Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Comments
I disagree, PvP and PvX players simply want a good game for them. How many PVE game options do you have as opposed to PvP or PvX focused titles that arent P2W and are open world flagged PvP?
I would say its completely reasonable to defend ashes being a solid PvX title. Nothing wrong with it requiring players to do both PvP and PvE as opposed to one or the other. Want a full PvE experience? Then play a full PvE MMO, why change this one?
But, with so many devs - especially key, Lead devs - from SOE/Daybreak/EQ/EQ2 - and with a Nodes system that seems like a simplified version of EQNext's StoryBricks... EQ/EQ2/WoW players who play on PvE-Only servers want to know if Ashes has a PvE-Only server.
As with EQNext - Ashes does not have a PvE-Only server.
PvPers next say that there should not be a PvE-Only server because that would split the playerbase.
Which sounds bizarre to players who play EQ/EQ2/WoW on PvE-Only servers because the playerbase is already split.
Next the PvPers talk about how they will protect the players who don't want to PvP by offering Anti-Griefer/Bodyguard protection.
Which sounds bizarre to players who play EQ/EQ2/WoW on PvE-Only server because if that was an acceptable solution, we would already be playing on the PvP and PvP-Optional servers.
Ashes being designed for the lovers of UO, EvE Online, ArcheAge and Lineage II is awesome.
I just wish when I asked Steven if he hopes Ashes PvP will be on par with EvE Online PvP and ArcheAge PvP, he had said, "Yes". Instead of dodging the question.
I wish there were better communication than - Corruption should make PvEers feel comfortable except for those players who never HATE PvP and never want to participate in PvP. Because I don't fall in that group.
But, for the last year, bit by bit, Steven ramps up the Risk v Reward and I realize that it actually is a PvP-centric game. PvX really means everything is about PvP. Which is fine. But, I would rather have had that confirmed 5 years ago. With something like, "If you think EvE and ArcheAge are too PvP-centric, Ashes is probably not the game for you."
In the first couple of years, I was totally on board with Meaningful Conflict (Caravans, Castle Sieges, Node Sieges), but at this point it's pretty much been replaced by Risk v Reward. "Hey, we will give you greater rewards if you accept more intense and more ubiquitous PvP!"
And he thinks that is supposed to be "meaningful".
It's interesting because the PvPers genuinely want the players who play on PvE-Only servers to learn to enjoy playing on a PvP server, but that seems to be because they don't understand why players on PvE-Only servers refuse to play on PvP servers. "Hey! I'm a white hat! I will protect you and hold your hand. You don't have to be afraid of PvP."
But, that's not why players who only play on PvE-Only servers refuse to play on PvP servers.
But, again... gamers who enjoy playing on PvP servers have a very different world view than players who play MMORPGs on PvE-Only servers, so there is a fundamental disconnect when we try to communicate.
Case in point: the concept of non-consensual PvP.
Sure... we have a choice... but it's rather difficult to make an informed choice when I point blank ask Steven to compare Ashes PvP to EvE Online PvP and ArcheAge PvP because those games are too PvP-centric for me and he answers, "Well, Ashes PvP is not like those games because Corruption is active across the entire map and... Ashes is not PvP-centric, it's PvX. So, if you like PvP sometimes, Corruption will probably work well for you."
I'm not hating on the game design. I think the game design is perfect for its fanbase.
I'm saying that I wish the communication would be clearer EARLIER, so it actually is easier for people to make a choice. Especially people who prefer to play MMORPGs on PvE-Only servers.
and that is still your choice.
I think I can agree with most of what you said. But as far as why there shouldn't be PVE only servers is
1. It would never work with the games.intended design, and would nullify many systems including an entire quarter of a node types.
2. No matter what, players will always gravitate to the path of least resistance, this case being able to remove an entire potential threat from the entire world, other players. Which inherently lowers risk.vs reward as a whole.
PvE servers can work for certain games. Just not this one.
And I do agree that I wish Steven would have been able to clarify much more clearly the direction of the game. But im.not surprised changes are happening over the course of development. And a PvX game adjusting its PvP content is no less of a surprise.
I'm not suggesting that Ashes should have a PvE-Only server.
I said that if you tell someone who plays on PvE-Only servers that the reason not to have them is because the devs don't want to split the playerbase - that sounds bizarre because the playerbase is already split.
This is especially true if a signifcant amount of the devs are from EQ/EQ2 and that is mentioned as hype for the new game in development.
Liniker had a post yesterday that may have helped me understand why this disconnect in communication happens.
Players of L2 would immediately experience a PvE-Only servers as splitting the playerbase.
Players of EQ/EQ2/WoW will be confused by that because the playerbase is already split.
And it becomes even more confusing when the PvPers are saying, "But that's OK. Come play with us anyway. The only players who won't like playing with us will be those who never want to PvP at all."
That's something that Steven says as well.
On the EQNext servers, the quickest way for people to get temp banned would be to have someone from the PvP servers offer a suggestion for how to make PvEers (people who play on the PvE-Only servers) comfortable playing with PvPers, "PvPers aren't all griefers. We have anti-griefers who will protect you."
And the PvEers (people who play on the PvE-Only servers) would flip their lids and start flaming. Obviously, if that were a viable solution, players would already be playing on the PvP servers and their wouldn't be a need for PvE-Only servers.
Also, speaking to Liniker while he was on the Ashen Forge, I realized that PvPers often frame the desire to play on on PvE-Only servers as - "You don't have to be afraid of ganking. Yes, we understand that it feels bad when there is a Level disparity or when you suck at PvP. Anti-Griefers will protect you."
Which again sounds bizarre because none of that is truly the issue.
And then we move into the primary issue - but it kind of never reaches the logical conclusion - at least not in any proper way.
The primary issue - I'm pretty sure - is that players who abhor non-consensual PvP are never going to want to play on the same servers as gamers who believe in auto-consent. Many of the people who abhor non-consensual PvP actually enjoy consensual PvP. They don't fall into the group of players who never want to PvP at all. But, they also will be offended by any suggestions of compromise that stem from an auto-consent perspective.
"Oh, if you just play with us... you will probably learn to like playing with PvPers because we aren't all gankers."
But, ganking isn't the real issue. "Fear of PK (especially not level disparity PK)" is not the real issue.
I'm never going to choose to play on the same servers as gamers who believe in auto-consent the moment you login into the game.
Objective based PvP if fun, I'll fight if there is a purpose. Otherwise it's just annoying or boring.
Although I still plan to give the game a chance, maybe the corruption system will keep that "non-consensual" PvP to a minimum. If it doesn't though, I worry the game won't keep a very huge following.
I think my Bartle score is a good indicator of why auto-consent, Corruption-Free FFA PvP on the Open Seas is a dealbreaker for me.
Players who are OK with not exploring the entire map might very well find that, on the Mainland, Corruption adequately punishes non-consensual PvP to their satisfaction - especially for those gamers who play Lineage II.
I'm confident that Corruption will be tuned very well for the comfort of gamers who play EvE Online, ArcheAge and Lineage II. Steven thinks Corruption will feel a bit harsher than Karma in Lineage II.
So...if the punishment(s) for non-consensual PvP were sufficient for you in Lineage II, it should be sufficient for you in Ashes. At least, on the Mainland.
My point is that it is your choice to play a game that has pvp in it or not. It is your choice to move on or not. You may say you are here to help and support development but all I hear from you is negative nancy BS. If you where here to help you would not be a lifedraining force on the forums that sucks all the energy out of the room.
I hope Intrepid will open a window for PVE players able to explore open sea, for example: through religion player can learn an ability that player can use before entering open sea. The ability gives player a buff that protects player(for example apply corruption systme on the player and who attack that player.) while you exploring open sea for a amount of time with a long CD time.
Maybe the religion can also enhance corruption system on mainland, for eample: Lower the death penalty when you die as green and gives extra corruption points and higher death penalty to player who killed you. But if you initiate a fight on other players no matter what color that player is you instantly become a red player.
Basically for PVE players who really don't want PVP. But I don't know how will religions really affect gameplays so I not sure it's a good idea or not.
I'll always offer to help players who are reluctant or new to pvp. I won't say they need to play a pvp or pvx game, nor expect them to. All I ask is that they don't attempt to divert a PvX or PvP game from being what they are. The population split more or less comes from "path of least resistance" which would absolutely peel players away from more difficult (pvp/pvx) servers of the same game. It's how MMORPG gamers are wired. I witnessed an entire PvP guild in WoW opt-out of PvP because it was more efficient to level and gear that way, and then later once they acquired all of their gear they'd roam by themselves in war mode because everyone else was doing the same process while leveling.
To me the only real solution is you either make a PvP/PvX game, or you make a PvE game. You can have instanced PvP on a PvE server such as arenas and battlegrounds, but those communities are usually pitiful. And you can't make PvP optional on a PvP or PvX server without unintentionally turning it into a PvE server.
Lots of angst over PVP on here.
At this point, Steven needs to stick to his guns and forge ahead on the direction he's chosen.
Moar PvP. Moar Risk v Reward.
I'm not asking for any changes to the design.
We all want the game to release before 2030.
@Liniker
These are what we in the industry call "smart people".
They play genres better suited to PvP to get their PvP fix, and a genre specifically designed for cooperative play that isn't well suited to PvP for their PvE fix.
I wish everyone would take lessons from these top ranked players you know.
And then there is that 3rd category who doesn't want separated servers and you don't understand why.
You identity yourselves as either PvP or PvE players and you put the PvX into full PvP.
You also call games which want to be PvX as PvP because you cannot feel the difference.
If your server had it's population cap, why would you care if there is another server with a different type of player?
The only actual reason I can think of is that these people might not want different servers because they are concerned that the other server type may prove more popular than the one they want - I can't think of any other reasons (which is why I am asking).
One category of players was mentioned by
Because here Boneshatter refers to them as PvP-ers, I see them also on the PvP side.
The motivation of these people could be fear that the development budget will be used more for PvE because that might be more popular.
But there are players who want both PvE and PvP and who do not consider themselves PvPers, at least not hardcore PvPers. These would prefer to have servers with both PvP and PvE.
This PvX environment might push away both extremes but would retain more PvEers than it would if some players could choose either PvP or PvE.
Now you can say that the PvP servers are actually PvX because the game has the PvE part too, but the comunity is actually not, because gets more people biased toward PvP and fewer toward PvE.
@Noaani what are you on about? just because you don't like pvp in MMOs don't talk like you represent other players
all these people I mentioned and myself, are literally waiting for AoC because we wan't a decent MMORPG with pvp content like we had back in the day, that's literally the point lol
people that prefer PvP MMORPGs are stuck playing PVE games because there isn't any good PVP mmo, just old and p2w games, or isometric like albion, and we don't want that
This made me LOL in real life.
I don't think there is a 3rd category.
I think you basically tried to restate what I stated but did a poor job of it on several levels.
I want to say that the stick has a middle too.
Exactly, with a slider.
Either you will be willing to play on a PvP server or you won't.
I sympathize in this regard. My only counterpoint is that the minute someone starts declaring ultimatums and absolutes, they are limiting themselves