Basis: I prefer PvE over PvP so, in my mind, I'd like to see more balance between the systems.
Is this a fantasy, yes. I know logically that PvX for Ashes consists of a blend, a mixture if you will, of both elements. Therefore, I think that when some of us say "Ashes isn't really PvX", what we mean is that it isn't what we would think PvX would be (Equal measure of both in my opinion).
Do I want PvE only servers? No. I enjoy the risks that come with the PvP Systems in mind. Will I need a group of friends to play with because (even though I'm complimented for living in the Caravan stream) I'm a big scaredy cat when it comes to PvP? Absolutely!
All in all, I'm just trying to say that I think PvX can be considered more of a spectrum where some of us like the (in my opinion) PvP heavy version of PvX and I'm sure there are some that prefer a more PvE heavy version of PvX.
I plan to play Ashes all the same, but I had seen this topic floating around and wanted to discuss it, or share my thoughts.
u gonna spend 95% of your time in ashes killing mobs and doing pve xd
About the instanced argument, we're only getting arenas in the instanced PvP department, and arenas won't reward players with new gear. They might reward players with temporary enhancement stones though. And then we have 20% of the PvE content, like dungeons, that we assume is mostly story-based. Those might provide some gear upgrades.
All the rest of the content in the game is PvX. Even the reward part of a successful node siege is an open world zone for several days. Only the actual siege part is probably instanced.
So in terms of instanced rewards, PvP isn't favored.
There is one thing that I do not get tired of mentioning, because it is overlooked a lot, solely for the reason that we can do or know nothing more about it at this point and that is:
Limited Access
The single most strongest way of limited access is distance. With no fast travel and a huuuuge map with rugged territory to cross, there will only be a limited number of players in any area to compete with you over a given thing.
Another important way that access will be limited is through the competition itself, as people will instinctively limit information. If you do not know that this boss in this fairly easy dungeon has a small chance to drop this very rare ingredient, they will not compete over it with you and you and your guild will not tell them where you got it.
And lastly the temporary nature of almost everything guarantees that with every change happening in the Node system competition will become more or less fierce. If you as a peace loving guild play your cards right, you might establish and run a fairly unimportant Tier 4 Node that survives various changes of your Parent Node. In peace times, you comply with the rules of the parent Node, after all the worst thing they can do is put some taxes on you, while you could secretly support their enemies if the Parent Node is no good. And when the Parent Node is gone and players in your region begin to fight over the leader position, your guild scatters out for adventures further away so that your Node does not accidently ends up as the Parent Node with a Damocles Sword hanging over your head. That also has the added benefit that you go away as other pour in meaning you leave the area of highest conflict until things settle in again.
With all that being said - the impact of access limitation in the above mentioned ways will to a good portion come down to us testing and giving feedback during the Alpha 2 stage as the current impact is impossible to calculate beforehand. Intrepid needs to closely monitor how far apart/close together we are on Verra and whether that helps or limits the flow of the game.
Do I want PvE only servers? No. I enjoy the risks that come with the PvP Systems in mind. Will I need a group of friends to play with because (even though I'm complimented for living in the Caravan stream) I'm a big scaredy cat when it comes to PvP? Absolutely!
I picture you living in that showcase because you were hiding under the caravan until everyone else in the fight died and someone found you under the caravan.
id also like to add that we dont know how the pvp content will role out though a server. meaning early on might be open world fights over areas/resource then caravans will be the next big pickings along with certain dungeons. then comes castle and node sieges and world bosses, and finally the guild wars. all these types of PVP i see effecting a PVE player thought the first six months of play. and my biggest take on this is were ever there is conflict there has to be a layer of control holding it to account and i think IS will get it right. like at the moment if you fight back the other side wont get corrupted that all sounds fine but its placing a lot of restriction on the defenders to make them fight we know people grief so i predict more people will not fight back, and at the moment that will cost you more of your resources. i expect this will change as its straight up unfair. if anything its the wrong way round. there are people that play that will just not PVP unless its planed. to get punished by the system its self like this will push them away hard, and alpha 2 will be the perfect time to test this and i really hope the corruption system is in place and working unlike alpha 1 were they had to ask people to stop the PVP. a corruption dev log would be a real eye opener into how IS is balancing this.
Ok, so a fairly standard raid boss fight with two competing raids.
I have questions!
In T&L is it the raid group with 50%+ damage that gets the boss kill?
Are the members of the other raid group not enemies until they engage inside that circle?
It looks somewhat like what I envision we'll see in Ashes, except for all the teleporting. For dungeon bosses I hope there are chokepoints where you can have friendly groups preventing others from even entering, at least if they are flagged as combatants somehow, until they are strong enough to overcome the blocking force. For worldbosses out on the open that may be difficult.
Ok, so a fairly standard raid boss fight with two competing raids.
I have questions!
In T&L is it the raid group with 50%+ damage that gets the boss kill?
Are the members of the other raid group not enemies until they engage inside that circle?
It looks somewhat like what I envision we'll see in Ashes, except for all the teleporting. For dungeon bosses I hope there are chokepoints where you can have friendly groups preventing others from even entering, at least if they are flagged as combatants somehow, until they are strong enough to overcome the blocking force. For worldbosses out on the open that may be difficult.
Would you prefer that, actually? I feel like that would just lead to the situation becoming more stale, faster.
Losing side loses more rapidly, zergs get advantaged, etc.
I don't care either way, but I'm interested in the concept in terms of what people find good.
To be clear, I feel like the entire premise of territory/chokepoint control doesn't work in modern MMOs and Ashes does not seem to be going 'back to when it mattered' (this is sort of a good thing, but in effect it can be a bad thing if you try to design it like old games but with a new coat of paint... the paint is toxic in that case, is what I'm saying).
im guessing the blue out line is the boss fight area and the other group cant see the bosses health unless they have a member in that area... i liked the moment at 11.28 wiped them in seconds that time...
this type of PVP content is what people will be expecting i think, what people complain about is the thought of getting killed out in the open world more often...and for no reason...
Ok, so a fairly standard raid boss fight with two competing raids.
I have questions!
In T&L is it the raid group with 50%+ damage that gets the boss kill?
Are the members of the other raid group not enemies until they engage inside that circle?
It looks somewhat like what I envision we'll see in Ashes, except for all the teleporting. For dungeon bosses I hope there are chokepoints where you can have friendly groups preventing others from even entering, at least if they are flagged as combatants somehow, until they are strong enough to overcome the blocking force. For worldbosses out on the open that may be difficult.
Would you prefer that, actually? I feel like that would just lead to the situation becoming more stale, faster.
Losing side loses more rapidly, zergs get advantaged, etc.
I don't care either way, but I'm interested in the concept in terms of what people find good.
To be clear, I feel like the entire premise of territory/chokepoint control doesn't work in modern MMOs and Ashes does not seem to be going 'back to when it mattered' (this is sort of a good thing, but in effect it can be a bad thing if you try to design it like old games but with a new coat of paint... the paint is toxic in that case, is what I'm saying).
I don't want it for all fights. Actually, I think it's more about the flagging than the choke points really. I would like to reward organization in terms of having forces ready to take on competing raid groups before they even reach the boss.
It looked like people were able to run back to near the boss uncontested, and the fighting only took place while engaged with the boss. I think that is a bit silly. If all you have is enough for the raid to kill the boss, then that is what it is, but I don't have a problem at all with one raid group on the boss and one raid group protecting them outside the immediate boss area. Yes, it favours large guilds or alliances, but that's fine. The competing group will have to bring two raids groups as well, and they will dispatch the first raid group through sheer numbers, unless the raid group on the boss peel off and help them.
The main issue will probably be the flagging if starting a guild war on the opposing raids isn't a thing. Having to go corrupt to contest a boss through other means than DPS would suck a little IMO. That and boss-fights lasting long enough to where that back and forth has time to take place.
But back to the question, how did the flagging thing work in that video? Did it happen automatically when entering the circle?
Ok, so a fairly standard raid boss fight with two competing raids.
I have questions!
In T&L is it the raid group with 50%+ damage that gets the boss kill?
Are the members of the other raid group not enemies until they engage inside that circle?
It looks somewhat like what I envision we'll see in Ashes, except for all the teleporting. For dungeon bosses I hope there are chokepoints where you can have friendly groups preventing others from even entering, at least if they are flagged as combatants somehow, until they are strong enough to overcome the blocking force. For worldbosses out on the open that may be difficult.
Would you prefer that, actually? I feel like that would just lead to the situation becoming more stale, faster.
Losing side loses more rapidly, zergs get advantaged, etc.
I don't care either way, but I'm interested in the concept in terms of what people find good.
To be clear, I feel like the entire premise of territory/chokepoint control doesn't work in modern MMOs and Ashes does not seem to be going 'back to when it mattered' (this is sort of a good thing, but in effect it can be a bad thing if you try to design it like old games but with a new coat of paint... the paint is toxic in that case, is what I'm saying).
I don't want it for all fights. Actually, I think it's more about the flagging than the choke points really. I would like to reward organization in terms of having forces ready to take on competing raid groups before they even reach the boss.
It looked like people were able to run back to near the boss uncontested, and the fighting only took place while engaged with the boss. I think that is a bit silly. If all you have is enough for the raid to kill the boss, then that is what it is, but I don't have a problem at all with one raid group on the boss and one raid group protecting them outside the immediate boss area. Yes, it favours large guilds or alliances, but that's fine. The competing group will have to bring two raids groups as well, and they will dispatch the first raid group through sheer numbers, unless the raid group on the boss peel off and help them.
The main issue will probably be the flagging if starting a guild war on the opposing raids isn't a thing. Having to go corrupt to contest a boss through other means than DPS would suck a little IMO. That and boss-fights lasting long enough to where that back and forth has time to take place.
But back to the question, how did the flagging thing work in that video? Did it happen automatically when entering the circle?
Ok, so a fairly standard raid boss fight with two competing raids.
I have questions!
In T&L is it the raid group with 50%+ damage that gets the boss kill?
Are the members of the other raid group not enemies until they engage inside that circle?
It looks somewhat like what I envision we'll see in Ashes, except for all the teleporting. For dungeon bosses I hope there are chokepoints where you can have friendly groups preventing others from even entering, at least if they are flagged as combatants somehow, until they are strong enough to overcome the blocking force. For worldbosses out on the open that may be difficult.
Would you prefer that, actually? I feel like that would just lead to the situation becoming more stale, faster.
Losing side loses more rapidly, zergs get advantaged, etc.
I don't care either way, but I'm interested in the concept in terms of what people find good.
To be clear, I feel like the entire premise of territory/chokepoint control doesn't work in modern MMOs and Ashes does not seem to be going 'back to when it mattered' (this is sort of a good thing, but in effect it can be a bad thing if you try to design it like old games but with a new coat of paint... the paint is toxic in that case, is what I'm saying).
I don't want it for all fights. Actually, I think it's more about the flagging than the choke points really. I would like to reward organization in terms of having forces ready to take on competing raid groups before they even reach the boss.
It looked like people were able to run back to near the boss uncontested, and the fighting only took place while engaged with the boss. I think that is a bit silly. If all you have is enough for the raid to kill the boss, then that is what it is, but I don't have a problem at all with one raid group on the boss and one raid group protecting them outside the immediate boss area. Yes, it favours large guilds or alliances, but that's fine. The competing group will have to bring two raids groups as well, and they will dispatch the first raid group through sheer numbers, unless the raid group on the boss peel off and help them.
The main issue will probably be the flagging if starting a guild war on the opposing raids isn't a thing. Having to go corrupt to contest a boss through other means than DPS would suck a little IMO. That and boss-fights lasting long enough to where that back and forth has time to take place.
But back to the question, how did the flagging thing work in that video? Did it happen automatically when entering the circle?
Yes, basically.
Thanks for the data.
Ok. Well, it's certainly a way to do it, and it circumvents the flagging issues to some extent. Without having tried it versus how I imagine Ashes will do it, it's hard to say which system ends up better, but maybe we'll find out in A2.
Ok, so a fairly standard raid boss fight with two competing raids.
I have questions!
In T&L is it the raid group with 50%+ damage that gets the boss kill?
Are the members of the other raid group not enemies until they engage inside that circle?
It looks somewhat like what I envision we'll see in Ashes, except for all the teleporting. For dungeon bosses I hope there are chokepoints where you can have friendly groups preventing others from even entering, at least if they are flagged as combatants somehow, until they are strong enough to overcome the blocking force. For worldbosses out on the open that may be difficult.
Would you prefer that, actually? I feel like that would just lead to the situation becoming more stale, faster.
Losing side loses more rapidly, zergs get advantaged, etc.
I don't care either way, but I'm interested in the concept in terms of what people find good.
To be clear, I feel like the entire premise of territory/chokepoint control doesn't work in modern MMOs and Ashes does not seem to be going 'back to when it mattered' (this is sort of a good thing, but in effect it can be a bad thing if you try to design it like old games but with a new coat of paint... the paint is toxic in that case, is what I'm saying).
I don't want it for all fights. Actually, I think it's more about the flagging than the choke points really. I would like to reward organization in terms of having forces ready to take on competing raid groups before they even reach the boss.
It looked like people were able to run back to near the boss uncontested, and the fighting only took place while engaged with the boss. I think that is a bit silly. If all you have is enough for the raid to kill the boss, then that is what it is, but I don't have a problem at all with one raid group on the boss and one raid group protecting them outside the immediate boss area. Yes, it favours large guilds or alliances, but that's fine. The competing group will have to bring two raids groups as well, and they will dispatch the first raid group through sheer numbers, unless the raid group on the boss peel off and help them.
The main issue will probably be the flagging if starting a guild war on the opposing raids isn't a thing. Having to go corrupt to contest a boss through other means than DPS would suck a little IMO. That and boss-fights lasting long enough to where that back and forth has time to take place.
But back to the question, how did the flagging thing work in that video? Did it happen automatically when entering the circle?
Yes, basically.
Thanks for the data.
Ok. Well, it's certainly a way to do it, and it circumvents the flagging issues to some extent. Without having tried it versus how I imagine Ashes will do it, it's hard to say which system ends up better, but maybe we'll find out in A2.
Well, given what we've seen of Ashes' combat design so far, I'm willing to say.
For Ashes combat as it is designed now, TL's way is better.
I'd love a game where Ashes' system would be better, but our current combat direction ain't it.
im guessing the blue out line is the boss fight area and the other group cant see the bosses health unless they have a member in that area... i liked the moment at 11.28 wiped them in seconds that time...
this type of PVP content is what people will be expecting i think, what people complain about is the thought of getting killed out in the open world more often...and for no reason...
Yeah, I think so.
Steven says that the potential for that is necessary. I sort of agree.
But there are a lot of places where that's not true (for me) and at least a few where it feels more like Intrepid 'made up a reason to support that happening' rather than the other way around. But honestly I still feel like I know too little to say, so it's just 'feedback', nothing meaningful.
It just hit me what my main issue is with the T&L system in that video is. It feels very themepark-y and not very player driven. Or perhaps like a gameshow or big arena fight, is another way to put it. I prefer it more chaotic, player controlled and with less fairness forced on the players in those situations.
It just hit me what my main issue is with the T&L system in that video is. It feels very themepark-y and not very player driven. Or perhaps like a gameshow or big arena fight, is another way to put it. I prefer it more chaotic, player controlled and with less fairness forced on the players in those situations.
'Themepark-y' feels fairly subjective to me here. Like, my first reaction was 'what the fuck are you even talking about', but I thought about it and was like 'nah if I step in Nerror's shoes I can sorta see it.' Still...
As for your actual point the actual reason I'm chiming in. I feel like I've observed enough of the people interested in this game to come to the conclusion that this 'i want less fairness in the game' to be a common sentiment. But given the combat design of Ashes specifically, I do not think that really makes sense.
It just hit me what my main issue is with the T&L system in that video is. It feels very themepark-y and not very player driven. Or perhaps like a gameshow or big arena fight, is another way to put it. I prefer it more chaotic, player controlled and with less fairness forced on the players in those situations.
'Themepark-y' feels fairly subjective to me here. Like, my first reaction was 'what the fuck are you even talking about', but I thought about it and was like 'nah if I step in Nerror's shoes I can sorta see it.' Still...
As for your actual point the actual reason I'm chiming in. I feel like I've observed enough of the people interested in this game to come to the conclusion that this 'i want less fairness in the game' to be a common sentiment. But given the combat design of Ashes specifically, I do not think that really makes sense.
Of course, it's subjective
Can you elaborate what you mean about the combat design of Ashes that goes against the "I want less fairness" sentiment? I don't quite follow.
It just hit me what my main issue is with the T&L system in that video is. It feels very themepark-y and not very player driven. Or perhaps like a gameshow or big arena fight, is another way to put it. I prefer it more chaotic, player controlled and with less fairness forced on the players in those situations.
'Themepark-y' feels fairly subjective to me here. Like, my first reaction was 'what the fuck are you even talking about', but I thought about it and was like 'nah if I step in Nerror's shoes I can sorta see it.' Still...
As for your actual point the actual reason I'm chiming in. I feel like I've observed enough of the people interested in this game to come to the conclusion that this 'i want less fairness in the game' to be a common sentiment. But given the combat design of Ashes specifically, I do not think that really makes sense.
Of course, it's subjective
Can you elaborate what you mean about the combat design of Ashes that goes against the "I want less fairness" sentiment? I don't quite follow.
You saw the caravan stream right?
Cuz let me tell you, Ranger is built about as 'peak soul crusher' rn in a choke point design scenario. Rangers even accounting for future balance, will immediately demolish almost any situation with a choke point just by sheer range. This isn't even a balance thing, the combat is just tuned to have a certain amount of oppressive output and cc and a certain type of mobile and fast that Ranger has been given every tool and the box to make most classes miserable and the range to KEEP it that way. That's a factor of the archetypal build of how they approach ranger, not numbers, speed of output or balance.
The reason why this doesn't happen in older games with choke points is ammo, and speed. Without limiting factors on those thing, the 'fairness' falls apart and whoever got to the choke point first has a large enough advantage that an attacker trying to close the gap will feel /miserable/. Which will lead to zerging to force the issue.
I don't care either way, but I'm interested in the concept in terms of what people find good.
I'd want proper party-based balance, where a party (and definitely a raid) could use their combined abilities to push through a chokepoint. This would obviously need to have a cd of sorts.
This "I can respawn and just run back w/o being stopped" is really bad imo. I want the entire party having to respawn together and immediately regroup, before attempting to go back, because they'd respawn flagged and would be most likely flagged all the way till the boss room (unless they stand around doing nothing for over a minute).
Obviously this can be abused by spawncamping, which is why I've asked about multiple respawn points before. L2 had several TP spots from which you could approach a location (and the location could have 2+ entrances to it), and I'd definitely want Ashes to have several options when it comes to respawning.
This makes the entire encounter fairer and more strategic overall. And if the boss is designed well enough, the newcomers would also need a slight pause before continuing the farm, cause the boss would be a bit too strong for them due to all the anti-zerg (or potentially "flagged people around") buffs/effects.
Yeah the boss-fight in and of itself is fine with two competing raids. It's all the things around it I have an issue with. I agree with the multiple spawn points, having to regroup before going back unless you know the way is clear, still being flagged on the way back, the ability to push through choke points, etc.
But just waiting outside the circle in safety until everyone is back and then going "1..2..3... wheee, back on the ride for another spin" is not for me.
I understand the desire for a balance between PvE and PvP systems in Ashes of Creation. While PvX offers a blend of both, some may lean towards PvE-centric gameplay. It's about finding your comfort level within the spectrum. Personally, I enjoy the risks PvP brings but prefer PvE overall. It's worth noting that PvP encounters or risks can often be avoided or mitigated, allowing PvE-focused players to still thrive in the world of Verra. Let's embrace the diverse preferences within the community and enjoy the game together; see you on the battlefield.
PS: If we happen to play on the same server, count on me to assist you and Virtek in securing that household or tavern land plot.
I agree! Lots of unique perceptions when it comes to these things. I also prefer PvE.
Also, heck yeah! The Golden Feather Tavern will be up and running in no time!
To prefer PvE is fine.
The problem is when you hate risks in a game which has risk vs reward as a core pillar.
To like AoC you must love the caravan concept and risks in general.
This whole game is about resources:
- artificially created scarcity
- moving them around trying to avoid being attacked
- taking resources from other nodes
You must see the PvE as the source of resources and with the associated risk that you will not get them.
If Steven removes risk, it goes against a core pillar of the game.
So if you want PvE just to chill or to show how skilled you are to defeat some AI then AoC might not be the right game for you, because only 20% of content might overlap with your expectations and you might lose the resources anyway on your trip back to the node.
1
Options
chibibreeMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I understand the desire for a balance between PvE and PvP systems in Ashes of Creation. While PvX offers a blend of both, some may lean towards PvE-centric gameplay. It's about finding your comfort level within the spectrum. Personally, I enjoy the risks PvP brings but prefer PvE overall. It's worth noting that PvP encounters or risks can often be avoided or mitigated, allowing PvE-focused players to still thrive in the world of Verra. Let's embrace the diverse preferences within the community and enjoy the game together; see you on the battlefield.
PS: If we happen to play on the same server, count on me to assist you and Virtek in securing that household or tavern land plot.
I agree! Lots of unique perceptions when it comes to these things. I also prefer PvE.
Also, heck yeah! The Golden Feather Tavern will be up and running in no time!
To prefer PvE is fine.
The problem is when you hate risks in a game which has risk vs reward as a core pillar.
To like AoC you must love the caravan concept and risks in general.
This whole game is about resources:
- artificially created scarcity
- moving them around trying to avoid being attacked
- taking resources from other nodes
You must see the PvE as the source of resources and with the associated risk that you will not get them.
If Steven removes risk, it goes against a core pillar of the game.
So if you want PvE just to chill or to show how skilled you are to defeat some AI then AoC might not be the right game for you, because only 20% of content might overlap with your expectations and you might lose the resources anyway on your trip back to the node.
The thing is I don't hate risks. I like them, they should be there. I was just saying I prefer PvE.
Do I want PvE only servers? No. I enjoy the risks that come with the PvP Systems in mind. Will I need a group of friends to play with because (even though I'm complimented for living in the Caravan stream) I'm a big scaredy cat when it comes to PvP? Absolutely!
I picture you living in that showcase because you were hiding under the caravan until everyone else in the fight died and someone found you under the caravan.
Haha yes! I was just lucky, people give me too much credit haha
Might be reading this wrong, but OP's issue is they play MMOs solo?
Also as people mentioned, yes, "PK" is gonna be primarily between gatherers who are greedy. Some call it "robbery", some prefer the term "Advanced Stalinism".
0
Options
chibibreeMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Might be reading this wrong, but OP's issue is they play MMOs solo?
Also as people mentioned, yes, "PK" is gonna be primarily between gatherers who are greedy. Some call it "robbery", some prefer the term "Advanced Stalinism".
I don't play MMOs solo haha, I have played with different guilds off and on. I just typically don't get into solo pvp fights because I don't enjoy them as much
I understand the desire for a balance between PvE and PvP systems in Ashes of Creation. While PvX offers a blend of both, some may lean towards PvE-centric gameplay. It's about finding your comfort level within the spectrum. Personally, I enjoy the risks PvP brings but prefer PvE overall. It's worth noting that PvP encounters or risks can often be avoided or mitigated, allowing PvE-focused players to still thrive in the world of Verra. Let's embrace the diverse preferences within the community and enjoy the game together; see you on the battlefield.
PS: If we happen to play on the same server, count on me to assist you and Virtek in securing that household or tavern land plot.
I agree! Lots of unique perceptions when it comes to these things. I also prefer PvE.
Also, heck yeah! The Golden Feather Tavern will be up and running in no time!
To prefer PvE is fine.
The problem is when you hate risks in a game which has risk vs reward as a core pillar.
To like AoC you must love the caravan concept and risks in general.
This whole game is about resources:
- artificially created scarcity
- moving them around trying to avoid being attacked
- taking resources from other nodes
You must see the PvE as the source of resources and with the associated risk that you will not get them.
If Steven removes risk, it goes against a core pillar of the game.
So if you want PvE just to chill or to show how skilled you are to defeat some AI then AoC might not be the right game for you, because only 20% of content might overlap with your expectations and you might lose the resources anyway on your trip back to the node.
The thing is I don't hate risks. I like them, they should be there. I was just saying I prefer PvE.
I would not mind the mega catacomb generated by the Divine metropolis which extend it's vassal nodes, to be closer to the PvE you like but only if you find a way to make it so only for the divine citizens, without relying on instances.
0
Options
chibibreeMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I understand the desire for a balance between PvE and PvP systems in Ashes of Creation. While PvX offers a blend of both, some may lean towards PvE-centric gameplay. It's about finding your comfort level within the spectrum. Personally, I enjoy the risks PvP brings but prefer PvE overall. It's worth noting that PvP encounters or risks can often be avoided or mitigated, allowing PvE-focused players to still thrive in the world of Verra. Let's embrace the diverse preferences within the community and enjoy the game together; see you on the battlefield.
PS: If we happen to play on the same server, count on me to assist you and Virtek in securing that household or tavern land plot.
I agree! Lots of unique perceptions when it comes to these things. I also prefer PvE.
Also, heck yeah! The Golden Feather Tavern will be up and running in no time!
To prefer PvE is fine.
The problem is when you hate risks in a game which has risk vs reward as a core pillar.
To like AoC you must love the caravan concept and risks in general.
This whole game is about resources:
- artificially created scarcity
- moving them around trying to avoid being attacked
- taking resources from other nodes
You must see the PvE as the source of resources and with the associated risk that you will not get them.
If Steven removes risk, it goes against a core pillar of the game.
So if you want PvE just to chill or to show how skilled you are to defeat some AI then AoC might not be the right game for you, because only 20% of content might overlap with your expectations and you might lose the resources anyway on your trip back to the node.
The thing is I don't hate risks. I like them, they should be there. I was just saying I prefer PvE.
I would not mind the mega catacomb generated by the Divine metropolis which extend it's vassal nodes, to be closer to the PvE you like but only if you find a way to make it so only for the divine citizens, without relying on instances.
Yeah we have ventured into those as discussions as well, some who are looking for more specific PvE have mentioned liking the idea of some sort of boss room lock out, but that is also just us chatting and not expecting it haha. At the end of the day, regardless of my preferences, I think Ashes will be fun!
Do I want PvE only servers? No. I enjoy the risks that come with the PvP Systems in mind. Will I need a group of friends to play with because (even though I'm complimented for living in the Caravan stream) I'm a big scaredy cat when it comes to PvP? Absolutely!
All in all, I'm just trying to say that I think PvX can be considered more of a spectrum...
Love to see this. IMO this is exactly what PvX is all about, and people being all absolutist about their position (pvp vs pve) doesn't serve this game, or any of us, at all.
Personally I'm much further on the pvp side of the spectrum, but an MMO is all about being part of a broad, multi-faceted world, and I like the fact that our different motives + objectives serve as a natural basis for a functioning economy. That's proper PvX.
Comments
If you want PvE you go to divine nodes.
u gonna spend 95% of your time in ashes killing mobs and doing pve xd
All the rest of the content in the game is PvX. Even the reward part of a successful node siege is an open world zone for several days. Only the actual siege part is probably instanced.
So in terms of instanced rewards, PvP isn't favored.
Limited Access
The single most strongest way of limited access is distance. With no fast travel and a huuuuge map with rugged territory to cross, there will only be a limited number of players in any area to compete with you over a given thing.
Another important way that access will be limited is through the competition itself, as people will instinctively limit information. If you do not know that this boss in this fairly easy dungeon has a small chance to drop this very rare ingredient, they will not compete over it with you and you and your guild will not tell them where you got it.
And lastly the temporary nature of almost everything guarantees that with every change happening in the Node system competition will become more or less fierce. If you as a peace loving guild play your cards right, you might establish and run a fairly unimportant Tier 4 Node that survives various changes of your Parent Node. In peace times, you comply with the rules of the parent Node, after all the worst thing they can do is put some taxes on you, while you could secretly support their enemies if the Parent Node is no good. And when the Parent Node is gone and players in your region begin to fight over the leader position, your guild scatters out for adventures further away so that your Node does not accidently ends up as the Parent Node with a Damocles Sword hanging over your head. That also has the added benefit that you go away as other pour in meaning you leave the area of highest conflict until things settle in again.
With all that being said - the impact of access limitation in the above mentioned ways will to a good portion come down to us testing and giving feedback during the Alpha 2 stage as the current impact is impossible to calculate beforehand. Intrepid needs to closely monitor how far apart/close together we are on Verra and whether that helps or limits the flow of the game.
I picture you living in that showcase because you were hiding under the caravan until everyone else in the fight died and someone found you under the caravan.
My PvX.
Now with more Equality.
Ok, so a fairly standard raid boss fight with two competing raids.
I have questions!
In T&L is it the raid group with 50%+ damage that gets the boss kill?
Are the members of the other raid group not enemies until they engage inside that circle?
It looks somewhat like what I envision we'll see in Ashes, except for all the teleporting. For dungeon bosses I hope there are chokepoints where you can have friendly groups preventing others from even entering, at least if they are flagged as combatants somehow, until they are strong enough to overcome the blocking force. For worldbosses out on the open that may be difficult.
Would you prefer that, actually? I feel like that would just lead to the situation becoming more stale, faster.
Losing side loses more rapidly, zergs get advantaged, etc.
I don't care either way, but I'm interested in the concept in terms of what people find good.
To be clear, I feel like the entire premise of territory/chokepoint control doesn't work in modern MMOs and Ashes does not seem to be going 'back to when it mattered' (this is sort of a good thing, but in effect it can be a bad thing if you try to design it like old games but with a new coat of paint... the paint is toxic in that case, is what I'm saying).
im guessing the blue out line is the boss fight area and the other group cant see the bosses health unless they have a member in that area... i liked the moment at 11.28 wiped them in seconds that time...
this type of PVP content is what people will be expecting i think, what people complain about is the thought of getting killed out in the open world more often...and for no reason...
I don't want it for all fights. Actually, I think it's more about the flagging than the choke points really. I would like to reward organization in terms of having forces ready to take on competing raid groups before they even reach the boss.
It looked like people were able to run back to near the boss uncontested, and the fighting only took place while engaged with the boss. I think that is a bit silly. If all you have is enough for the raid to kill the boss, then that is what it is, but I don't have a problem at all with one raid group on the boss and one raid group protecting them outside the immediate boss area. Yes, it favours large guilds or alliances, but that's fine. The competing group will have to bring two raids groups as well, and they will dispatch the first raid group through sheer numbers, unless the raid group on the boss peel off and help them.
The main issue will probably be the flagging if starting a guild war on the opposing raids isn't a thing. Having to go corrupt to contest a boss through other means than DPS would suck a little IMO. That and boss-fights lasting long enough to where that back and forth has time to take place.
But back to the question, how did the flagging thing work in that video? Did it happen automatically when entering the circle?
Yes, basically.
Thanks for the data.
Ok. Well, it's certainly a way to do it, and it circumvents the flagging issues to some extent. Without having tried it versus how I imagine Ashes will do it, it's hard to say which system ends up better, but maybe we'll find out in A2.
Well, given what we've seen of Ashes' combat design so far, I'm willing to say.
For Ashes combat as it is designed now, TL's way is better.
I'd love a game where Ashes' system would be better, but our current combat direction ain't it.
Yeah, I think so.
Steven says that the potential for that is necessary. I sort of agree.
But there are a lot of places where that's not true (for me) and at least a few where it feels more like Intrepid 'made up a reason to support that happening' rather than the other way around. But honestly I still feel like I know too little to say, so it's just 'feedback', nothing meaningful.
'Themepark-y' feels fairly subjective to me here. Like, my first reaction was 'what the fuck are you even talking about', but I thought about it and was like 'nah if I step in Nerror's shoes I can sorta see it.' Still...
As for your actual point the actual reason I'm chiming in. I feel like I've observed enough of the people interested in this game to come to the conclusion that this 'i want less fairness in the game' to be a common sentiment. But given the combat design of Ashes specifically, I do not think that really makes sense.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
Of course, it's subjective
Can you elaborate what you mean about the combat design of Ashes that goes against the "I want less fairness" sentiment? I don't quite follow.
You saw the caravan stream right?
Cuz let me tell you, Ranger is built about as 'peak soul crusher' rn in a choke point design scenario. Rangers even accounting for future balance, will immediately demolish almost any situation with a choke point just by sheer range. This isn't even a balance thing, the combat is just tuned to have a certain amount of oppressive output and cc and a certain type of mobile and fast that Ranger has been given every tool and the box to make most classes miserable and the range to KEEP it that way. That's a factor of the archetypal build of how they approach ranger, not numbers, speed of output or balance.
The reason why this doesn't happen in older games with choke points is ammo, and speed. Without limiting factors on those thing, the 'fairness' falls apart and whoever got to the choke point first has a large enough advantage that an attacker trying to close the gap will feel /miserable/. Which will lead to zerging to force the issue.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
I'd want proper party-based balance, where a party (and definitely a raid) could use their combined abilities to push through a chokepoint. This would obviously need to have a cd of sorts.
This "I can respawn and just run back w/o being stopped" is really bad imo. I want the entire party having to respawn together and immediately regroup, before attempting to go back, because they'd respawn flagged and would be most likely flagged all the way till the boss room (unless they stand around doing nothing for over a minute).
Obviously this can be abused by spawncamping, which is why I've asked about multiple respawn points before. L2 had several TP spots from which you could approach a location (and the location could have 2+ entrances to it), and I'd definitely want Ashes to have several options when it comes to respawning.
This makes the entire encounter fairer and more strategic overall. And if the boss is designed well enough, the newcomers would also need a slight pause before continuing the farm, cause the boss would be a bit too strong for them due to all the anti-zerg (or potentially "flagged people around") buffs/effects.
But just waiting outside the circle in safety until everyone is back and then going "1..2..3... wheee, back on the ride for another spin" is not for me.
The problem is when you hate risks in a game which has risk vs reward as a core pillar.
To like AoC you must love the caravan concept and risks in general.
This whole game is about resources:
- artificially created scarcity
- moving them around trying to avoid being attacked
- taking resources from other nodes
You must see the PvE as the source of resources and with the associated risk that you will not get them.
If Steven removes risk, it goes against a core pillar of the game.
So if you want PvE just to chill or to show how skilled you are to defeat some AI then AoC might not be the right game for you, because only 20% of content might overlap with your expectations and you might lose the resources anyway on your trip back to the node.
The thing is I don't hate risks. I like them, they should be there. I was just saying I prefer PvE.
Haha yes! I was just lucky, people give me too much credit haha
Also as people mentioned, yes, "PK" is gonna be primarily between gatherers who are greedy. Some call it "robbery", some prefer the term "Advanced Stalinism".
I don't play MMOs solo haha, I have played with different guilds off and on. I just typically don't get into solo pvp fights because I don't enjoy them as much
Is that you talking?
I would not mind the mega catacomb generated by the Divine metropolis which extend it's vassal nodes, to be closer to the PvE you like but only if you find a way to make it so only for the divine citizens, without relying on instances.
Yeah we have ventured into those as discussions as well, some who are looking for more specific PvE have mentioned liking the idea of some sort of boss room lock out, but that is also just us chatting and not expecting it haha. At the end of the day, regardless of my preferences, I think Ashes will be fun!
Love to see this. IMO this is exactly what PvX is all about, and people being all absolutist about their position (pvp vs pve) doesn't serve this game, or any of us, at all.
Personally I'm much further on the pvp side of the spectrum, but an MMO is all about being part of a broad, multi-faceted world, and I like the fact that our different motives + objectives serve as a natural basis for a functioning economy. That's proper PvX.