Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
The topic however, is about PvE Raiders, moreso than PvX Raiders, so I just wanted to do what I could to help you understand why 'PvE Raiders' might not have much stamina for this game.
And, to help you understand the imbalance somewhat. If the lockout was a thing, I would consider it 'equal PvX', if they also made sure Arenas had no rewards or only rewarded with bits of progression, like instances (maybe for your Social Org, but people would cheese it if it wasn't something that players explicitly needed to compete over).
Similarly, if more instances become a thing (probably BCNM style, where you just occasionally get to unlock an instance of your choice after enough time doing open world things) there are forms in which I'd consider that 'equal' PvX.
And I wouldn't expect PvPMains to play for long, or PvEMains to play for long.
But I will also say that if you wanted to ease either group into it, then 'Hierarchical Content' and making sure they have nothing like the 'Lockout Title', would be best.
I can hope, but I'm not expecting it. TL doesn't require you to do anything to fight Guild Bosses, you just have a weekly limit. Not much related flows there.
I'd take BCNM/KSNM in Ashes anytime, even if it took twice as long as it generally takes in FFXI to gather enough Seals to get access to an instance that no one can keep you (and your chosen comrades) out of. Note, I mean this as 'I think this is a good support system for PvEMain players'. I don't personally care about it, as I don't think I can define myself as PvPMain or PvEMain.
Other people define that for me by being stronger than I am, in games, because those are the types of game I play. When the strong say 'you are not allowed to play this part of the game', I play the other. When both halves are cut off, I eventually probably play something else.
Similar to how everyone who says there are only 8 Classes will continue to say there are only 8 Classes despite Steven calling them Primary Archetypes and that, for Ashes, Class refers to the combo of Primary Archetype and Secondary Archetype.
The label is mostly irrelevant.
It's semantics. And the people who say that Ashes is a PvP MMORPG are going to ignore the PvX label.
(Rightfully so. It's the equivalent of playing on a PvP or PvP-Optional server in an MMORPG that has separate PvP and PvE-Only servers.)
I simply said I want the game to follow the original Scope, that's it, PvP arenas were in, PvE arenas weren't, and since both are not core features I don't want them to add a non-core feature to a game that was supposed to launch before 2020, besides those that were originally promised.
If they do add PVE arenas in the future, post-launch, I'd be ok with that. I know theres people that would like some form of repeatable instanced PvE content, as I said boss arenas or tower with multiple difficulty levels would be fine (post-launch) as long as it follows the same reward rules as PvP arenas.
I get that wit the pvping as you are pveing and it being enjoying and exciting. People looking for pure pve won't understand that.
The PvE has always been bad in those types of games though, basic and not challenging. It is one of the reasons I'm looking forward to AoC because the idea of actual good pve being in-game with work put into it. From basic mobs, to bosses to raiding of course.
Of course it is.
Again, that is why I have been pointing out what is needed to get more PvE oriented players to look at this game - it isnt gir Intrepids benefit or anything. It is so people wanting things like "access to content" know that if this is not in the game, it is simply because Steven doesn't want them playing his game.
As usual this is my issue, disingenuous and manipulative take in order to try to use others to push what he personally wants.
A game being designed in a certain way isn't someone say you don't want them playing your game. You are literarily trying to use this as a disingenuous point to try to paint someone in a bad light to stroke flames.
Using this same argument palworld doesn't have pvp so pvpers aren't interested in the game, Devil may cry is a action adventure game so developers don't want roleplayers playing their game. Its a point that makes 0 sense besides to throw passive aggressive comments.
There is no quote out there saying for people not to play the game, that doesn't mean things aren't going to be designed a certain way based on the type of game. Not everyone enjoys everything but it doesn't mean dev's are saying don't play my game.
You are taking your personal issue and projecting.
The good thing about it is it ties together PvE and PvP players because if a dungeon is being kept by a guild, you can ask another PvP guild to help you beat it in return for some of the loot from the dungeon. I think this creates nice and immersive interactions between the player base.
To combat griefers, you could double or triple the death penalties for red players inside the dungeon. Alternatively, make a red player's gear drop inside a dungeon when killed. This way, griefing is possible, but you're going to be the prime target for every PvP guild in the area.
I think it's going to be fun for players who want to PvP, for players who want to do PvE, for players who want to gather and craft, for players who want to trade, and for players who just want to explore the lore and story. I'm a PvP player myself, and I don't see myself sitting in a corner in some dungeon waiting for PvE players to grief. I'm going to try to help PvE players, gatherers, crafters, and traders because that's what's going to help me get the materials and gear I need to be the most effective in PvP, and I think that's how most PvP players and guilds are going to approach it.
If you make the different player groups dependent on each other, then I don't see any big problems with griefing because if you do, you fall behind. If you fall behind and nobody likes you, it's not going to be fun. Sure, there are going to be griefers locally in some less inhabited places, but I think that's actually kind of cool, like real bandits. However, the places where the big dungeons are will be high-level nodes with many inhabitants that are going to keep griefers away.
When you are red it doesn't matter where you are there is a chance to drop gear. Though the idea of this being 100% in a dungeon would be very strange if that is what you are indicating (which doesn't really match what AoC is going for in pve safe havens).
I have not seen indicating that you will be able top stop people just from pvping to the point it fully gatekeeps the content. We don't really knw the rule lets on OWpvp with node / guild decs. Which would be great questions that would help us better understand what extent player interaction can have.
Did the developers ever say PvP players would be interested in it?
No, no they didn't.
Steven has said that while PvP isn't avoidable in Ashes, people wanting good PvE will find it in Ashes.
If this is the case, then what I have talked about is what is expected.
If what I have talked about above isn't in the game, Steven shouldn't tell people wanting good PvE that Ashes will have it.
This isn't disingenuous or manipulative, it is simply stating the basic framework that is needed for good PvE to exist from the perspective of someone that is primarily PvE focused, and following that with the logical statement that without that framework, Ashes won't have good PvE.
Manipulative behavior would be someone that knows they are not PvE focused attempting to influence that discussion.
Your judgement for what is "good pve" and general players judgement is not the same thing. You are trying to make an argument of not good pve based around one element being end game raiding with access to content. There you are missing the alternative systems in place that still provide engaging and enjoyable PvE experiences for players.
You can not make a generalized statement about the entirely of PvE in AoC off one element. Not to mention that is how you view it without knowing how things will actually work in the game leading to to no instance = bad pve.
This makes 0 sense since your argument should only be boiling down to fear of "not enough content". As the level, fun, difficulty of the PvE we have yet to see which is a separate argument. Not enough content stretches out not just to be based on the amount of players int he world doing content, but the effect of PvP and conflict to get towards things and amount it happens.
You making a point about refusing to pvp people to get towards content shows you are clearly missing the mark of AoC being a PvX game. While also taking it to the extreme as if you will have to be fighting non stop.
Making the statement you will find good PvE is perfectly justified within the realm that you are playing a PvX game and the element of conflict that will bring. I have not seen a quote saying you can do all big bosses without being contested for good loot within dungeons be it getting towards it, or within the dungeon. Which that challenge does not mean the PvE is bad.
To judge the quality of the content we need to see it and compare it.
The core of what I am saying here is that people that play MMO's primarily for PvE will not play a game that doesn't provide them access to PvE.
Is that a statement you agree with, or disagree with?
First thing so we are moving away from good / bad and your main complaint is the amount of content players have access to not being enough as I said before those are two different issues.
Until we see and play the game I can't judge the level amount of content in AoC for PvE players * the amount of conflict they will encounter.
I also feel there is no indication they will want a lack of content in the game with extreme scarcity that won't provide enough PvE access for players to enjoy and risk them getting bored. There should be plenty of content for PvE players to enjoy, search and find in all elements of the game.
If by chance there isn't enough content I'd imagine the devs would adjust things to ensure it is more bountiful with whatever solutions they feel are needed including server shards, increased rates at which things spawn, limiting daily reward caps, etc.
Noooow
If you are talking about PvE only focused players that hate pvp and don't want to do it that is a whole other topic in itself. And frankly has nothing to do with "bad" pve. Not really going to get into all that here but though they talk about friction there is no indication they are going for extreme pvp and have systems in place to protect people and limit it.
There are plenty of solution and rule sets you can add in place based on the pvp systems in the game to have things lean any direction (pvp or pve)
I agree with you that these are different things, but it doesn't matter how good the content is if people don't have reasonable access to it.
Thus, this thread has been mostly about access to content. The only time I ever talk about such players on these forums is to state that Ashes is not the game for them.
Every time I talk about PvE players - as I pointed out earlier in this thread - it is players that accept and enjoy PvP, but prefer PvE.
And so my point stands, if someone prefers PvE, and the game doesn't offer them access to PvE, then Ashes isn't the game for them.
Everyone has access to content, and there should be plenty of content. But with it being one server and im unsure the level of amount of content I can see why there might be some challenges / concerns. But it is development and things they can adjust / test.
If the pve is good and fun that is a main challenge they won't have to worry about. If both are a issue than it is a much bigger task.
No, with everything we know of the game to date, access to content is indeed an issue in Ashes.
Open world games can not provide enough content for 10k players in a way where access to content isn't going to be an issue.
Keep in mind, to the people we are talking about in this thread, being able to fight in order to gain access to content is not in itself access to content. It may be to you, and that's great - but it isn't to the people we are talking about here.
I get the 10k thing and that is why i say i hardly would see their intention to allow people to be struggling for content. It is active development I'm sure as they test and see thing they will come up with ways to ensure there is enough content for people. Else we will see in real time alpha 2 people complaining.
These are basic issues though and we don't know all the details, this is something I'm sure they are very aware of.
Most ppl will be around high level nodes so you can always find some place where less ppl or more friendly ppl are. Also having a guild will help you gain access to content.
That's how I think: if there's a dispute among contenders in the dungeon, they should settle it first. Then, one group gets to enter the final boss room and hang out with the boss for 10-15 minutes. If they can't take down the boss, a second group could bust in, bash the final door and PvP kicks off in the boss room
I mentioned this idea in the gated dungeons thread. I like the idea of people duking it out, then shutting the door behind them and having some alone time. But if you want to claim the room just for yourself, you shouldn't be able to stay there forever without being contested. Others should be able to challenge your right to be in that room and take you out
Since we are talking about getting people that are playing PvE oriented games to instead come and play Ashes, how excited do you think they will be if you told them that the content they have reasonable access to is the dregs around the perimeter that no one else wants?
You put that offer in, and everyone will happily stay in the game they are in, thanks.
While this is a great way to do some content, it doesn't answer the issue of players having access to content.
If there are 10 raids that want to take on a specific target for the evening, and only one can at a time, that is 9 raids - 360 people - that are not getting the gaming experience they wanted for the evening.
A far better way to do it is to have those encounters, but also have some encounters elsewhere in that same dungeon that are instanced. Then guilds will make plans to fight down in the open dungeon to those instanced encounters, kill them, everyone will be satisfied that they have accomplished something valuable for the day, and THEN you have that encounter that everyone can fight over.
One method leads to player retention, one method leads to player atrophy.
Cause that kinda sounds like a big mess.
That idea is - in my mind - for the absolute top end encounters in terms of difficulty. The kind of encounters that two or three guilds on a server are able to kill, and no one else can.
If those two or three guilds want to work together to kill the encounter at about the same time, then they can have at it - if they think that gives them some sort of advantage in getting the caravan to safety.
The kind of encounter where you could have 10+ guilds killing it a night would primarily drop crafting components that are subject to potentially dropping via open world PvP - so utilizing the corruption/open world PvP system to add an increased risk post encounter (you do still need to fight your way back out of the dungeon), rather than the caravan system.
Guild wars will supposedly have no loot, cause it's an "event". I'd assume node wars will be the same. So only corrupted attacks would apply.
So any even quarter-smart guild would simply put all their loot on a random (obviously trusted) player and the enemy would have to PK literally the entire damn guild to have a real chance at the loot.
And even then, we don't know what the drop value will even be, so the chances are - barely any mats will even drop. And even if the value is high - smarter guilds will have a designated PKer alt who pretty much "TPs" the loot carrier outside of the dungeon with all the remaining loot.
In other words, instances will simply let guilds farm everything they can get out of said instances for absolutely free.
So we're back to the "repeatable instances give "gear", while repeatable arenas don't".
This simply doesn't work with what Steven is trying to build. I'm fine if those instances give enhancement stones or smth, though I'd still prefer if they were way harder than any other boss in the game (outside of the top ones of course), cause overabundance of enhancement is also a problem.
Node wars have rewards in the form of the ability to destroy services within a node. Having a node war against a rival, destroying their forge (or what ever) then declaring a siege is probably a really good way to go about things.
If guilds in the above scenario have an free path out of their instance, I would blame the PvP guilds on their server.
If you are in a PvP guild and you know there will be many raids running back our of a dungeon from an instance, with materials in hand that are of reasonable value, go and kill them. Don't complain that they have it easy, take that shit off of them.
I mean, you need to look over the differences here.
PvP arenas are repeatable ad infinitum. PvE instances are able to be run once a week (if done properly). Who is able to spend all day hiding in an instance again?
Arenas also do have rewards.
And my mention of n/g wars was in the context of "if you declare war against the guild that's farming the boss - your kills won't reward you, because loot doesn't drop during wars".
Again though, you gotta win against potentially way stronger opponents to get anything out of those arenas. Also, don't think we've heard whether we can run arenas at all times. The game is built on prime time, so I wouldn't be surprised if arenas were too (once again an L2 thing).
Yes, the biggest example of that has been "enhancements" and whatever the fuck "buying power" means.
And I've already said that I'm ok with instanced pve rewarding enhancements, but at a slow pace (same as I'd want arenas to be).
I'm down for making raids flagged as combatants while in the dungeon after killing an instanced encounter. Problem solved, imo. Not what node and guild wars in Ashes are about.
They aren't supposed to be a means to escape corruption in open world PvP - they each serve a purpose in the same way sieges serve a purpose.
Your caravan idea achieved that goal, though I still believe that you previously didn't point out that part of your idea was that only a fraction of the loot would be in the caravan, so even that could potentially just be seen as "a sunk cost that's worth it, because instance was completely for free".
Here we come to that "planning doesn't survive conflict" or whatever. Depending on the cost of wardeccing (and if it is a forced one, rather than a "requires acceptance from the victim to go through") - I guarantee that guilds will use wars as a means of blocking content. Mainly because wars provide free pvp anywhere, against your enemy.
Like, if anything, my strat works much better against your suggestion than what I'd prefer, because guilds would just block out the instance entrance by simply killing the guild.
Obviously in my preferred design that would also happen, but at least then the enemy guild would be ready for it, because they'd be pvxers (or at the very least hire pvpers for it). And I understand that your group's point is the existence of the instance itself, because it allows parallel farming, but majority of people care more about being simply flagged upon (let alone killed). Today's twitch chat seems to have confirmed that point once again. People were whining about CARAVANS (like, the most pvpiest non-siege part of the game).
This is why I said that there's no real way to attract pvers into the game. This is simply not a game like that. You can have good pve, to attract anyone who's willing to pvx, but then they'd also be competitive and would want to secure their farm, rather than share it.
This idea that you decs are only around sieges (once in awhile) while corruption has harsh penalties to ensure corruption pvp is very limited (as they have said). Almost indicated a desire to remove actual pvp elements out of the game which pulls away from PvX to just a pve game with limited and serve consequence pvp.
Most people are expecting to actually do pvp that want PvX and not have such a restrictive element where it is almost like pvp doesn't exist.