If you want a more PVP oriented game, BDO, WoW with PVP server. Crowfall, Eve, Mortal, Albion,New World. Are all more PVP oriented then Ashes. They all offer incentives to PVP in the open world or offer 0 penalty for killing players. BDO has much lesser penalties then AoC.
I don't agree that they are more PvP-oriented than the current Ashes design.
Especially not New World - I always have PvP turned off.
Same for when I play BDO.
I have never encountered PvP in those games.
PvX is simply a term that says it's designed with a number of at play styles in mind rather then prioritizing one over another. In AoC they are trying to intertwine them. You are getting caught up in the Open World PVP part but missing the entire point and seem to have blinders on. The open world isnt for PVP it's to add risk to adventure. Risk vs Reward. Why do you think the penalties are so harsh, harsher then any other MMO with the criminal system? It's a pretty important distinction.
I disagree. PvX - as Steven uses the term - seems to be Lineage II with a more symbiotic relationship between PvP and PvE.
And... I would already consider Lineage II to be a PvP-centric MMORPG. Just as I consider EvE to be a PvP-centric MMORPG.
So... again... PvX has little-to-no meaning.
But... we don't even agree on which MMORPGs are PvP MMORPGs, so... it's unlikely we will agree on what a PvX MMORPG is.
2
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I think there are more PvE than PvP players on the market. And people leave games where they do not feel competent and others keep killing them.
To bring PvEers into an environment they cannot survive will not retain them long. But they'll not join in the 1st place, especially if they hear the game is PvP or PvX.
I mean... PvPers seem to always present the issue as not being competent or being killed by other players.
I don't care who wins the non-consensual PvP encounter. I'm still going to be pissed off that I had to PvP when I was not in the mood to PvP - even if I win the battle.
Has nothing to do with whether or not I can survive the PvP encounter.
I'm not going to play an MMORPG that is too PvP-centric.
I might play a game that is "PvX". Depends on what is meant by PvX.
On ESO we had different traits of armor for pve and pvp, and the game, if optimized correctly would have been balanced separately with both rulesets in mind. In instanced based areas it functions as a completely different game.
My belief as to what pvx is has always been an environment where pvp and pve can happen simultaneously. New world can have this if you toggle on for pvp. ESO has this in imperial city and Cyrodiil. Ashes will seemingly have this everywhere but the instanced based content they are creating.
Most players in any game aren't specifically PVP or PVE focused, but those players are the loudest from my experience. I don't think anyone's definition is wrong, but I am personally looking forward to an environment where polar opposites aren't yelling at the other side in an MMO because it's designed for all encounters.
tl;dr It will be nice to discuss the game as a whole without having to apply a moniker to the specific avenue of the game you're enjoying. It's just the game.
You make it sound as though any pvp brushing against you when you're not in the mood is a disgusting thing.
By logging in you're consenting to pvp. If you don't feel like pvp, play another game and come back when you do.
The overarching theme of risk is going to always be there, you could log in and transport a caravan and not see another player. Or it could be the complete opposite and you lose your caravan to an ambush and then go out to gather more supplies and get shived by a rogue hiding in a bush. And then when you go to do a quest and recover your XP debt die again to some unrelated angry necromancer.
You'll just never know when or if it will happen. The risk is always there.
It is very much a pvp game. Anyone who can not deal with pvp at all, shouldn't play aoc.
"Who cannot deal with PVP at all" People are not binary. There's a spectrum of players on multiple levels. Yea, if you hate PVP on any level AoC is definitely not for you. Doesn't make it a PVP game. Why does it have to be PVP or PVE? Are people not more complicated then two acronyms?
That's not the point. PVP is part of the experience, so as long as you hate pvp it's simply not a game for you. For aoc you have to be open to both. Just wanting PVE without pvp is binary
It is very much a pvp game. Anyone who can not deal with pvp at all, shouldn't play aoc.
"Who cannot deal with PVP at all" People are not binary. There's a spectrum of players on multiple levels. Yea, if you hate PVP on any level AoC is definitely not for you. Doesn't make it a PVP game. Why does it have to be PVP or PVE? Are people not more complicated then two acronyms?
That's not the point. PVP is part of the experience, so as long as you hate pvp it's simply not a game for you. For aoc you have to be open to both. Just wanting PVE without pvp is binary
How can you say it's not the point and then say the same thing he said?
Maybe we are just watching/reading different content. To be fair Theory forge is included in that, you 3 and your guests talk a lot about those 3 topics fairly frequently. Maybe I am watching you guys too much? Is that possible?
All three were of our recent guests have been curious about why I suddenly switched to not being interested in playing Ashes.
Seems like people who have not been around since Kickstarter and our first interviews with Steven are oblivious to the recent changes in the game design and the recent focus on Risk v Reward and the value of adrenaline rush rather than talking about Meaningful Conflict.
So…they ask… and we explain how things have changed.
That is different than us asking why the game now has The Open Seas or why there is now an obsession with Risk v Reward.
.
What do you mean by recent? I've been into ashes since 2020 and have seen a lot of risk vs reward discussions.
I think there are more PvE than PvP players on the market. And people leave games where they do not feel competent and others keep killing them.
To bring PvEers into an environment they cannot survive will not retain them long. But they'll not join in the 1st place, especially if they hear the game is PvP or PvX.
I mean... PvPers seem to always present the issue as not being competent or being killed by other players.
I don't care who wins the non-consensual PvP encounter. I'm still going to be pissed off that I had to PvP when I was not in the mood to PvP - even if I win the battle.
Has nothing to do with whether or not I can survive the PvP encounter.
I'm not going to play an MMORPG that is too PvP-centric.
I might play a game that is "PvX". Depends on what is meant by PvX.
I am not sure of your gaming experience but I just think in this Case you might want to see how it plays. I am sure you will be around for Alpha 2 in which case you can make a better judgement call on what game play will look like as far as how the PVP parts of this game will affect you.
Do you think that occasionally being attacked like let's say....once a week would deter you from playing? Or is that an acceptable level? Add danger to adventuring while not having too much of a negative impact.
I could definitely be wrong and there could be a ton of open world PVP because the penalties aren't severe enough or people won't care. I just think by design and currently going Red will be detrimental enough and with all the extra content of other forms of PVP that it won't make a lot of sense to open world PVP unless someone pisses you off or to create conflict on high reward objectives.
It is very much a pvp game. Anyone who can not deal with pvp at all, shouldn't play aoc.
"Who cannot deal with PVP at all" People are not binary. There's a spectrum of players on multiple levels. Yea, if you hate PVP on any level AoC is definitely not for you. Doesn't make it a PVP game. Why does it have to be PVP or PVE? Are people not more complicated then two acronyms?
That's not the point. PVP is part of the experience, so as long as you hate pvp it's simply not a game for you. For aoc you have to be open to both. Just wanting PVE without pvp is binary
How can you say it's not the point and then say the same thing he said?
Maybe we are just watching/reading different content. To be fair Theory forge is included in that, you 3 and your guests talk a lot about those 3 topics fairly frequently. Maybe I am watching you guys too much? Is that possible?
All three were of our recent guests have been curious about why I suddenly switched to not being interested in playing Ashes.
Seems like people who have not been around since Kickstarter and our first interviews with Steven are oblivious to the recent changes in the game design and the recent focus on Risk v Reward and the value of adrenaline rush rather than talking about Meaningful Conflict.
So…they ask… and we explain how things have changed.
That is different than us asking why the game now has The Open Seas or why there is now an obsession with Risk v Reward.
.
What do you mean by recent? I've been into ashes since 2020 and have seen a lot of risk vs reward discussions.
Yeah I disagree with Dygz too.... doesn't seem to me that his vision of the game has changed. Making Naval basically full PVP doesn't change it. It's a massive amount of water and you can run away. So I bet with internal play tests they just found there would be very little interaction, something of that sort is my guess.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
You make it sound as though any pvp brushing against you when you're not in the mood is a disgusting thing.
I don't make it sound that way. That may be what you add in your own head to what I've actually said.
It is true that I find non-consensual PvP to be repugnant. Which is why it should at least be punished with Corruption. As it is on the Mainland.
By logging in you're consenting to pvp. If you don't feel like pvp, play another game and come back when you do.
This is one of the primary contentions between gamers who play MMORPGs on PvP servers and players who play MMORPGs on PvE-Only servers.
It's why players who play on PvE-Only servers want to know first, why they would want to play on the same servers as PvPers.
Because the issue for PvPers is PK griefing, while the issue for players who won't play on PvP servers is non-consensual PvP.
And it's unlikely that devs can get players concerned about non-consensual PvP to play on the same servers as gamers who don't respect the concept of non-consensual PvP.
So... you are correct... the moment The Open Seas was added as a permanent zone with auto-consent (Corruption-free) FFA PvP, Ashes became a game I am no longer interested to play.
The overarching theme of risk is going to always be there, you could log in and transport a caravan and not see another player. Or it could be the complete opposite and you lose your caravan to an ambush and then go out to gather more supplies and get shived by a rogue hiding in a bush. And then when you go to do a quest and recover your XP debt die again to some unrelated angry necromancer.
Again, though... why is risk only associated with PvP?
Caravans should have plenty of risk that does not come from conflict with other players.
I have no issues with Caravans because a Caravan is not a permanent zone with FFA PvP.
Caravans, inherently, are PvP objectives. And I enjoy objective-based PvP. Especially when I can choose when to have PvP encounters. Which is the case for Ashes.
I don't know why you broached this as an example of something I have any issue with.
My issue with Steven's new obsession with Risk v Reward and PvP/PvX is his desire for us to be contemplating Economic Warfare whenever we are choosing which type of bag to bring with us to pick some flowers.
I enjoy cake sometimes.
If I go to a wedding, I expect that there will be cake. I expect that I will eat some cake.
One might also say that agreeing to go to a wedding means I auto-consent to eating a slice of wedding cake. I am OK with all of that.
When I have had my fill of eating cake, I am fine with other people enjoying cake around me.
I am not OK with other people forcing me to eat cake when I decline to eat a piece of cake. Especially so after I have already had a piece of cake.
I'm not going to go to a wedding where people are forced to eat cake when they are not in the mood to eat cake.
And, I'm also going to be reluctant to go to wedding where every single activity is somehow symbiotically tied to being forced to eat cake. If I go to the dance floor, I need to be thinking about how that is going to affect the possibility of me being forced to eat cake. If I go to the drink bar, I have to contemplate how that's going to affect the possibility of me being forced to eat cake. If I check out the room with all the gifts, I have to contemplate how that's going to affect the possibility of me being forced to eat cake.
And, yes, I find non-consensual cake eating to be repugnant.
I'm not going to go to wedding like that.
And... I'm not going to play an MMORPG with auto-consent PvP.
So, I think... at the end of the day... we agree.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
That's not the point. PVP is part of the experience, so as long as you hate pvp it's simply not a game for you. For aoc you have to be open to both. Just wanting PVE without pvp is binary
Yeah. So... who here said they hate PvP?
Who here said that they want PvE without PvP?
I am not aware of anyone who has been on these forums for more than 4 months not being open to both PvP and PvE.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
tl;dr It will be nice to discuss the game as a whole without having to apply a moniker to the specific avenue of the game you're enjoying. It's just the game.
RPGs have different playstyles.
MMORPGs typically strive to support a variety of RPG playstyles, so...
There will always be categories of player styles - because that's what Humans love to do: categorize things.
If you want a more PVP oriented game, BDO, WoW with PVP server. Crowfall, Eve, Mortal, Albion,New World. Are all more PVP oriented then Ashes. They all offer incentives to PVP in the open world or offer 0 penalty for killing players. BDO has much lesser penalties then AoC.
I don't agree that they are more PvP-oriented than the current Ashes design.
Especially not New World - I always have PvP turned off.
Same for when I play BDO.
I have never encountered PvP in those games.
PvX is simply a term that says it's designed with a number of at play styles in mind rather then prioritizing one over another. In AoC they are trying to intertwine them. You are getting caught up in the Open World PVP part but missing the entire point and seem to have blinders on. The open world isnt for PVP it's to add risk to adventure. Risk vs Reward. Why do you think the penalties are so harsh, harsher then any other MMO with the criminal system? It's a pretty important distinction.
I disagree. PvX - as Steven uses the term - seems to be Lineage II with a more symbiotic relationship between PvP and PvE.
And... I would already consider Lineage II to be a PvP-centric MMORPG. Just as I consider EvE to be a PvP-centric MMORPG.
So... again... PvX has little-to-no meaning.
But... we don't even agree on which MMORPGs are PvP MMORPGs, so... it's unlikely we will agree on what a PvX MMORPG is.
New world is a stretch for sure but it's just the point that if you do PVP in that game there are 0 downsides and tons of rewards. It's a carrot on stick so I don't think it's that far off. I think it genuinely attracts PVP players and it's a better game with PVP on. BDO is definitely a PvE game too but just making a point that having severe penalties changes how players play as opposed to rewards.
L2 penalties were FAR less aggressive and it didn't have many other options. Just GvG I believe,it's completely changed now but Stephen clearly wanted to muddy the water a bit between the PVP and PVE design compared to L2 and push it closer to PVE. Not sure why else you would add way more penalties if that wasn't your goal.
PvX means just as much as PVP or PVE it's just a better representation of what the game is and will help new players coming in distinguish the difference between something like Eve or something like WoW. It's just plain accurate. Every other genre does the same thing why is it so hard to accept for MMOs?
tl;dr It will be nice to discuss the game as a whole without having to apply a moniker to the specific avenue of the game you're enjoying. It's just the game.
RPGs have different playstyles.
MMORPGs typically strive to support a variety of RPG playstyles, so...
There will always be categories of player styles - because that's what Humans love to do: categorize things.
Ofc they do. From my experience it's easier to have a conversation about a game when everyone is on the same page. Having the vast majority of the game fall under the same rule set just makes it easier for discussion, without automatically putting people in a bucket.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2023
It's just not applicable because we would not be having these specific discussions if it were possible for individuals to manually remain untouchable to PvP combat. The discussions in that case would revolve around how PvPers hate playing in the same space where they can't attack Non-Combatants.
New World attracts PvPers, perhaps. More importantly, it does not alienate PvEers. Because PvErs can do all the stuff they want to do in the game while completely ignoring PvP. Same with BDO.
L2 penalties may have been far less aggressive, but...
When I asked Steven to name some MMORPGs that are a murderbox - because he frequently said that Ashes is designed to not be a murderbox - he said he doesn't play MMORPG murderboxes, but L2 could sometimes be a murderbox in certain situations. Which is why Corruption is harsher than Karma.
The addition of the Open Seas overly compensates for the additional harshness of Corruption compared to Karma.
Also, I think the PvP/PvE relationship is intended to be more symbiotic in Ashes than it is reciprocal in L2?
I haven't played L2, so... L2 players will have to confirm that for me.
A symbiotic relationship would be too much PvP for me. Because I am rarely in the mood for PvP, so... I don't want to have to be thinking about PvP most of the time I play. That is too "PvP-centric" for me.
PvX could mean "just as much PvP as there is PvE".
That's what I understood it to mean for the first 5 years after Ashes Kickstarter.
Pax Dei might be PvX by that definition.
What Steven seems to mean by PvX is that, as much as possible, PvP and PvE are inextricably fused: a symbiotic relationship, rather than a reciprocal relationship.
The addition of the Open Seas makes Ashes like EvE to me. So, I would not be telling people that Ashes is not like EvE.
When I asked Steven to compare Ashes PvP to EvE PvP, he said that Ashes is different than EvE because EvE has zones with different PvP rules and Ashes only has one PvP ruleset across all zones.
A year ago, Steven negated that difference by adding the Open Seas as a permanent zone with (Corruption-free) FFA PvP.
I'm not sure what you consider to be the "MMO" genre.
An MMOFPS is inherently a PvP MMO.
RPGs foundationally are PvE. In 40+ years of playing D&D, I have only encountered PKing twice.
I play MMORPGs to experience the fun of playing RPGs cooperatively with masses of other players whenever I have time to play. And I play RPGs to RP in realms similar to those found in Fantasy novels, where the antagonists and opponents are NPCs.
Sure... competitive gamers love to have PvP in every genre of video game - including MMORPGs.
Just as many E-Sports gamers want to turn every genre of video game into E-SPorts - including MMORPGs.
All of that can be fine...
L2 is a great game for the gamers who love L2. EvE is a great game for the gamers who love EvE.
I think Ashes is going to be a great game for the gamers who love L2, EvE and ArcheAge.
But... those games are all too PvP-centric for me to play.
And, the moment a permanent zone with auto-flag, (Corruption-free) FFA PvP is added to the design, I place Ashes in the same category as L2, EvE and ArcheAge.
And, at that point, the PvX label becomes moot.
You make it sound as though any pvp brushing against you when you're not in the mood is a disgusting thing.
I don't make it sound that way. That may be what you add in your own head to what I've actually said.
It is true that I find non-consensual PvP to be repugnant. Which is why it should at least be punished with Corruption. As it is on the Mainland.
By logging in you're consenting to pvp. If you don't feel like pvp, play another game and come back when you do.
This is one of the primary contentions between gamers who play MMORPGs on PvP servers and players who play MMORPGs on PvE-Only servers.
It's why players who play on PvE-Only servers want to know first, why they would want to play on the same servers as PvPers.
Because the issue for PvPers is PK griefing, while the issue for players who won't play on PvP servers is non-consensual PvP.
And it's unlikely that devs can get players concerned about non-consensual PvP to play on the same servers as gamers who don't respect the concept of non-consensual PvP.
So... you are correct... the moment The Open Seas was added as a permanent zone with auto-consent (Corruption-free) FFA PvP, Ashes became a game I am no longer interested to play.
The overarching theme of risk is going to always be there, you could log in and transport a caravan and not see another player. Or it could be the complete opposite and you lose your caravan to an ambush and then go out to gather more supplies and get shived by a rogue hiding in a bush. And then when you go to do a quest and recover your XP debt die again to some unrelated angry necromancer.
Again, though... why is risk only associated with PvP?
Caravans should have plenty of risk that does not come from conflict with other players.
I have no issues with Caravans because a Caravan is not a permanent zone with FFA PvP.
Caravans, inherently, are PvP objectives. And I enjoy objective-based PvP. Especially when I can choose when to have PvP encounters. Which is the case for Ashes.
I don't know why you broached this as an example of something I have any issue with.
My issue with Steven's new obsession with Risk v Reward and PvP/PvX is his desire for us to be contemplating Economic Warfare whenever we are choosing which type of bag to bring with us to pick some flowers.
I enjoy cake sometimes.
If I go to a wedding, I expect that there will be cake. I expect that I will eat some cake.
One might also say that agreeing to go to a wedding means I auto-consent to eating a slice of wedding cake. I am OK with all of that.
When I have had my fill of eating cake, I am fine with other people enjoying cake around me.
I am not OK with other people forcing me to eat cake when I decline to eat a piece of cake. Especially so after I have already had a piece of cake.
I'm not going to go to a wedding where people are forced to eat cake when they are not in the mood to eat cake.
And, I'm also going to be reluctant to go to wedding where every single activity is somehow symbiotically tied to being forced to eat cake. If I go to the dance floor, I need to be thinking about how that is going to affect the possibility of me being forced to eat cake. If I go to the drink bar, I have to contemplate how that's going to affect the possibility of me being forced to eat cake. If I check out the room with all the gifts, I have to contemplate how that's going to affect the possibility of me being forced to eat cake.
And, yes, I find non-consensual cake eating to be repugnant.
I'm not going to go to wedding like that.
And... I'm not going to play an MMORPG with auto-consent PvP.
So, I think... at the end of the day... we agree.
Minus the cake thing this is why it's important to call it PVX.
To be fair I don't think I've really seen any conflict outside of PVP that matters. Maybe I am told the conflict by a story but socially generated conflict always seems to be better. Not sure what sort meaningful content you are referring to.
L2 penalties may have been far less aggressive, but...
When I asked Steven to name some MMORPGs that are a murderbox - because he frequently said that Ashes is designed to not be a murderbox - he said he doesn't play MMORPG murderboxes, but L2 could sometimes be a murderbox in certain situations. Which is why Corruption is harsher than Karma.
The addition of the Open Seas overly compensates for the additional harshness of Corruption compared to Karma.
Also, I think the PvP/PvE relationship is intended to be more symbiotic in Ashes than it is reciprocal in L2?
I haven't played L2, so... L2 players will have to confirm that for me.
A symbiotic relationship would be too much PvP for me. Because I am rarely in the mood for PvP, so... I don't want to have to be thinking about PvP most of the time I play. That is too "PvP-centric" for me.
PvX could mean "just as much PvP as there is PvE".
That's what I understood it to mean for the first 5 years after Ashes Kickstarter.
Pax Dei might be PvX by that definition.
What Steven seems to mean by PvX is that, as much as possible, PvP and PvE are inextricably fused: a symbiotic relationship, rather than a reciprocal relationship.
L2 definitely was more reciprocating PVP. Like UO the penalties were mostly minor deterrents and because there wasn't much else to do there was potential for murder box gameplay. Even with that setting though I played many many hours with very little PVP in the open world.(I quit once I started encountering the massive grind)Same with UO, the majority of the time it was barely any PVP. With such a harsher system and so many other options it's hard for me to accept that much PVP will generate out side all the consensual PVP.
The main reason I like a criminal system is I love reading books. In those booka with grand tales, the main character has to venture out and brave the scary world. It was dangerous and scary. I know that Steven is a DM and I feel like he just upgraded his DM level with the intent of creating a world where Stories will happen, not just gameplay.
PVX is any game that tends to create both PVP and PVE in a symbiotic relationship. It could be varying degrees but they aren't just stacking on a War Mode or a Battleground, or zones with PVP rules. It could be different break downs but I personally think that Steven has found a 50/50. The last part of how Steven views it definitely seems accurate. Maybe Lineage was 70/30.
In Voices of Verra someone in chat mentioned all players being KoS but I think once we hit alpha and they see how it works they will quickly change their minds. Hard to say with out actually playing it but if you kill another player and with in 10 minutes you are hunted down and killed and left with a 2 hour experience deficit after losing some actual gear well, there's only so many times a player will go down that road. Iwould like to try a few things in Alpha as far as PVP and a Corrupted guild but we will see.
I really just think it's important to categorize games properly for players. The more variety there is the more direction players will need. We Want players to play. They need categories to help them decide if they are interested in a game. We see metric shit ton of MMOs on the way too. So where as you have done an indepth review of the game, more so then most, the vast majority players will not. So if you think it being PvX is moot because there's too much PvP for you well that's just fine. For the players that don't though it should help them further distinguish what they are getting in to.
I agree with the post. The emptiness of other MMORPGs is astounding and I haven't really invested in a game since Warframe (before it was bought by the current company that owns it). There just lacks that spark of role-playing that games like Rust once had. However, PVP should exist.. It is worth discussing the criminal aspect of playing the game because as you said conflict in the world around you as a result of existence is necessary for peak immersion. As a criminal type myself, I would like to coordinate a heist on the local bank. I would like to go into a tavern and be that one bard who runs a bunch of people for their money. I enjoy the thought of being a villain in this game. The concept of having negative morality in AoC is necessary for full immersion. Without having the good as well as the bad from a player-on-player aspect, it lacks realism which makes the game feel fake. Without the bad, there is no good, without good, there is no bad. I just hope that this yin/yan aspect of the game is not only represented in the story of the game, but also seen everywhere in player-on-player interaction. I loved when you said, "When you see a player you ask yourself, who is that? what are they doing? what do they want? If they are corrupted, what do I do? Did they kill someone that pissed them off or are they just out to cause trouble? You have just entered into conflict simply by being there." This player-on-player interaction should include the idea that he may rob you, he may kill you, he may convince you to go on a mission where he double crosses you and you wouldn't have known that his criminal rating came from evil rather than defense from evil. It may very well be a feels bad should this nameles person be evil, but you as a player will certainly grow due to the encounter. That is something few other games have. In the end, I hope they don't scale back the villainy of players too much, but strike a good balance between having fun being a villain and just going around greefing.
To be fair I don't think I've really seen any conflict outside of PVP that matters.
So, dungeons, raiding, and open-world bosses aren't conflict, aren't meaningful, or neither meaningful or conflict?
What conflict happens in dungeons and raids? People arguing over DKP or need vs greed? Open World drama of who tagged the raid boss first?
Yeah. I definitely don't think I've ever experienced any worthwhile conflict unless it was just players being toxic because your gear score was too low.
I agree with the post. The emptiness of other MMORPGs is astounding and I haven't really invested in a game since Warframe (before it was bought by the current company that owns it). There just lacks that spark of role-playing that games like Rust once had. However, PVP should exist.. It is worth discussing the criminal aspect of playing the game because as you said conflict in the world around you as a result of existence is necessary for peak immersion. As a criminal type myself, I would like to coordinate a heist on the local bank. I would like to go into a tavern and be that one bard who runs a bunch of people for their money. I enjoy the thought of being a villain in this game. The concept of having negative morality in AoC is necessary for full immersion. Without having the good as well as the bad from a player-on-player aspect, it lacks realism which makes the game feel fake. Without the bad, there is no good, without good, there is no bad. I just hope that this yin/yan aspect of the game is not only represented in the story of the game, but also seen everywhere in player-on-player interaction. I loved when you said, "When you see a player you ask yourself, who is that? what are they doing? what do they want? If they are corrupted, what do I do? Did they kill someone that pissed them off or are they just out to cause trouble? You have just entered into conflict simply by being there." This player-on-player interaction should include the idea that he may rob you, he may kill you, he may convince you to go on a mission where he double crosses you and you wouldn't have known that his criminal rating came from evil rather than defense from evil. It may very well be a feels bad should this nameles person be evil, but you as a player will certainly grow due to the encounter. That is something few other games have. In the end, I hope they don't scale back the villainy of players too much, but strike a good balance between having fun being a villain and just going around greefing.
Hit the nail on the head. Can't have full immersion or Meaningful conflict with out Good Vs Bad.
Having rivals in game can be infuriating but it's not boring. Long as you can handle that there will be conflict it should be a good time
What conflict happens in dungeons and raids? People arguing over DKP or need vs greed? Open World drama of who tagged the raid boss first?
Yeah. I definitely don't think I've ever experienced any worthwhile conflict unless it was just players being toxic because your gear score was too low.
So the mmo dungeons, raids, and ow-boss content itself doesn't involve conflict. Are you sure?
I tried finding context for this "argument", but I feel like I've failed.
Are you sure you're talking about the same thing? Cause I feel like either you have a misunderstanding, or I'm completely misunderstanding what you're both talking about.
So the mmo dungeons, raids, and ow-boss content itself doesn't involve conflict. Are you sure?
Meaningful conflict? not that I have ever experienced. You can read a story about it and maybe that dungeon has a good story but it hardly creates much conflict for you.
What conflict happens in dungeons and raids? People arguing over DKP or need vs greed? Open World drama of who tagged the raid boss first?
Yeah. I definitely don't think I've ever experienced any worthwhile conflict unless it was just players being toxic because your gear score was too low.
So the mmo dungeons, raids, and ow-boss content itself doesn't involve conflict. Are you sure?
I tried finding context for this "argument", but I feel like I've failed.
Are you sure you're talking about the same thing? Cause I feel like either you have a misunderstanding, or I'm completely misunderstanding what you're both talking about.
I mentioned I don't think you can get meaningful conflict with out PVP. He is apparently trying to imply that there is? I am not sure yet.
I mentioned I don't think you can get meaningful conflict with out PVP. He is apparently trying to imply that there is? I am not sure yet.
Ok, yeah, if that's what Crow meant that I just misunderstood that part. And if that is the case then I'd say I agree with you. To me fighting mobs or doing quests is not conflict at all.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
To be fair I don't think I've really seen any conflict outside of PVP that matters. Maybe I am told the conflict by a story but socially generated conflict always seems to be better. Not sure what sort meaningful content you are referring to.
Maybe watch the Kickstarter video.
Ashes defines Meaningful Conflict as Sieges, Caravans, Node Wars and Guild Wars. Objective-based PvP.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I mentioned I don't think you can get meaningful conflict with out PVP. He is apparently trying to imply that there is? I am not sure yet.
I am not implying anything of the sort. You are misinferring. Perhaps because you think I hate PvP?
Meaningful Conflict - as defined by the Ashes devs - is Sieges, Caravans, Node Wars and Guild Wars:
Objective-based PvP.
I am not implying anything of the sort. You are misinferring. Perhaps because you think I hate PvP?
Meaningful Conflict - as defined by the Ashes devs - is Sieges, Caravans, Node Wars and Guild Wars:
Objective-based PvP.
Comments
Especially not New World - I always have PvP turned off.
Same for when I play BDO.
I have never encountered PvP in those games.
I disagree. PvX - as Steven uses the term - seems to be Lineage II with a more symbiotic relationship between PvP and PvE.
And... I would already consider Lineage II to be a PvP-centric MMORPG. Just as I consider EvE to be a PvP-centric MMORPG.
So... again... PvX has little-to-no meaning.
But... we don't even agree on which MMORPGs are PvP MMORPGs, so... it's unlikely we will agree on what a PvX MMORPG is.
I don't care who wins the non-consensual PvP encounter. I'm still going to be pissed off that I had to PvP when I was not in the mood to PvP - even if I win the battle.
Has nothing to do with whether or not I can survive the PvP encounter.
I'm not going to play an MMORPG that is too PvP-centric.
I might play a game that is "PvX". Depends on what is meant by PvX.
My belief as to what pvx is has always been an environment where pvp and pve can happen simultaneously. New world can have this if you toggle on for pvp. ESO has this in imperial city and Cyrodiil. Ashes will seemingly have this everywhere but the instanced based content they are creating.
Most players in any game aren't specifically PVP or PVE focused, but those players are the loudest from my experience. I don't think anyone's definition is wrong, but I am personally looking forward to an environment where polar opposites aren't yelling at the other side in an MMO because it's designed for all encounters.
tl;dr It will be nice to discuss the game as a whole without having to apply a moniker to the specific avenue of the game you're enjoying. It's just the game.
You make it sound as though any pvp brushing against you when you're not in the mood is a disgusting thing.
By logging in you're consenting to pvp. If you don't feel like pvp, play another game and come back when you do.
The overarching theme of risk is going to always be there, you could log in and transport a caravan and not see another player. Or it could be the complete opposite and you lose your caravan to an ambush and then go out to gather more supplies and get shived by a rogue hiding in a bush. And then when you go to do a quest and recover your XP debt die again to some unrelated angry necromancer.
You'll just never know when or if it will happen. The risk is always there.
That's not the point. PVP is part of the experience, so as long as you hate pvp it's simply not a game for you. For aoc you have to be open to both. Just wanting PVE without pvp is binary
How can you say it's not the point and then say the same thing he said?
What do you mean by recent? I've been into ashes since 2020 and have seen a lot of risk vs reward discussions.
I am not sure of your gaming experience but I just think in this Case you might want to see how it plays. I am sure you will be around for Alpha 2 in which case you can make a better judgement call on what game play will look like as far as how the PVP parts of this game will affect you.
Do you think that occasionally being attacked like let's say....once a week would deter you from playing? Or is that an acceptable level? Add danger to adventuring while not having too much of a negative impact.
I could definitely be wrong and there could be a ton of open world PVP because the penalties aren't severe enough or people won't care. I just think by design and currently going Red will be detrimental enough and with all the extra content of other forms of PVP that it won't make a lot of sense to open world PVP unless someone pisses you off or to create conflict on high reward objectives.
That was my initial point.
Yeah I disagree with Dygz too.... doesn't seem to me that his vision of the game has changed. Making Naval basically full PVP doesn't change it. It's a massive amount of water and you can run away. So I bet with internal play tests they just found there would be very little interaction, something of that sort is my guess.
It is true that I find non-consensual PvP to be repugnant. Which is why it should at least be punished with Corruption. As it is on the Mainland.
This is one of the primary contentions between gamers who play MMORPGs on PvP servers and players who play MMORPGs on PvE-Only servers.
It's why players who play on PvE-Only servers want to know first, why they would want to play on the same servers as PvPers.
Because the issue for PvPers is PK griefing, while the issue for players who won't play on PvP servers is non-consensual PvP.
And it's unlikely that devs can get players concerned about non-consensual PvP to play on the same servers as gamers who don't respect the concept of non-consensual PvP.
So... you are correct... the moment The Open Seas was added as a permanent zone with auto-consent (Corruption-free) FFA PvP, Ashes became a game I am no longer interested to play.
Again, though... why is risk only associated with PvP?
Caravans should have plenty of risk that does not come from conflict with other players.
I have no issues with Caravans because a Caravan is not a permanent zone with FFA PvP.
Caravans, inherently, are PvP objectives. And I enjoy objective-based PvP. Especially when I can choose when to have PvP encounters. Which is the case for Ashes.
I don't know why you broached this as an example of something I have any issue with.
My issue with Steven's new obsession with Risk v Reward and PvP/PvX is his desire for us to be contemplating Economic Warfare whenever we are choosing which type of bag to bring with us to pick some flowers.
I enjoy cake sometimes.
If I go to a wedding, I expect that there will be cake. I expect that I will eat some cake.
One might also say that agreeing to go to a wedding means I auto-consent to eating a slice of wedding cake. I am OK with all of that.
When I have had my fill of eating cake, I am fine with other people enjoying cake around me.
I am not OK with other people forcing me to eat cake when I decline to eat a piece of cake. Especially so after I have already had a piece of cake.
I'm not going to go to a wedding where people are forced to eat cake when they are not in the mood to eat cake.
And, I'm also going to be reluctant to go to wedding where every single activity is somehow symbiotically tied to being forced to eat cake. If I go to the dance floor, I need to be thinking about how that is going to affect the possibility of me being forced to eat cake. If I go to the drink bar, I have to contemplate how that's going to affect the possibility of me being forced to eat cake. If I check out the room with all the gifts, I have to contemplate how that's going to affect the possibility of me being forced to eat cake.
And, yes, I find non-consensual cake eating to be repugnant.
I'm not going to go to wedding like that.
And... I'm not going to play an MMORPG with auto-consent PvP.
So, I think... at the end of the day... we agree.
Who here said that they want PvE without PvP?
I am not aware of anyone who has been on these forums for more than 4 months not being open to both PvP and PvE.
MMORPGs typically strive to support a variety of RPG playstyles, so...
There will always be categories of player styles - because that's what Humans love to do: categorize things.
New world is a stretch for sure but it's just the point that if you do PVP in that game there are 0 downsides and tons of rewards. It's a carrot on stick so I don't think it's that far off. I think it genuinely attracts PVP players and it's a better game with PVP on. BDO is definitely a PvE game too but just making a point that having severe penalties changes how players play as opposed to rewards.
L2 penalties were FAR less aggressive and it didn't have many other options. Just GvG I believe,it's completely changed now but Stephen clearly wanted to muddy the water a bit between the PVP and PVE design compared to L2 and push it closer to PVE. Not sure why else you would add way more penalties if that wasn't your goal.
PvX means just as much as PVP or PVE it's just a better representation of what the game is and will help new players coming in distinguish the difference between something like Eve or something like WoW. It's just plain accurate. Every other genre does the same thing why is it so hard to accept for MMOs?
Ofc they do. From my experience it's easier to have a conversation about a game when everyone is on the same page. Having the vast majority of the game fall under the same rule set just makes it easier for discussion, without automatically putting people in a bucket.
New World attracts PvPers, perhaps. More importantly, it does not alienate PvEers. Because PvErs can do all the stuff they want to do in the game while completely ignoring PvP. Same with BDO.
L2 penalties may have been far less aggressive, but...
When I asked Steven to name some MMORPGs that are a murderbox - because he frequently said that Ashes is designed to not be a murderbox - he said he doesn't play MMORPG murderboxes, but L2 could sometimes be a murderbox in certain situations. Which is why Corruption is harsher than Karma.
The addition of the Open Seas overly compensates for the additional harshness of Corruption compared to Karma.
Also, I think the PvP/PvE relationship is intended to be more symbiotic in Ashes than it is reciprocal in L2?
I haven't played L2, so... L2 players will have to confirm that for me.
A symbiotic relationship would be too much PvP for me. Because I am rarely in the mood for PvP, so... I don't want to have to be thinking about PvP most of the time I play. That is too "PvP-centric" for me.
PvX could mean "just as much PvP as there is PvE".
That's what I understood it to mean for the first 5 years after Ashes Kickstarter.
Pax Dei might be PvX by that definition.
What Steven seems to mean by PvX is that, as much as possible, PvP and PvE are inextricably fused: a symbiotic relationship, rather than a reciprocal relationship.
The addition of the Open Seas makes Ashes like EvE to me. So, I would not be telling people that Ashes is not like EvE.
When I asked Steven to compare Ashes PvP to EvE PvP, he said that Ashes is different than EvE because EvE has zones with different PvP rules and Ashes only has one PvP ruleset across all zones.
A year ago, Steven negated that difference by adding the Open Seas as a permanent zone with (Corruption-free) FFA PvP.
I'm not sure what you consider to be the "MMO" genre.
An MMOFPS is inherently a PvP MMO.
RPGs foundationally are PvE. In 40+ years of playing D&D, I have only encountered PKing twice.
I play MMORPGs to experience the fun of playing RPGs cooperatively with masses of other players whenever I have time to play. And I play RPGs to RP in realms similar to those found in Fantasy novels, where the antagonists and opponents are NPCs.
Sure... competitive gamers love to have PvP in every genre of video game - including MMORPGs.
Just as many E-Sports gamers want to turn every genre of video game into E-SPorts - including MMORPGs.
All of that can be fine...
L2 is a great game for the gamers who love L2. EvE is a great game for the gamers who love EvE.
I think Ashes is going to be a great game for the gamers who love L2, EvE and ArcheAge.
But... those games are all too PvP-centric for me to play.
And, the moment a permanent zone with auto-flag, (Corruption-free) FFA PvP is added to the design, I place Ashes in the same category as L2, EvE and ArcheAge.
And, at that point, the PvX label becomes moot.
Minus the cake thing this is why it's important to call it PVX.
To be fair I don't think I've really seen any conflict outside of PVP that matters. Maybe I am told the conflict by a story but socially generated conflict always seems to be better. Not sure what sort meaningful content you are referring to.
So, dungeons, raiding, and open-world bosses aren't conflict, aren't meaningful, or neither meaningful or conflict?
L2 definitely was more reciprocating PVP. Like UO the penalties were mostly minor deterrents and because there wasn't much else to do there was potential for murder box gameplay. Even with that setting though I played many many hours with very little PVP in the open world.(I quit once I started encountering the massive grind)Same with UO, the majority of the time it was barely any PVP. With such a harsher system and so many other options it's hard for me to accept that much PVP will generate out side all the consensual PVP.
The main reason I like a criminal system is I love reading books. In those booka with grand tales, the main character has to venture out and brave the scary world. It was dangerous and scary. I know that Steven is a DM and I feel like he just upgraded his DM level with the intent of creating a world where Stories will happen, not just gameplay.
PVX is any game that tends to create both PVP and PVE in a symbiotic relationship. It could be varying degrees but they aren't just stacking on a War Mode or a Battleground, or zones with PVP rules. It could be different break downs but I personally think that Steven has found a 50/50. The last part of how Steven views it definitely seems accurate. Maybe Lineage was 70/30.
In Voices of Verra someone in chat mentioned all players being KoS but I think once we hit alpha and they see how it works they will quickly change their minds. Hard to say with out actually playing it but if you kill another player and with in 10 minutes you are hunted down and killed and left with a 2 hour experience deficit after losing some actual gear well, there's only so many times a player will go down that road. Iwould like to try a few things in Alpha as far as PVP and a Corrupted guild but we will see.
I really just think it's important to categorize games properly for players. The more variety there is the more direction players will need. We Want players to play. They need categories to help them decide if they are interested in a game. We see metric shit ton of MMOs on the way too. So where as you have done an indepth review of the game, more so then most, the vast majority players will not. So if you think it being PvX is moot because there's too much PvP for you well that's just fine. For the players that don't though it should help them further distinguish what they are getting in to.
What conflict happens in dungeons and raids? People arguing over DKP or need vs greed? Open World drama of who tagged the raid boss first?
Yeah. I definitely don't think I've ever experienced any worthwhile conflict unless it was just players being toxic because your gear score was too low.
Yeah not interested in that type of conflict.
Hit the nail on the head. Can't have full immersion or Meaningful conflict with out Good Vs Bad.
Having rivals in game can be infuriating but it's not boring. Long as you can handle that there will be conflict it should be a good time
Are you sure you're talking about the same thing? Cause I feel like either you have a misunderstanding, or I'm completely misunderstanding what you're both talking about.
Meaningful conflict? not that I have ever experienced. You can read a story about it and maybe that dungeon has a good story but it hardly creates much conflict for you.
I mentioned I don't think you can get meaningful conflict with out PVP. He is apparently trying to imply that there is? I am not sure yet.
Maybe watch the Kickstarter video.
Ashes defines Meaningful Conflict as Sieges, Caravans, Node Wars and Guild Wars. Objective-based PvP.
Meaningful Conflict - as defined by the Ashes devs - is Sieges, Caravans, Node Wars and Guild Wars:
Objective-based PvP.