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
This.
PvE can be made more complex & fun, but is still fundamentally scripted content and therefore limited.
PvE is like Agent Smith to PvP's Neo.
This is it, the word "inherently" here is completely misused.
PvE can be varied. But is inherently more limited, IE: by its very nature.
Exactly what I mean. You clearly don't realise how much these examples make our point.
These are nothing more than arbitrary rules thrown in to make an encounter more challenging. Can it be fun? Yeah of course.. to have a group organised sufficiently to pull these off.
But they are still totally arbitrary, designed, scripted and therefore fundamentally limited, and to many of us: kinda boring at a fundamental level.
(Advances in AI may spice things up though).
Yeah, that is embarassing.
Even more embarassing would be if you thought that was an example of the kind of game I am talking about.
WoW releases expansions every two years, they expect you to kill most of the same content for that period - this should have clued you in to the fact that WoW is nothing at all like the games I am talking about. Sure, they release mid-expansion content, but so do games that have yearly expansions with as much content as WoW's expansions.
And sure, if you entered an instance 400 times, you would do those same things 400 times. However, again, with a good PvE MMO you wold only expect to run that content a dozen times or so before you move on to the next one.
There are many, many instanced encounters in EQ2 that I literally only killed once and never had a need to go back to. In fact, one of the encounters mechanics that I mentioned above was from an encounter that most people would only ever kill once (keeping mana between 30 and 65% or wipe the raid).
So much repitition! having to kill a mob one time!
While obviously only killing a mob one time isn't the norm, neither is your claim of 400 times, or 100 times. Again, the average number of times I would have killed an encounter in EQ2 was about a dozen - and when those encoutners are as varied as that collection of mechanics above should indicate to you, yea, that is more varied than PvP.
Keep in mind, in PvE, you can also move mobs to fight them in a different location, so sometimes we also have trees and hills in different spots just like PvP variation.
Or there are mobs like one of EQ2's Avatars that for a while had an ability that knocked you back so far that there was no chance of survival, and also had an effect that electrocuted players in deep enough water to death. You could fight the mob in an area of nearby water trying to stay at a depth that was enough to prevent the knock back but not enough to trigger the electrocution, or you could fight in nearby tunnels where the raid didn't need to worry about electrocution but would be knocked all around the tunnels with each knock back. So yeah, that one version of that one fight had massive variation based on where you opted to fight it.
If attempts were low (if not singular), wouldn't that mean that you could do 3-4 bosses per evening gameplay session? Which would then mean that the 2200 bosses you mentioned could be cleared in about a year, by a well-coordinated group.
Even if Intrepid did manage to get their tech to a point where they could be pumping out bosses at a "400 per expansion' rate, if those bosses are one-offs and are easily clearable - that is nowhere near enough content. Especially if a good chunk of those are instanced.
And if bosses are meant to just be killed "one a day", then wouldn't that mean that you'd need to do other repeatable pve for the rest of your gameplay session? Or would this boss design approach only work if those bosses were the only source of gear/mats, so everyone who was done farming their singular boss for the day wouldn't need to do any other pve?
The corruption can be balanced to let PvP happen more or less frequently.
I've seen older statements from Steven saying that the corruption will protect a lot.
Wiki was telling us that TTK will be long, to let the fight be more strategic.
Previously it was stated that the TTK was expected to be around 30 seconds to a minute.[3]
The time-to-kill needs to be strategic and tactical.[4] – Steven Sharif
We will see by the end of Alpha 2 how the balance will end up being and wonder why, if because Steven or because players wanted that. Those players might want the old TTK back if they payed access to Alpha 2 expecting a certain balancing described by Steven.
Here an example of a player which seems to make his own story for the characters.
Just as an example of how some players like to play.
He has other videos with interesting titles for this game but I have not watched them.
A totally valid approach to playing games (not necessarily even rpgs), and I will be doing this partially with my character, but to me this is still separate from the dev-made story
Kills.
As for median attempts per boss, this is something that is both hard to really work out (especially a decade after the fact) but also not overly applicable to the notion of a discussion on repetitive gameplay. It was fairly common for only a few pulls at an idea to happen at a time, and if no real progress was being made, a different idea that was vastly different was attempted.
Some encounters absolutely were killed first attempt, without a doubt. Some encounters took hundreds of hours of attempts, with the above multiple different ideas being fairly common.
As an example of developers not really wanting players to spend time on encounters they have no desire to spend time on any longer, it was fairly normal for large raid zones specifically to get a teleport to a point near the end (2/3 to 3/4 of the way through) at some point a few months after the zone launched - specifically so players can avoid those earlier encounters that they have killed for those few months already.
Another thing to keep in mind in relation to EQ2 - something that would be fairly foreign to anyone that played top end PvP games - it was uncommon for people to log in to EQ2 more than 4 times a week. The game didn't have stupid daily quests, or any form of daily limit, and there was no need or pressure to try and keep up with other players in terms of gear like there is in PvP games (especially at the top end). There was no fear that if you weren't on for a few days, your guild would lose their guild hall, or your home city would be destroyed.
People could just log in when they wanted to play, rather than feeling any pressure or being compelled to play in any way.
Thus, the notion of * number of mobs per day for * number of weeks just doesn't work in a game like EQ2. Part of the reason people were only running bosses a dozen or so times was specifically because they were off playing Oblivion some nights. Since there was no need to run them any more, there was no specific need to log on to that game, so another game could be played instead.
And you say it's the same exact sam flagging system as L2, but Steven says it's not the EXACT same flagging system.
Steven says that Ashes flagging is HARSHER than the L2 flagging system and that players who like PvP sometimes should feel comfortable playing Ashes.
And Steven used to say it's only the players who 100% hate PvP combat and the gamers who 100% hate PvE who are not in the target audience. But, if you sometimes like PvP and you sometimes enjoy PvE, you are in the target audience for Ashes.
Also, again... you're saying I should have known based on L2. I know nothing about L2. I haven't played L2.
I barely even heard of L2 before the Ashes Forums.
And... the L2 players, including Steven, said, "You should reserver judgment until you test Corruption during the Alpha. I think Corruption will be enough of a deterrent that you will feel OK playing Ashes.
I disagree.
1: I don't necessarily have an issue with Corruption. With Corruption, I can punish non-consesnual PvP by giving the perpetrator Corruption. I'm theoretically OK with that. I would have to test it to know for sure.
2: I sometimes enjoy objective-based PvP - especially defending Towns and Cities. So, opt-in Castle Sieges, Node Sieges and Caravans are precisely the type of PvP I enjoy.
3: The type of PvP I abhor is non-consensual, free-for-all PvP, like the Open Seas - which Ashes did not have until 2 years ago.
4: The moment The Open Seas was added in 2022 is the moment that it became clear that Ashes is a PvP game rather than... a PvX game that has some PvE and some PvP. And that is the moment I realized I am no longer part of the Tartget audience.
5: Alpha One included Corruption... sometimes. A lot of the time Corruption was turned off because it interefered with specific testing goals. I might have experienced Corruption-related PvP 6 times during the entire Alpha One period. 4 times in the same day. And then a couple of times directly after Siege testing it would be possible to go Red while we waited to be kicked from the Siege instance.
So... no. Alpha One was not a decent opportunity to test the efficacy of Corruption.
6: Sieges in Alpha One were fun. Exactly the kind of PvP I enjoy - when I'm in the mood for PvP combat.
"Combined into one" doesn't really tell us much.
Most importantly... what Ashes did not have in the design before 2022 were large areas of the map that permanently have auto-flag, Corruption-free, free-for-all PvP.
In 2018, when I directly asked Steven to compare Ashes to ArcheAge, specifically because I don't like the AA naval combat and that is the reason I chose not to play AA - Steven specifically state that the difference between Ashes and AA is that Corruption-flagging is active across the entire map. That's the deal.
The addition of The Open Seas in 2022 is the deal-breaker.
I dunno why you keep fixating on Corruption being similar to L2. As far as I know - that form of PvP is great.
I consider EQ/EQ2 and WoW to be PvX. I consider Neverwinter Online and New World to be PvX.
I consider AA and EvE to be too PvP-centric for me. Steven specifically responded in 2018 that Ashes is not like those games because Ashes doesn't have areas similar to what was later added in 2022 - The Open Seas.
And Steven will tell you that Ashes is not as PvP-centric as L2.
He will spin it that Ashes PvX is something new. Something different from L2, AA and EvE. Especially prior to September 2022.
This like when Japanese people tell me they're sorry I can't enjoy eating fish eyes.
PvP never brings me any highs. There are moments where I can tolerate PvP combat for about an hour out of my 8-hour play sessions. If I encounter non-consensual PvP within the 7 hours of my game session that I'm not in the mood for PvP, I'm probably going to be enraged - which is a major low.
So, the moment The Open Seas were added to the Ashes design, I no longer needed to wait to test Corruption to know that I'm not in the Ashes target audience.
And that is all good.
It's just different playstyles.
When Ashes Kickstarter was announced in 2017, I was curious about how you get players who typically play MMORPGs on PvE servers to play with gamers who typically play MMORPGs on PvP servers.
The answer that Steven and other L2 players gave in 2017 was, "With Karma/Corruption. Try that, you will see."
The addition of The Open Seas gives me the true answer: "Oh, you don't get players who typically play MMORPGs on PvE servers to play on the same server as PvPers. The target audience for Ashes are the fans of ArcheAge and EvE (and L2).
Which is why I tried to get Steven to just admit that in 2018. But, he refused to admit it then.
The addition of the Open Seas in 2022 made it all clear. And, yeah, doesn't matter what Steven says.
Actions speak louder than words.
So... no worries.
Yes, trying different group setups could be considered interesting and any potential rng on the side of the boss could be considered "variety", but both of those things apply to pvp as well, and on servers with several warring big guilds, you'd have several dozen potential matchups at any given time and quite often in one day, if not at the same time.
This is why pvpers keep saying that pvp is all different, while pve is the same. It's simply different points of abstraction on both sides. To you the same encounter, but with a different raid setup and both mechanics rng, can be viewed as a big variety of content, while to pvper that's "just the same boss over and over".
And while to pvpers fighting several different groups in several different locations (with those groups potentially swapping out members from time to time) is super varied, while you see it as a "humans are predictable, so it's all the same".
I'd say that this difference of abstractions is one of, if not THE, main reasons for the neverending arguments on what's seen as "having more unique content".
This was also the beauty of earlier L2. Even though you'd ideally want to keep farming stuff, even your current gear could still serve you well in pvp and you could still be valuable as a unit. And due to severe death penalties, the entire outlook on dying and re-progressing was quite different from the uberoptimal strategies of later years. Who cared that your gear was above a certain lvl, when the next big pvp could delevel you below that gear's required lvl. And it could then take you days (or weeks if you were real unlucky) to get back up.
The entire pace of the game was waaay slower. Well, at least in my experience. I'm sure hardcore players on official servers pushed stuff to the limit, especially considering how fucking bot-ridden and rmt-prone those official servers were (at least from what I've heard).
EQ2's approach seems to be quite close to what FF14 is known for. You just make progress at your own pace and you don't really care if you miss a day or few.
But I'm one of those freaks who likes to absolutely nolife a game if he likes it, so I'd want to clear all those EQ bosses asap and I'd be playing 12h+ a day, so I'd either go through all of them too quickly or I'd fail in finding a group to play with, so I'd just quit relatively fast cause the game wouldn't keep up with my pace.
And in my experience (most likely cause L2 is a grinder game) a ton of pvpers are somewhat like me and want to nolife the game as much as possible as quickly as possible, because staying at the top usually requires that.
And I think this is of the reasons why pvpers think that pve doesn't have competition. We look at our near-constant grind and then compare it to the type of pace you described, and think to ourselves "how can they have competition when there's no haste in their actions". I'm sure that world-firsts have that haste, but iirc you've said before that world-firsts is the weakest example of pve competition.
Refer to the encounter description I gave above where one method of taking on the encounter saw the guild having to wade at a specific depth in water or die, while the other method saw the guild being pinballed around a small cave every 42 seconds.
Depending on which of these options you took, it essentially feels like a different encounter. It plays like a totally different encounter.
This wasn't even the encounter with the most variation based on player choice, either. Not even in the top 5 - it's just one that is easy to explain to people that don't understand the intricacies of EQ2 mechanics.
You say this is the part PvP players dislike. Keep in mind, in the decade or so I played EQ2, there were obviously many players that came and went to other games. Some games tended to have players that were well suited to EQ2 (DDO and LotRO, as well as Vanguard - all of these launched after EQ2 but lost large numbers of players early on). Some games had players that could never make it at the top in EQ2 (WoW and EVE players specifically), and some were in the middle (L2 was in the middle).
In this experience of people from many different games, PvP players don't tend to make it to the point we are talking about above. The most successful PvP players we had in my guild ever were people I have talked to you about in the past from L2 (iirc it was one of our earlier discussions). This group of players were in the guild for about 6 months, from memory, but they were never what we would consider tier one players. We would take them along on content so that they could see it, so they could get gear from it, but they were just not good enough to take along on content that we were still working on.
They were asbolutely not at the leading edge of the guild.
Quite honestly, I am not aware of any players in any guild that came from PvP games that got to the point where they were asked to be a part of that exploration process. I have no doubt PvP players would think this.
But that is because the average PvP player wouldn't understand that when your competition is not in the form of PvP, your gear doesn't matter.
Edit to add; and yes, at times there would be some really long spells in order to get a world first. Grinding out the levels of a new expansion was expected in top end guilds. My guild made up 50% of the first 50 players to each new level cap while I was playing, but once you were at that point, it was fairly chill.
Another point to note as to why PvE games are this way - in order to progress, there is usually only 2 or 3 raid zones that are relavent at a given point in time, and these zones have week long lockouts.
Sure, you could log on more if you like, but you can't actually do anything worthwhile. The game (and developers) want you to have a life.
They respect your time.
Archeage specifically didn't. L2 from what you say didn't. EVE didn't, though not to the same level as Archeage. WoW doesn't, but for different reasons.
While this isn't a specific discussion point we have had, I am fairly sure most of the players I talk to often about MMORPG's would all agree that a game that respects player time is the most important factor for them to pick up a new MMORPG.
And if you're saying that a ton of bosses had several variations within each separate variation - I'm definitely sure that Intrepid won't go for that. Maaaybe smth like "in summer this boss has these abilities and is in a desert-like surrounding, while in other seasons it's completely different stuff" could work, but we'll have to see if Intrepid will go as far as making several such variants for each (or at least a lot) boss in the game. If we even just take the seasons - that's x4 the devtime.
I mean, I could say that the players who could've been at the top in EQ simply stayed in their previous games because there were at the top there and people rarely leave from the top if they get there.
And I obviously dunno those who were in your guild, but it could also be a situation where they simply didn't like the content highly enough to take the time/effort to get to the top.
As you already know, I like grindy games. And my bubble of friends and mates were the same. And to us the "respect of our time" was always present because our time directly correlated to our power.
Just as irl you'd need to put in time to achieve something great - mmos that we liked required us to put in time to achieve smth great in them. And due to inherent competitive nature of owpvp games, you had to put in more time than the next guy to keep achieving greatness. And this time also needed to be used correctly, so it wasn't just a case of "if I grind for 20h and you for 10 - I'll always win".
We always saw stuff like WoW as "disrespect of our time" because there you had instances that gave you content on a silver platter, yet still asked you to do it over and over and over again before you got your desired loot. Back in mid-late 00s no one here had even heard of EQ(2), so I dunno how this demographic would respond to a game where you didn't have to grind instances and instead just needed to beat them just a few times. Maybe it would've been liked, maybe not. I'd imagine people would at least be a bit more interested in EQ than in WoW, but WoW simply had way bigger ad campaign, so, alas.
And yet PvP " WILL " be able to happen to You at every Step of the Open World of Verra. And you will accept it. Because otherwise you wouldn't be there when the time comes.
Ashes will not be a pure PvP Game as well, Yes. But it will have PvP in about every Corner. Aside from a few, apparently Story-instanced Places.
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Currently no guild !! (o_o)
You could say that, but the implication there would be that PvE players are happy in their game of choice, where as PvP players are shopping around. I mean, EQ2 did have a serious grind if you wanted it, it just wasn't necessary.
There were 20 different titles that required killing 20,000 mobs of a specific type. Running around with the "Executioner of Fairies" title is just fun. Getting all 20 titles is 400,000 mobs of specific types that you need to kill.
EQ2 in it's third expansion had some class specific armor that dropped on specific raid encounters. Around 6 months in to the expansion, specifically so that people could stop running content, the game started doing a check on the inventory of everyone in the raid (including bank and housing storage), and would only drop items for classes that were present in the raid and didn't have the item in question.
This system persisted to every content cycle that had class specific gear for as long as I played.
That is respect of player time.
You're referring here to different ideas being attempted. IE: different attempts at cracking the encounter.
Once cracked, it stays cracked. Then it just becomes a case of everyone knowing the script and not fucking up.
PvP is never solved in the same way. Yes there can be dominant strategies, groups etc - but the enemy then continues to evolve around your strategies.
So the variety in PvP is not coming from the different group setups (yes that contributes), but more fundamentally from the very nature of competing vs enemies who learn, improve and adapt.
As I said earlier, PvE is like Agent Smith to PvP's Neo. It can be very advanced, difficult, fun etc.. but is inherently limited by its programmed nature.
I [iu]don't accept[/u] the Corruption-free, non-consensual PvP that comes with The Open Seas.
Which is precisely why The Open Seas is a dealbreaker for me and I'm no longer interested in playing Ashes.
Especially with the addition of The Open Seas and Steven's obsession with Risk v Reward.
We agree.
EverQuest Online Adventures released Feb 2003
EverQuest Online Adventures Frontiers released Nov 2003
Lords of EverQuest released Dec 2003
Champions of Norrath Feb 2004
EQ2 released Nov 2004
WoW released in 2005.
Anarchy Online appeared at E3 around 1999 and released 2001
Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness released in the US in 1995. December 1995 listed #2 PC game behind Myst.
Warcraft II: Beyond the Dark Portal released 1996
Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos released 2002
World of Warcraft released Nov 2004
I started working in QA at Activision in Feb 1996.
Warcraft II was immensely popular among my QA bros.
UO was also immensely popular. Too PvP-centric for me to be interested.
EQ released in 1997. My pal, Jens Andersen (who later created DCUO) suggested I try playing EQ on the PvP-Optional servers. "Join our Guild. We'll protect you whenever you flag for PvP."
EQ was tons of fun - especially to explore. It felt like running through a 3D virtual world of D&D.
And I fell in love with the lore - just as I might for a great Fantasy novel franchise.
I played all of the EQ titles listed above.
I did play Warcraft II (and Starcraft), but I prefer RPGs over RTS games.
We began to see World of Warcraft at E3 in 1999.
Anarchy Online appeared at E3 around 1999.
Anarchy Online released in 2001.
We were still waiting for WoW. Each year at E3, we would ask the devs for a release date. The answer was always "When it's ready." The length of production was a common joke.
Several other MMORPGs appeared at E3 and were released years before WoW.
EQ2 appeared at E3 around 2001/2002.
By 2003, I was super-invested in EQ lore, due to playing several games in that setting and only one in the Warcraft setting.
My Activision bros were all super-stoked for WoW. I was super-hyped for EQ2.
WoW seemed to cartoony and... why abandon the EQ lore for Warcraft lore - especially when Warcraft was primarily an RTS?
EQ2 released before WoW.
EQ2 was fun to play, but slow on my not-brand-new home PC. Took forever to load between zones.
My Activision bros asked me to join a WoW Guild, so I started also playing WoW.
Turns out - WoW was just built better than EQ2. Better optimized. And no loading between zones.
Phasing felt way better than loading.
WoW just felt less frustrating to play, so I mostly played WoW. Though I would bounce back and forth between the two.
TL;DR
Before 2004, EQ was the WoW of MMORPGs (in the US). Still immensely popular 10 years ago.
EQ has steadily fallen down the ladder after the change from SoE to Daybreak - especially as more modern MMORPGs have released.
I was not far from this point when I said
Instead of having nice polite PvEers audience we get trash-talking PvPers.
And Steven wants you to be friend with them!
And Steven's obsession.
If he doesn't understand your way of enjoying mmorpgs, chances are that you will not get a good one from him.
Will be interesting to see the balancing changing over time during Alpha 2.
The trendy topic next year will be to predict how many players will play at release.
Me vs QAs as bloody usual
Where's the trash talking? It's been pretty fair I thought, all round, mostly.
IMO this is part of the issue, this automatic stereotyping of anyone who enjoys PvP. Bizarre.
I think the audience is not different. Plenty of trash-talking PvPers on land, too.
And, in my terminology, all the gamers who enjoy playing Ashes are PvPers because Ashes is a PvP-centric MMORPG.
I did notice when I watched the Intrepid devs play games during the 2022 Extra Life that they are trash-talkers and... I don't want to play on the same servers they play on because I hate trash-talking.
Exactly.
Better potential for me to be in the target audience when Jeffrey Bard was Lead Game Designer.
But, Ashes is going to be a fun game for L2, AA and EvE fans - and there will be other MMORPGs that better fit my playstyle releasing before Ashes, so...
It's all good.
Lol this is fundamentally the same as RL stereotypes. So anyone who enjoys PvP is a "trash talker"? What a load of rubbish.
Some people enjoy different aspects of a game to you. So... what, they immediately become the enemy? People need to get a grip.
Corruption is designed entirely for you. It might not go quite as far as some people want, but it is designed to alleviate PvP for those who need it alleviated.
Ok so I paraphrased, shoot me. The semantic battles are so tiring.
"nice polite PvEers audience we get trash-talking PvPers."
You don't see any sweeping generalisations in this sentence?
Since the statement does not include absolutes, it inherently means there are exceptions included in the generalization.
That's the way English grammar works.
If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.
As usual with the semantic warfare when the point is totally understood.
And incidentally, stereotype is exactly the right word.
I don't think he was lying, he just told you it's not purely PvP because he's right. It's not strictly just PvP, there's obviously a ton of PvE and fighting bosses. There's also a ton of grind and crafting, a ton of story arcs, questing, etc etc. It's just you'll also have to deal with enemy players fighting you for that loot, for rare mats, for best grinding spots, for everything really. So he's not wrong or lying.
The flagging system may be not exactly the same because the flagged time (the time where you can be attacked without corruption punishment for the attacker if they kill you) maybe be slightly longer or shorter (so that's not exactly the same, but it's effectively the same system,) In Lineage 2 you also couldn't see the enemy player's HP, so that's also the same.
When he told you the flagging system is harsher, he means that carrying corruption is harsher. And he's absolutely right. Not only you can drop equipped items (just like in L2) but here, you're also marked on the maps for BHs, so you can't just kill someone and run away and be safe. If you kill several players, your PvP damage goes down (or your effectiveness, don't know for sure), so that means you literally won't even be able to defend yourself after killing a few people. That's literally 10 times more punishment for killing players than Lineage 2's flagging system. So again, Steven is correct and didn't lie.
You absolutely should reserve judgement because as I already said about 30 times, PKing in Lineage 2 wasn't an issue in my experience in nearly a decade of that game. And that was having a flagging system that didn't punish you anywhere nearly as hard as AoC flagging system does. Were there annoying PK sometimes here and there? Sure. They were also instantly identified and the moment they show up, you just have someone follow them close and if they kill someone, they're dead and maybe you have a loot piñata if they accumulated a lot of PKs. In AoC they straight up won't be able to go around murdering 20 people cause of PvP dampening and because they're going to have 10 BHs chasing them. Again, Steven is correct.
Yeah I can see why you say that. Then again, you could just ... not engage in the sea combat? To be quite honest with you, free for all PvP isn't something I enjoy. I enjoy being ready to fight in the Open World while I'm doing my gathering or heading somewhere. I enjoy fighting with my party/clan for a specific purpose. Not a big fan of a giant place where everyone can murder each other. Can it be fun? Absolutely, for a while and even more if there's good rewards to be had, but since it's probably going to be a 24/7 killing festival, it's not something I think I will care much about. I'm open to trying it out, though.
It is. With the exception of the sea. There's 2 gigantic continents full of content and stuff to do, you can just not engage in it, you understand that, right? In Lineage 2 there was a lot of content I never cared to join. Particularly a lot of group PvE, defintely never engaged much in economy, I was just a soldier for my clan and fought everyone and everywhere they asked me to and I was always ready to "protect" players from my clan who weren't as strong as I was. There was so so much I wasn't a part of and I still had a blast playing that game. AoC as a game is 10 times bigger in L2, there's literally 50 more things to do. You don't have to not play a game because you don't like the fact that there's ONE place in the map where it's a free for all. Try being a little bit more open minded Dygz, you might be surprised.
I don't know about EQ or NW Online, but WoW isn't a PvX game. WoW is a PvE game which allows players to PvP. You can literally click one button and all PvP is gone from the game.That's not PvX buddy. It USED to be PvX until they added warmode. If you call WoW a PvX game, then Lost Ark is a PvX game because you can PVE and then you can also go PvP when want. New World isn't PvX either. It's a PvE game with an option to PvP, same as WoW. A PvX game is when the PvE has constant, never ending risk of PvP. Very few games were like that. Lineage 2 being the best and closest example.
"Stereotypes tend to be less flexible and more resistant to change than generalizations."
So. It's not semantics. And your use of the word stereotype remains incorrect.
Case closed.
Yeah which is exactly as intended. It was my sentence not yours! Jaysus.
Americans debating English. Give us all a laugh.
No one asked Steven if Ashes is purely PvP. Everyone understands that Ashes is not purely PvP.
Steven emphatically stated that Ashes does not have areas that remain permanently free from Corruption.
That is no longer true.
Steven also stated that Corruption is not exactly the same as the L2 flagging system.
I'm don't know why you continue to argue about that.
You are saying that the Ashes design as always been exactly like L2. And that is not true. It is false.
You also say that it doesn't matter whether Steven says Ashes is a PvX MMORPG; Ashes is actually a PvP MMORPG.
We agree. We disagree that that should have been clear 5 years ago.
It wasn't clear 5 years ago because Steven obfuscated aspects of the design and then introduced a signifcant change when he added The Open Seas in 2022.
Again. Steven will tell you that Ashes' Corruption is not effectively the same as L2 Karma.
Ashes Corruption is designed to be significantly harsher on PvPers than Karma so that Ashes is not as much of a murderbox as L2 could be at times. Those are Steven's words; not my words.
Steven didn't lie.
But that still makes your claim that the Ashes flagging system is EXACTLY like the L2 flagging system false.
If you say that I should have believed that the Ashes flagging system is EXACTLY like the L2 flagging system even when Steven says it is not - that means I'm should believe Steven is lying.
Which is moot in any case because I never said that Corruption is the deal-breaker.
I have no clue why you are obssesed with talking about Corruption.
1: I don't care about PKing. I care about non-consensual PvP. PKing insinuates that I'm concerned about being killed by other players. I'm actuall concerned about being forced into non-consensual PvP when I'm not in the mood for PvP.
2: Whatever happened in L2 is now moot. Steven as added The Open Seas - large, permanent areas that are auto-flag, Corruption-free, free-for-all PvP zones. Thereby making Ashes too similar to EvE and ArcheAge.
I have no interest in playing games with that ruleset.
Um. No.
As I've told you several times, I believe:
My Bartle Score is Explorer 87%; Socializer 73% ; Achiever 47%; Killer 0%
So, no. I'm not really going to play an RPG with large areas where I must auto-consent to free-for-all PvP just to explore.
Nope. I was OK with the original deal: All areas of the map being subject to Corruption as a penalty for pushing non-consensual PvP.
I do not accept the addition of The Open Seas. That is a dealbreaker for me.
Because I am first and foremost an Explorer.
I'll play other MMORPGs that are not as PvP-centric as Ashes.
You stated that a PvX game has PvP and PvE combined.
WoW has PvP and PvE combined. You said that is PvX.
Also, I can play on servers with PvP where I can't turn the PvP off with the click of one button.
And...
I think that brings us full circle to the title of this thread:
My PvX != Your PvX