
Exactly. How much time do I waste recouping losses due to some other player deciding I have to participate in an activity I'm not in the mood for?
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I honestly think its unproductive to try to separate pve players from pvp players. In my experience the purely pve players are very few in number and almost certainly won't consider this game. The vast majority of gamers I have played with or spoken to like both.
I'm not going to play on the same servers as highly competitive gamers who have no respect for the concept of non-consensual PvP. Especially if the server has large, permanent, open world zones with auto-consent FFA PvP.
PvE-Only servers typically have the highest populations for EQ/EQ2/WoW. And 30% of the players on those servers enjoy PvP sometimes. Yes.
On pve servers people would always line up for scheduled pvp like Tol Barad and Wintergrasp in WoW. De facto pvp like arena and battlegrounds have high participation on pve servers. You'll even see people doing "off the cuff" pvp like attacking/defending towns, open world pvp objectives, and dueling on pve servers. Heck, FFXiv has high participation in their battleground-esque content and that game is about as pve focused as it gets.
Right. Here, you seem to be saying that even players on PvE-Only servers are often OK with consensual PvP.
I think the much better dividing line to place is between players that like consensual pvp and those that like non-consensual pvp. Can they turn and walk away or can they not. In my experience the majority of players enjoy pvp, but they want the choice.
I've noticed a common theme in various Ashes forums where everyone wants to put the consensual and non-consensual pvp players into the same basket and the pve players into another basket just to suit their point. That's an us vs them strawman because the pve only players aren't even here. They create a Boogeyman just to have an enemy and it serves no purpose.
I usually devide it by the gamers who typically play MMORPGs on PvP servers and the players who typically play on PvE-Only servers.
But, yes, the real conundrum is: How do you get the players for whom nonconsensual PvP is a major issue to agree to play on the same servers as the gamers who refuse to acknowledge non-consensual PvP as a valid concept?
I like cake sometimes. I'm not afraid to eat cake.
What I won't stand for is someone else shoving cake down my throat when I'm not in the mood to eat cake - especially not after I've already voluntarily filled my stomach with cake. And I'm not going to go anywhere that has some kind clause stating as soon as you enter the area you auto-consent that if someone shoves cake down your throat, you can't have them arrested and punished for assault.
In games like WoW, it's mostly frustration, rather than anxiety. You really lose nothing by getting PK'd, other than your time and maybe pride. The main emotion here is frustration, because someone just interrupted your gameplay.
That's an interesting take.
I mean... in Bless Online... getting PKed was irrelevant.
It took maybe 45 seconds out of my gameplay and happened maybe once per week.
I just let the person kill me. Extremely quick corpse run.
No anxiety and no frustration.
In NWO, PvP was instanced. You chose when to participate. The only reason to go to the instance was to PvP.
It was mostly capture the flag or base defense/destruction.
In both, I pretty much just concentrated on capturing as many flags as possible as quickly as possible.
I let people kill me as much as they wanted to. I didn't waste time fighting back.
No frustration and no anxiety.
I had no frustration and no anxiety in Ashes Alpha 1 Sieges.
So... again...
My issue isn't really about fear and anxiety from being PKed.
It is frustration and annoyance from having my intended goals and gameplay interrupted by non-consnsual PvP when I'm not in the mood for PvP combat.
Some other player is forcing me to do something I'm not in the mood for. How much of a negative impact is that going to have on my game session goals?
If Corruption is in play... and I can punish the person who interrupts my gameplay with Corruption.
I'm probably OK with that... as long as Corruption is a signifcant enough deterrent that it doesn't occur with more frequency than I die from a mob. And as long as the TTK is quick enough that I'm not wasting significant time on an activity I'm not in the mood for.
So, I don't have much fear or anxiety about that.
What I'm not going to do is play on a server that as large permanent zones with auto-consent, Corruption-free PvP. Because that is a PvP ruleset I abhor.
In games like Ashes, Albion Online, etc. it's going to be a little bit different. Here, fear and anxiety are more prominent, because you actually lose stuff when you die. You don't just lose a few minutes of your time, you lose all that time you previously spent gathering materials, or getting gear. It feels like you spent all that time for nothing, because you now have to do it all over again, because someone just PK'd you. Alternatively, you could go back and try to PK that person and get your stuff back, but if you're someone who dislikes PvP, it's unlikely you would do that.
Exactly. How much time do I waste recouping losses due to some other player deciding I have to participate in an activity I'm not in the mood for?
I think we pretty much agree then. I just didn't go into the consensual / non-consensual talk, because I thought we were strictly talking about non-consensual PKing.
Obviously in settings like battlegrounds, arenas, sieges, where it's a consensual PvP experience, you're fine with getting killed. Though it can be frustrating if you're super competitive, and die in a stupid way, but that's besides the point.
Also, getting PK'd in a game where dying doesn't really do anything to you, other than waste maybe 30sec to 1 min of your time, is also not something that's going to make you super emotional. It's just something you don't want to worry about, because it messes with your gameplay experience and what you're trying to do in game. Absolutely fine with that.
I was just arguing from my personal experience about your point how "Fear of getting PK'd and anxiety is mostly a PvPer misperception. It's not very common at all.". Imo it is common to some degree with games like Albion and Ashes, like I mentioned. Though I guess a lot of players would just straight up avoid even playing those games, so there won't be any anxiety to speak of.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited July 2023
Exactly.
Gamers like Steven try to pursue the adrenaline rush from risk v reward - and are highly competitive.
Steven is obsessed with everyone feeling that adrenaline rush much of the time.
I am a non-competitive, Casual Challenge Carebear who sometimes enjoys PvP combat.
I'm not motivated by adrenaline rush or risk v reaward or competition vs other players.
I'm not interested in any of that at all.
I don't play MMORPGs so I can feel fear and anxiety from the risk of loss. (Or pride for having the longest standing Node on the server.)
So.. yes.. just as I'm not interested in playing EvE Online, ArcheAge or Albion - I'm no longer interested in playing Ashes.
Hope not only FF and Wow people are interested in ashes. There were some really good pvp focused MMOs. Iam pretty sure for PVE only people ashes is the wrong MMO
Hope not only FF and Wow people are interested in ashes. There were some really good pvp focused MMOs. Iam pretty sure for PVE only people ashes is the wrong MMO
I don’t think WoW and FF are games that you want to showcase as PvP-focused, @Garrtok.
There will be (some) PvE content, though … such as the instanced dungeons and raids.
But, agree … the Ashes PvX playstyle will not be for everyone.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Also wrong for some PvP-sometimes people.
There should still be plenty of fans of EvE Online, ArcheAge, Albion and Lineage II for Ashes to be a success.
Even though this game will have a corruption system that will deter players from constantly ganking me in the open world while I am gathering resources AND the inventory system will prevent most players from looting my gathered resources, I would say this game is not for me and I will not play. I only enjoy pvp when I have the ability to toggle pvp participation on/off whenever I want to. I don’t like the idea of designated pvp areas because then I can’t explore them because players will just gank me. Freeholds were my only hope of solo playing a pvx game, and since Steven won’t just give me a freehold I will not play this game.
I'm not sure if this is sarcastic or not.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Exactly.
Gamers like Steven try to pursue the adrenaline rush from risk v reward - and are highly competitive.
Steven is obsessed with everyone feeling that adrenaline rush much of the time.
I respectfully disagree with this. I think Steven is working for trying to create a world where effort and cooperation produce rewards. Conflict is a singular component of human existence. you feel that dygz... you just prefer a passive method of aggression.. your mere continued existence here proves that to me.
I believe there will be a meaningful position in the world of Verra for the passives like Dygz. Steven is not rich cause he does not understand people. Lets see how it plays out before we "throw in the towel."
2
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
so you cant define it, its also not something that you know it when you see it.
No, I said I don't want to say you know it when you see it because that is a cop out.
I also specifically said the number of wipes to the content was a guide for those unfamiliar with top end content to get an idea of the difficulty at hand, rather than being an actual attempt at a definition.
Your point that difficulty can be subjective is true - but keep in mind that a guild taking on top end content will rid itself of people that take too long to learn these things. Since that 500 deaths comment was for the first guild to kill the encounter in the entire game, it should be assumed that the guild in question is made up of some of the faster learners playing that game (they wouldn't get the first kill otherwise - logically).
Now, you asked what appeared to be an earnest question, and so I gave you an honest answer. Your follow up to that answer suggests anything other than earnestness on your part - it suggests a strong desire to not understand at all costs.
I've given you the above information on the off chance you are actually earnestly asking, but I'm not inclined to waste my time answering such questions if you are not indeed earnest in asking these questions.
And no your friends don't matter they aren't special so that point means literarily nothing.
The discussion was about why people that prefer strongly PvE are (or aren't) looking at Ashes.
I was answering it based on those friends of mines statements.
I made the comment about them because Sathrago seems to be another of those people determined to not actually understand what is being said. I gave him the actual reasons as to why actual people were not interested in this game, and he said it didn't make any sense.
The issue starts when you are debating your takes and and trying to be like "I do top end pve so im right trust my experience you don't know what you are talking about!"
Yeah, that would be an issue, who said that?
If you are referring to me - what I have said is top end content designed to be on the edge of what is possible in isolation becomes impossible without that isolation, and if it is not at the edge of what is possible it isn't top end content.
This is just a logical premise. It applies to anyting. Look at racing - they have tires for when it is dry that allow the cars to go faster. Add water to the track though, and those tires suddenly aren't able to hold the car to the road well enough,so they need different tires (I know there is MUCH more to it than this - to who ever is getting ready to angrily type).
I mean, you can even see it with a piece of toast. Balance it half way over edge of a bench so it is only just not falling. Then blow from the top over the side of the toast that is over the edge. If the toast was only just balanced, blowing on it will make it fall - if it was not on that very edge, it may not.
Anyone that is trying to understand will understand. This leaves only those specifically not wanting to understand left in the debate. It isn't about having done top end content, it is about having a damn brain and being able to use it -very clearly anything that is on the edge of possiblity will fall over the edge when a new force is introduced that pushes it towards that edge.
OK.
I mean... if you text search PvP on the Kickstarter page, you won't find the text for PvP.
Seems likely, though, that people would have played the video.
Even if you missed the video at the top of the page...
A Google search should have lead the vast majority of backers to the Ashes of Creation Kickstarter Livestreams held daily the first week of the Kickstarter.
I'm pretty sure those were also advertized by the various game news sources, like MMORPG.com.
Indeed.
I'm not saying anything like "all my friends backed the game after reading the kickstarter page" or anything like that. I am just commenting on the lack of accurate information about the game on that page.
I mean, it's not like I am wrong, yet some disingenuous people seem to think it is a point worth arguing.
Exactly.
Gamers like Steven try to pursue the adrenaline rush from risk v reward - and are highly competitive.
Steven is obsessed with everyone feeling that adrenaline rush much of the time.
I respectfully disagree with this. I think Steven is working for trying to create a world where effort and cooperation produce rewards. Conflict is a singular component of human existence. you feel that dygz... you just prefer a passive method of aggression.. your mere continued existence here proves that to me.
The problem with saying Steven is trying to produce a game where effort and cooperation produce rewards is that, well, it isn't true.
Success produces rewards in Ashes. While it may be true that you need effort and cooperation to achieve success, if that effort and cooperation are in competition with others that also have effort and cooperation, then someones effort and cooperation is going to go unrewarded.
Games where effort and cooperation are rewarded are games like WoW. If you get together enough people, and if you are good enough you can try to take on the highest tier content in the game. Effort and cooperation are required, but since you are not competing against anyone for that kill, it is purely a matter of your effort and cooperation that determine your success.
I'm not saying this in any hopes of Intrepid changing the games design, but rather in changing your opinion.
Effort and cooperation in Ashes means absolutely nothing without success - and thus effort and cooperation do not produce rewards, success does.
Show me on the kickstarter page where it mentions the term "PvP".
Because that is what I claimed, and then as usual everyone else came in with their own bullshit.
It isn't as if I even need to wait for you to show me where it says "PvP". Should only take about 2 minutes to search the page. So - instead of calling bullshit, just prove I was wrong in that statement.
And no your friends don't matter they aren't special so that point means literarily nothing.
The discussion was about why people that prefer strongly PvE are (or aren't) looking at Ashes.
I was answering it based on those friends of mines statements.
I made the comment about them because Sathrago seems to be another of those people determined to not actually understand what is being said. I gave him the actual reasons as to why actual people were not interested in this game, and he said it didn't make any sense.
The issue starts when you are debating your takes and and trying to be like "I do top end pve so im right trust my experience you don't know what you are talking about!"
Yeah, that would be an issue, who said that?
If you are referring to me - what I have said is top end content designed to be on the edge of what is possible in isolation becomes impossible without that isolation, and if it is not at the edge of what is possible it isn't top end content.
This is just a logical premise. It applies to anyting. Look at racing - they have tires for when it is dry that allow the cars to go faster. Add water to the track though, and those tires suddenly aren't able to hold the car to the road well enough,so they need different tires (I know there is MUCH more to it than this - to who ever is getting ready to angrily type).
I mean, you can even see it with a piece of toast. Balance it half way over edge of a bench so it is only just not falling. Then blow from the top over the side of the toast that is over the edge. If the toast was only just balanced, blowing on it will make it fall - if it was not on that very edge, it may not.
Anyone that is trying to understand will understand. This leaves only those specifically not wanting to understand left in the debate. It isn't about having done top end content, it is about having a damn brain and being able to use it -very clearly anything that is on the edge of possiblity will fall over the edge when a new force is introduced that pushes it towards that edge.
You legit went off on a weird tangent, this isn't about top end pve this is about you and your arguments. You like to fling around i did top end pve once upon on a time as if saying that has any meaning. Let me give you a hint, it doesn't it is just a ego statement for attention.
At the very least if you backed up the statement with multiple examples of end game pve (in multiple number of mmorpgs) and detailed it based on the relevance to the discussion it would hold more wait at the very least.
You mean - I earnestly answered some questions that were asked of me?
If someone is asking me why people that are very interested in PvE are or aren't looking at Ashes, I can only speak from the perspective of those at the top end. Someone else is free to talk about the rest of the spectrum, but I will only talk about what I know about.
At the very least if you backed up the statement with multiple examples of end game pve (in multiple number of mmorpgs) and detailed it based on the relevance to the discussion it would hold more wait at the very least.
But this isn't relavent to this discussion.
I'm not in this thread to educate people as to what top end PvE is, I am here to explain why some players that are more interested in PvE are not looking at this game at all.
If the answer to that question is "the games PvE isn't going to be comparible to other games PvE at the top end", then that is the answer. If you do not understand that answer, it isn't my job to educate you on it. If you want to understand better, then you need to go out and actually learn what top end PvE is - if you aren't even willing to understand what it is, and if that is a case for a good portion of the posters here, then perhaps that in itself is a part of the reason.
You mean - I earnestly answered some questions that were asked of me?
If someone is asking me why people that are very interested in PvE are or aren't looking at Ashes, I can only speak from the perspective of those at the top end. Someone else is free to talk about the rest of the spectrum, but I will only talk about what I know about.
At the very least if you backed up the statement with multiple examples of end game pve (in multiple number of mmorpgs) and detailed it based on the relevance to the discussion it would hold more wait at the very least.
But this isn't relavent to this discussion.
I'm not in this thread to educate people as to what top end PvE is, I am here to explain why some players that are more interested in PvE are not looking at this game at all.
If the answer to that question is "the games PvE isn't going to be comparible to other games PvE at the top end", then that is the answer. If you do not understand that answer, it isn't my job to educate you on it. If you want to understand better, then you need to go out and actually learn what top end PvE is - if you aren't even willing to understand what it is, and if that is a case for a good portion of the posters here, then perhaps that in itself is a part of the reason.
I'm not even convinced you know what top end PvE. You can't even understand my statement and again are going off on weird tangents.
Its funny how this conversation stated with someone mentioned there is going to be pve that attaches people and they are working on it within the game with some live streams as an example.
Rather than use experience (if you truly had any) and give examples on why you feel that the things shown and current direction wouldn't lead to "proper" pve content based on experience from other games this argument wouldn't be happening.
Instead you tried to belittle the person and their experience with games, throwing around millions of pve players as a number, trying to say you are right with your friends as some sort of false proof, falsely saying you have more experience than another as if that has any merit in any point right now.
What you are doing is not a discussion, it is simply a narcissistic ego trip with no actual valid points, nor anything that leads to a positive discussion.
This is where you fail to understand the point of my comment, you fail to use any actual experience from gameplay examples in how you respond. You response again boils down to "trust me i have more experience than you". You fail to show you can even make a educated and positive discussion, you need to look inwards before you think you have the ability to educate anyone. You need to be able to have proper discussions first understanding someone else and using actual experience to booster your points you are trying to make with in game examples...Until then don't speak of educating anyone, they only thing you do is just belittle people you don't agree with.
Show me on the kickstarter page where it mentions the term "PvP".
Because that is what I claimed, and then as usual everyone else came in with their own bullshit.
It isn't as if I even need to wait for you to show me where it says "PvP". Should only take about 2 minutes to search the page. So - instead of calling bullshit, just prove I was wrong in that statement.
So using that logic.
If a car company in 2023 talks about a new vehicle, and they say how well it drives and gets great mileage, but NEVER says it has wheels or an engine... does that mean it doesn't have wheels and an engine? Or are you meant to understand that it has those because of the words they are using to describe it?
Ashes used a lot of words in the pitch describing player vs. player, they just never outright say it.
Kaos & Lace Cartel
"Come join us as you wont like the taste of the Grapefruits we're throwing at our enemies."
"Never settle for what you think you know" - C. Krauthammer
If a car company in 2023 talks about a new vehicle, and they say how well it drives and gets great mileage, but NEVER says it has wheels or an engine.
If a car company sells me a car sight unseen and it turns out to not have wheels or an engine (both in working order), I get my money back and can probably keep the partial car.
In fact, if the company sells me that car sight unseen and it has ANY faults that they did not fully disclose (and quote repair for), I can get my money back.
Now, this isn't always true in every part of the world - there are some lesser developed nations that don't have this level of consumer protection - but where I live, this is the case.
If a car company in 2023 talks about a new vehicle, and they say how well it drives and gets great mileage, but NEVER says it has wheels or an engine.
If a car company sells me a car sight unseen and it turns out to not have wheels or an engine (both in working order), I get my money back and can probably keep the partial car.
In fact, if the company sells me that car sight unseen and it has ANY faults that they did not fully disclose (and quote repair for), I can get my money back.
Now, this isn't always true in every part of the world - there are some lesser developed nations that don't have this level of consumer protection - but where I live, this is the case.
Man, your takes are so.. odd.
My point was that they were using descriptive words to get you interested in it, and while doing that they infer things that it has. That's exactly what Ashes did with its initial Kickstarter Pitch. If people can't look at sentences like;
"Allies and enemies, friends and foes, these are words determined by you, not by us" and "Your grudges, your wars, your peace are real things, created by you, and the history of conflict is the history of the players." Then they aren't smart enough to understand descriptive writing. However, I'm willing to bet most people read that and thought like I did, oh this is going to be a game that has a good bit of player conflict. Let me see what their Video pitch says. And what do ya know at mark 5:30 or so it goes into player conflict.
Now can they get the balance right to entice players from all walks of life to keep logging in? Only time will tell. But yes from the start its been about PvX.
Kaos & Lace Cartel
"Come join us as you wont like the taste of the Grapefruits we're throwing at our enemies."
"Never settle for what you think you know" - C. Krauthammer
I saw the title and I forsaw the outcome. This thread will attract those names that like to bloat topics with lame, boring semantic based arguments, in the form of walltexts, paragraph after paragraph..., like flies to sh**. I was gonna pass, but I had to restore this thread to a good feedback chance.
Player vs Environment
What I'd like to see from PvE is:
1) Terrains that are difficult to traverse with hazzards which lead to HP loss or instant death (fall dmg). If you die, you should spent a fair bit of time to reach the spot that you further managed to advance too.
2) Areas that will induce the fear of overlooking something. As an example I will give the Volcano Mannor mountain and city of Elden Ring. It's an area with many diverging paths, that snake around and bring you to lower or higher levels, causing you to panic a bit, as you try to find back your way to explore the other path that you did not travel yet.
Areas that split in left and right, up and down, that make you backtrack to see which ends soon "lemme complete this path before I start on the longer one".
3) Jump scares and darkness. I want such challenges which would result in facing disadvantageous odds when people aren't careful.
4) I was areas to be protected by tiers of difficulty. The deeper you go, the higher you climb, or the lower you decent, mobs should become stronger and the environmental hazards should be more unpredictable.
5) I want preperation factors for different biomes. Heat, cold, poisonous gases/spiders/snakes. I want the environment to sometimes demand that you prepare your inventory or group composition before you step in to xp or explore. It gives extra layers of gameplay and item values.
6) I want limited markers during quests. Just a yellow circle showing the general area in which the activity should take place.
7) I want good grinding spots that are surrounded by layers and outer rings of most of the above. These areas will reward the best xp/loot per hour. These areas will also become contestent points and pvp will ensure.
An open world is blant without some areas providing solid rewards. Good singleplayer games (soulslike mostly) do that too.
Such areas are the true treaures of open world mmos. True profit.
If a car company in 2023 talks about a new vehicle, and they say how well it drives and gets great mileage, but NEVER says it has wheels or an engine.
If a car company sells me a car sight unseen and it turns out to not have wheels or an engine (both in working order), I get my money back and can probably keep the partial car.
In fact, if the company sells me that car sight unseen and it has ANY faults that they did not fully disclose (and quote repair for), I can get my money back.
Now, this isn't always true in every part of the world - there are some lesser developed nations that don't have this level of consumer protection - but where I live, this is the case.
Man, your takes are so.. odd.
My point was that they were using descriptive words to get you interested in it, and while doing that they infer things that it has. That's exactly what Ashes did with its initial Kickstarter Pitch. If people can't look at sentences like;
"Allies and enemies, friends and foes, these are words determined by you, not by us" and "Your grudges, your wars, your peace are real things, created by you, and the history of conflict is the history of the players." Then they aren't smart enough to understand descriptive writing. However, I'm willing to bet most people read that and thought like I did, oh this is going to be a game that has a good bit of player conflict. Let me see what their Video pitch says. And what do ya know at mark 5:30 or so it goes into player conflict.
Now can they get the balance right to entice players from all walks of life to keep logging in? Only time will tell. But yes from the start its been about PvX.
The problem with all of that is that those things exist in other games that have no open world PvP.
More to the point, you could well be describing EQN with all of the above, and EQN is one of the games listed as the developers having experience on.
The first I heard of this game was someone talking to me about it thinking it was a revival of EQN.
Even though this game will have a corruption system that will deter players from constantly ganking me in the open world while I am gathering resources AND the inventory system will prevent most players from looting my gathered resources, I would say this game is not for me and I will not play. I only enjoy pvp when I have the ability to toggle pvp participation on/off whenever I want to. I don’t like the idea of designated pvp areas because then I can’t explore them because players will just gank me. Freeholds were my only hope of solo playing a pvx game, and since Steven won’t just give me a freehold I will not play this game.
Even though this game will have a corruption system that will deter players from constantly ganking me in the open world while I am gathering resources AND the inventory system will prevent most players from looting my gathered resources, I would say this game is not for me and I will not play. I only enjoy pvp when I have the ability to toggle pvp participation on/off whenever I want to. I don’t like the idea of designated pvp areas because then I can’t explore them because players will just gank me. Freeholds were my only hope of solo playing a pvx game, and since Steven won’t just give me a freehold I will not play this game.
I am primarily a pve player, who enjoys RP, and will dabble quite frequently in pvp (especially if the pve isn't very good).
I follow Ashes because there are aspects that sound adventurous and detailed, which means the world could be rich with a sense of life and amazing player encounters. However, I've since been left with the impression that a world full of cool races, designs, and content will now be controlled by the ususl uber guild types. The same types I'm seeing in NW where they turn the game into a monopoly and casual/solo/RP players just end up becoming serfs or kill counts in order to feed the elite guild machine.
Just feels like Ashes could've been THE mmorpg, but then they decided to make certain things so rare and exclusive. I don't know why they're bothering to ask RP players what they'd like to see. How many RPers will get to run a tavern on a Freehold? lol... not many I'd wager.
My gameplay style is kind of broad, I cross into pvp, pve and roleplay. I LOVE housing. I also played Landmark way back, so was spoilt by it, and I love to see people RPing, even if I'm not participating, because those are the people, as well as small group and solo players, that bring LIFE to mmorpgs.
It isn't the hardcore guilds that create the life and soul of MMORPGs. They bring the achievements, the first-time successes, the tension, the in-fighting, the drama, but a lot of players in the general community don't see half of what occurs inside or between these guilds, nor do they care.
I was in a hardcore pvp guild, once upon a time, and they were a-holes.
They didn't care about anyone outside of our epeen circle. They are certainly not the kind of people that would make a game like Ashes feel alive. In fact, they'd be the type to ruin other people's experiences.
A guild is like a family, to you it is everything, but not to those on the outside.
Who will make Freeholds truly feel fun? Personally, I think it would be the VERY people Ashes is trying to stop ever owning a Freehold.
So, I follow Ashes because I'm bored/disillusioned/fed up with other mmos. I don't like GW2 dungeons or end-game. I could never find a guild I was comfortable with in that game, despite loving Mesmer and the WvWvW pvp.
ESO has everything that suits me, on paper, but their cash shop greed turns my stomach, as far as the gem crates go.
WoW is great, but has no actual housing. Otherwise, I'd be much more inclined to play it.
NW is just bugs, one-sided pvp, non-existent customer support, and shallow content, imo.
Any game I play must have housing. Ashes has it, but it doesn't fill me with confidence that'll be satisfying due to the exclusivity of the Freeholds, and the fact my house could be destroyed if nodes are attacked, anyway.
I continue to watch with interest, and curiosity, but as suggested by Steven, it may turn out that it's not for me. Since my playstyle covers pvp, pve, and RP... (minus the big ole' guild membership) it would be strange for an mmo to not meet that playstyle.
"A single dream is more powerful than a thousand realities." —J.R.R. Tolkien
Can I ask a question?
It seems there a quite a few people on this thread and in the forums in general that have stated they have no interest in Ashes anymore and don't intend to play it.
My question is why are you still here? Responding in the forums, following the development, if you're not going to play it? I'm assuming it's because it's in development and might change?
Not trying to start any arguments or accuse anyone of anything, there's enough of that already, just interested as to why.
Comments
I mean... in Bless Online... getting PKed was irrelevant.
It took maybe 45 seconds out of my gameplay and happened maybe once per week.
I just let the person kill me. Extremely quick corpse run.
No anxiety and no frustration.
In NWO, PvP was instanced. You chose when to participate. The only reason to go to the instance was to PvP.
It was mostly capture the flag or base defense/destruction.
In both, I pretty much just concentrated on capturing as many flags as possible as quickly as possible.
I let people kill me as much as they wanted to. I didn't waste time fighting back.
No frustration and no anxiety.
I had no frustration and no anxiety in Ashes Alpha 1 Sieges.
So... again...
My issue isn't really about fear and anxiety from being PKed.
It is frustration and annoyance from having my intended goals and gameplay interrupted by non-consnsual PvP when I'm not in the mood for PvP combat.
Some other player is forcing me to do something I'm not in the mood for. How much of a negative impact is that going to have on my game session goals?
If Corruption is in play... and I can punish the person who interrupts my gameplay with Corruption.
I'm probably OK with that... as long as Corruption is a signifcant enough deterrent that it doesn't occur with more frequency than I die from a mob. And as long as the TTK is quick enough that I'm not wasting significant time on an activity I'm not in the mood for.
So, I don't have much fear or anxiety about that.
What I'm not going to do is play on a server that as large permanent zones with auto-consent, Corruption-free PvP. Because that is a PvP ruleset I abhor.
Exactly. How much time do I waste recouping losses due to some other player deciding I have to participate in an activity I'm not in the mood for?
PvE-Only servers typically have the highest populations for EQ/EQ2/WoW. And 30% of the players on those servers enjoy PvP sometimes. Yes.
Right. Here, you seem to be saying that even players on PvE-Only servers are often OK with consensual PvP.
Exactly.
I usually devide it by the gamers who typically play MMORPGs on PvP servers and the players who typically play on PvE-Only servers.
But, yes, the real conundrum is: How do you get the players for whom nonconsensual PvP is a major issue to agree to play on the same servers as the gamers who refuse to acknowledge non-consensual PvP as a valid concept?
I like cake sometimes. I'm not afraid to eat cake.
What I won't stand for is someone else shoving cake down my throat when I'm not in the mood to eat cake - especially not after I've already voluntarily filled my stomach with cake. And I'm not going to go anywhere that has some kind clause stating as soon as you enter the area you auto-consent that if someone shoves cake down your throat, you can't have them arrested and punished for assault.
I think we pretty much agree then. I just didn't go into the consensual / non-consensual talk, because I thought we were strictly talking about non-consensual PKing.
Obviously in settings like battlegrounds, arenas, sieges, where it's a consensual PvP experience, you're fine with getting killed. Though it can be frustrating if you're super competitive, and die in a stupid way, but that's besides the point.
Also, getting PK'd in a game where dying doesn't really do anything to you, other than waste maybe 30sec to 1 min of your time, is also not something that's going to make you super emotional. It's just something you don't want to worry about, because it messes with your gameplay experience and what you're trying to do in game. Absolutely fine with that.
I was just arguing from my personal experience about your point how "Fear of getting PK'd and anxiety is mostly a PvPer misperception. It's not very common at all.". Imo it is common to some degree with games like Albion and Ashes, like I mentioned. Though I guess a lot of players would just straight up avoid even playing those games, so there won't be any anxiety to speak of.
Gamers like Steven try to pursue the adrenaline rush from risk v reward - and are highly competitive.
Steven is obsessed with everyone feeling that adrenaline rush much of the time.
I am a non-competitive, Casual Challenge Carebear who sometimes enjoys PvP combat.
I'm not motivated by adrenaline rush or risk v reaward or competition vs other players.
I'm not interested in any of that at all.
I don't play MMORPGs so I can feel fear and anxiety from the risk of loss. (Or pride for having the longest standing Node on the server.)
So.. yes.. just as I'm not interested in playing EvE Online, ArcheAge or Albion - I'm no longer interested in playing Ashes.
I don’t think WoW and FF are games that you want to showcase as PvP-focused, @Garrtok.
There will be (some) PvE content, though … such as the instanced dungeons and raids.
But, agree … the Ashes PvX playstyle will not be for everyone.
There should still be plenty of fans of EvE Online, ArcheAge, Albion and Lineage II for Ashes to be a success.
I'm not sure if this is sarcastic or not.
I respectfully disagree with this. I think Steven is working for trying to create a world where effort and cooperation produce rewards. Conflict is a singular component of human existence. you feel that dygz... you just prefer a passive method of aggression.. your mere continued existence here proves that to me.
I believe there will be a meaningful position in the world of Verra for the passives like Dygz. Steven is not rich cause he does not understand people. Lets see how it plays out before we "throw in the towel."
I also specifically said the number of wipes to the content was a guide for those unfamiliar with top end content to get an idea of the difficulty at hand, rather than being an actual attempt at a definition.
Your point that difficulty can be subjective is true - but keep in mind that a guild taking on top end content will rid itself of people that take too long to learn these things. Since that 500 deaths comment was for the first guild to kill the encounter in the entire game, it should be assumed that the guild in question is made up of some of the faster learners playing that game (they wouldn't get the first kill otherwise - logically).
Now, you asked what appeared to be an earnest question, and so I gave you an honest answer. Your follow up to that answer suggests anything other than earnestness on your part - it suggests a strong desire to not understand at all costs.
I've given you the above information on the off chance you are actually earnestly asking, but I'm not inclined to waste my time answering such questions if you are not indeed earnest in asking these questions.
that is a silly answer. of course i am.
I was answering it based on those friends of mines statements.
I made the comment about them because Sathrago seems to be another of those people determined to not actually understand what is being said. I gave him the actual reasons as to why actual people were not interested in this game, and he said it didn't make any sense.
Yeah, that would be an issue, who said that?
If you are referring to me - what I have said is top end content designed to be on the edge of what is possible in isolation becomes impossible without that isolation, and if it is not at the edge of what is possible it isn't top end content.
This is just a logical premise. It applies to anyting. Look at racing - they have tires for when it is dry that allow the cars to go faster. Add water to the track though, and those tires suddenly aren't able to hold the car to the road well enough,so they need different tires (I know there is MUCH more to it than this - to who ever is getting ready to angrily type).
I mean, you can even see it with a piece of toast. Balance it half way over edge of a bench so it is only just not falling. Then blow from the top over the side of the toast that is over the edge. If the toast was only just balanced, blowing on it will make it fall - if it was not on that very edge, it may not.
Anyone that is trying to understand will understand. This leaves only those specifically not wanting to understand left in the debate. It isn't about having done top end content, it is about having a damn brain and being able to use it -very clearly anything that is on the edge of possiblity will fall over the edge when a new force is introduced that pushes it towards that edge.
Indeed.
I'm not saying anything like "all my friends backed the game after reading the kickstarter page" or anything like that. I am just commenting on the lack of accurate information about the game on that page.
I mean, it's not like I am wrong, yet some disingenuous people seem to think it is a point worth arguing.
I call bs.
Success produces rewards in Ashes. While it may be true that you need effort and cooperation to achieve success, if that effort and cooperation are in competition with others that also have effort and cooperation, then someones effort and cooperation is going to go unrewarded.
Games where effort and cooperation are rewarded are games like WoW. If you get together enough people, and if you are good enough you can try to take on the highest tier content in the game. Effort and cooperation are required, but since you are not competing against anyone for that kill, it is purely a matter of your effort and cooperation that determine your success.
I'm not saying this in any hopes of Intrepid changing the games design, but rather in changing your opinion.
Effort and cooperation in Ashes means absolutely nothing without success - and thus effort and cooperation do not produce rewards, success does.
ok, call it.
Show me on the kickstarter page where it mentions the term "PvP".
Because that is what I claimed, and then as usual everyone else came in with their own bullshit.
It isn't as if I even need to wait for you to show me where it says "PvP". Should only take about 2 minutes to search the page. So - instead of calling bullshit, just prove I was wrong in that statement.
You legit went off on a weird tangent, this isn't about top end pve this is about you and your arguments. You like to fling around i did top end pve once upon on a time as if saying that has any meaning. Let me give you a hint, it doesn't it is just a ego statement for attention.
At the very least if you backed up the statement with multiple examples of end game pve (in multiple number of mmorpgs) and detailed it based on the relevance to the discussion it would hold more wait at the very least.
You mean - I earnestly answered some questions that were asked of me?
If someone is asking me why people that are very interested in PvE are or aren't looking at Ashes, I can only speak from the perspective of those at the top end. Someone else is free to talk about the rest of the spectrum, but I will only talk about what I know about.
But this isn't relavent to this discussion.
I'm not in this thread to educate people as to what top end PvE is, I am here to explain why some players that are more interested in PvE are not looking at this game at all.
If the answer to that question is "the games PvE isn't going to be comparible to other games PvE at the top end", then that is the answer. If you do not understand that answer, it isn't my job to educate you on it. If you want to understand better, then you need to go out and actually learn what top end PvE is - if you aren't even willing to understand what it is, and if that is a case for a good portion of the posters here, then perhaps that in itself is a part of the reason.
I'm not even convinced you know what top end PvE. You can't even understand my statement and again are going off on weird tangents.
Its funny how this conversation stated with someone mentioned there is going to be pve that attaches people and they are working on it within the game with some live streams as an example.
Rather than use experience (if you truly had any) and give examples on why you feel that the things shown and current direction wouldn't lead to "proper" pve content based on experience from other games this argument wouldn't be happening.
Instead you tried to belittle the person and their experience with games, throwing around millions of pve players as a number, trying to say you are right with your friends as some sort of false proof, falsely saying you have more experience than another as if that has any merit in any point right now.
What you are doing is not a discussion, it is simply a narcissistic ego trip with no actual valid points, nor anything that leads to a positive discussion.
This is where you fail to understand the point of my comment, you fail to use any actual experience from gameplay examples in how you respond. You response again boils down to "trust me i have more experience than you". You fail to show you can even make a educated and positive discussion, you need to look inwards before you think you have the ability to educate anyone. You need to be able to have proper discussions first understanding someone else and using actual experience to booster your points you are trying to make with in game examples...Until then don't speak of educating anyone, they only thing you do is just belittle people you don't agree with.
So using that logic.
If a car company in 2023 talks about a new vehicle, and they say how well it drives and gets great mileage, but NEVER says it has wheels or an engine... does that mean it doesn't have wheels and an engine? Or are you meant to understand that it has those because of the words they are using to describe it?
Ashes used a lot of words in the pitch describing player vs. player, they just never outright say it.
"Come join us as you wont like the taste of the Grapefruits we're throwing at our enemies."
"Never settle for what you think you know" - C. Krauthammer
In fact, if the company sells me that car sight unseen and it has ANY faults that they did not fully disclose (and quote repair for), I can get my money back.
Now, this isn't always true in every part of the world - there are some lesser developed nations that don't have this level of consumer protection - but where I live, this is the case.
Man, your takes are so.. odd.
My point was that they were using descriptive words to get you interested in it, and while doing that they infer things that it has. That's exactly what Ashes did with its initial Kickstarter Pitch. If people can't look at sentences like;
"Allies and enemies, friends and foes, these are words determined by you, not by us" and "Your grudges, your wars, your peace are real things, created by you, and the history of conflict is the history of the players." Then they aren't smart enough to understand descriptive writing. However, I'm willing to bet most people read that and thought like I did, oh this is going to be a game that has a good bit of player conflict. Let me see what their Video pitch says. And what do ya know at mark 5:30 or so it goes into player conflict.
Now can they get the balance right to entice players from all walks of life to keep logging in? Only time will tell. But yes from the start its been about PvX.
"Come join us as you wont like the taste of the Grapefruits we're throwing at our enemies."
"Never settle for what you think you know" - C. Krauthammer
Player vs Environment
What I'd like to see from PvE is:
1) Terrains that are difficult to traverse with hazzards which lead to HP loss or instant death (fall dmg). If you die, you should spent a fair bit of time to reach the spot that you further managed to advance too.
2) Areas that will induce the fear of overlooking something. As an example I will give the Volcano Mannor mountain and city of Elden Ring. It's an area with many diverging paths, that snake around and bring you to lower or higher levels, causing you to panic a bit, as you try to find back your way to explore the other path that you did not travel yet.
Areas that split in left and right, up and down, that make you backtrack to see which ends soon "lemme complete this path before I start on the longer one".
3) Jump scares and darkness. I want such challenges which would result in facing disadvantageous odds when people aren't careful.
4) I was areas to be protected by tiers of difficulty. The deeper you go, the higher you climb, or the lower you decent, mobs should become stronger and the environmental hazards should be more unpredictable.
5) I want preperation factors for different biomes. Heat, cold, poisonous gases/spiders/snakes. I want the environment to sometimes demand that you prepare your inventory or group composition before you step in to xp or explore. It gives extra layers of gameplay and item values.
6) I want limited markers during quests. Just a yellow circle showing the general area in which the activity should take place.
7) I want good grinding spots that are surrounded by layers and outer rings of most of the above. These areas will reward the best xp/loot per hour. These areas will also become contestent points and pvp will ensure.
An open world is blant without some areas providing solid rewards. Good singleplayer games (soulslike mostly) do that too.
Such areas are the true treaures of open world mmos. True profit.
The problem with all of that is that those things exist in other games that have no open world PvP.
More to the point, you could well be describing EQN with all of the above, and EQN is one of the games listed as the developers having experience on.
The first I heard of this game was someone talking to me about it thinking it was a revival of EQN.
I follow Ashes because there are aspects that sound adventurous and detailed, which means the world could be rich with a sense of life and amazing player encounters. However, I've since been left with the impression that a world full of cool races, designs, and content will now be controlled by the ususl uber guild types. The same types I'm seeing in NW where they turn the game into a monopoly and casual/solo/RP players just end up becoming serfs or kill counts in order to feed the elite guild machine.
Just feels like Ashes could've been THE mmorpg, but then they decided to make certain things so rare and exclusive. I don't know why they're bothering to ask RP players what they'd like to see. How many RPers will get to run a tavern on a Freehold? lol... not many I'd wager.
My gameplay style is kind of broad, I cross into pvp, pve and roleplay. I LOVE housing. I also played Landmark way back, so was spoilt by it, and I love to see people RPing, even if I'm not participating, because those are the people, as well as small group and solo players, that bring LIFE to mmorpgs.
It isn't the hardcore guilds that create the life and soul of MMORPGs. They bring the achievements, the first-time successes, the tension, the in-fighting, the drama, but a lot of players in the general community don't see half of what occurs inside or between these guilds, nor do they care.
I was in a hardcore pvp guild, once upon a time, and they were a-holes.
They didn't care about anyone outside of our epeen circle. They are certainly not the kind of people that would make a game like Ashes feel alive. In fact, they'd be the type to ruin other people's experiences.
A guild is like a family, to you it is everything, but not to those on the outside.
Who will make Freeholds truly feel fun? Personally, I think it would be the VERY people Ashes is trying to stop ever owning a Freehold.
So, I follow Ashes because I'm bored/disillusioned/fed up with other mmos. I don't like GW2 dungeons or end-game. I could never find a guild I was comfortable with in that game, despite loving Mesmer and the WvWvW pvp.
ESO has everything that suits me, on paper, but their cash shop greed turns my stomach, as far as the gem crates go.
WoW is great, but has no actual housing. Otherwise, I'd be much more inclined to play it.
NW is just bugs, one-sided pvp, non-existent customer support, and shallow content, imo.
Any game I play must have housing. Ashes has it, but it doesn't fill me with confidence that'll be satisfying due to the exclusivity of the Freeholds, and the fact my house could be destroyed if nodes are attacked, anyway.
I continue to watch with interest, and curiosity, but as suggested by Steven, it may turn out that it's not for me. Since my playstyle covers pvp, pve, and RP... (minus the big ole' guild membership) it would be strange for an mmo to not meet that playstyle.
It seems there a quite a few people on this thread and in the forums in general that have stated they have no interest in Ashes anymore and don't intend to play it.
My question is why are you still here? Responding in the forums, following the development, if you're not going to play it? I'm assuming it's because it's in development and might change?
Not trying to start any arguments or accuse anyone of anything, there's enough of that already, just interested as to why.