Everyone who discusses here, or in this case the vast majority, has an idea of what they are talking about the future ideas and potential of having a PvX in AoC.
Many PvErs players , carebears and others DO NOT HAVE IT , they have the wrong idea , like many of the comments on that reddit meme.
I really think the lack of knowledge " in this new age of MMORPGS". , it affects a lot to future MMORPGS to try to make more systems that favor PvX.
It seems that the modern MMORPG genre strives to pigeonhole itself into "PvE" and "PvP" but not give the opportunity for the two to grow together.
For my part I consider that the new generations need the older generations for their growth to be good and if we have that kind of knowledge then it should be taught otherwise the pigeonholed idea of "PvE or PvP but never together" will continue to grow.
The leaf lives the time it has been given and does not fight against the wind that carries it away. The leaf does no harm and eventually falls to make way for new leaves. This is how it should be with all PvPers and PvErs.
It's a shame that people have to be toxic, there will always be griefers, for this reason PVP games have tiny populations.
.
are you aware that the games with the biggest playerbases are pvp games?
also, most people prefer cooperative-competitive games over purely cooperative or solo games.
Everyone who discusses here, or in this case the vast majority, has an idea of what they are talking about the future ideas and potential of having a PvX in AoC.
Many PvErs players , carebears and others DO NOT HAVE IT , they have the wrong idea , like many of the comments on that reddit meme.
I really think the lack of knowledge " in this new age of MMORPGS". , it affects a lot to future MMORPGS to try to make more systems that favor PvX.
It seems that the modern MMORPG genre strives to pigeonhole itself into "PvE" and "PvP" but not give the opportunity for the two to grow together.
For my part I consider that the new generations need the older generations for their growth to be good and if we have that kind of knowledge then it should be taught otherwise the pigeonholed idea of "PvE or PvP but never together" will continue to grow.
The leaf lives the time it has been given and does not fight against the wind that carries it away. The leaf does no harm and eventually falls to make way for new leaves. This is how it should be with all PvPers and PvErs.
It's a shame that people have to be toxic, there will always be griefers, for this reason PVP games have tiny populations.
.
are you aware that the games with the biggest playerbases are pvp games?
The games with the biggest populations are non-presistent.
When it comes to persistent games, PvP is a very small minority.
My favorite is this: "...One of the defining elements of our world-building approach and being a PvX game is that PvE builds the world and PvP changes the world." - Steven elaborating on this here
This is one of the quotes that has kept me most interested in this game as well. The problem; is the implications of it.
If people are trying to "build the world" at the same time other people are trying to "change the world", then nothing gets build, and thus there is nothing to change.
The above quote suggests that building and changing are seperate, distinct activities - not that they are some random messy conglomerate of "play" that is all happening together.
If people are trying to "build the world" at the same time other people are trying to "change the world", then nothing gets build, and thus there is nothing to change.
But doesn't "change" imply that there's already something that CAN be changed? Which means that pvp in Ashes can't exist w/o pve, because you can't change smth that ain't there.
PvErs might summon a dragon through some actions, but then pvpers would come to that dragon and prevent its killing because it might lead to the node falling or smth. PvErs open up a dungeon by progressing a story event and then pvpers fight amongst each other for the content within the dungeon. Etc etc
PvErs come first, because w/o their actions pvpers can't do shit really. And this is w/o even saying that pvpers themselves would need to pve first, if they want to be successful in pvp, so there's even more pveing happening in the game before any pvp can take place.
If people are trying to "build the world" at the same time other people are trying to "change the world", then nothing gets build, and thus there is nothing to change.
But doesn't "change" imply that there's already something that CAN be changed?
Yes it does - which is why I said that the comment suggests (logically requires, but lets not go that deep) that the building and changing activities be distinct and seperate.
Like, you can build a house, and you can change a house - if you try and do both at the same time you are likely to end up with a pile of broken house rather than something you can live in.
Build - then change. In that order. Not together - never together. These two activities do not belong together.
I want to point out that I am specifically only talking about the act of building and changing here. I am not using them as proxies for PvP and PvE - even though that is kind of what we are talking about. If anything, this is just another of those contradictions.
A game where PvE unlocks content only for PvP players to block people from running it (your suggestions above) just sounds like absolute shit.
A game where PvE unlocks content only for PvP players to block people from running it (your suggestions above) just sounds like absolute shit.
For me it sounds nice But that's a whole separate repetitive discussion.
As for simultaneous build-changing of things, afaik that is a practice in quite a few industries. Plans change on the fly even during the building process (hell, gaming is probably the biggest example of that). And quite often a late-stage change could lead to a much better result, because the already-built stuff creates a new perspective on the previously established plans.
I see AoC's systems in the same way. A group of nodes might be progressing in a certain manner (building the world) when suddenly a new piece of content opens up that has a hook towards a certain next setup, which would then require some pvp influence to shift the node growth towards that.
I feel like this is what Steven's talking about in that quote and to me these things happen "at the same time" in the overall process of build-changing the world. The world keeps being built up, but in a changed way, because in Ashes even destruction simply means a shift in resources rather than a removal of them (well, unless we're talking caravans dying, but then it's a way more pvp thing than a pvx one).
As for simultaneous build-changing of things, afaik that is a practice in quite a few industries. Plans change on the fly even during the building process (hell, gaming is probably the biggest example of that). And quite often a late-stage change could lead to a much better result, because the already-built stuff creates a new perspective on the previously established plans.
But even this is build and then change.
If we are talking about the gaming industry, it would be some coder sitting at their desk changing the basic game design as they are writing code - that is both happining together, and would be a mess.
Working on the game and then stopping to have a meeting about potential different ways to develop going forward and then going back to working on the game literally is one thing at a time.
An in game example of build then change that doesn't quite work for Ashes but is a better illustration of what I am talking about than anything at all in this game is something like a guild or alliance killing a boss (unhindered) that then triggers a node to spawn at level 4. This is then followed by a PvP event with 5 sides, where the winning side determines if the node will be scientific, military, economic, religious or destroyed.
To me, that is how a PvX game where you build via PvE and then chage via PvP would have to operate.
Ashes isn't that game, but then I also don't see Ashes as fitting the description that Steven talked about regardless of how interesting that description actually would be if properly implemented.
An in game example of build then change that doesn't quite work for Ashes but is a better illustration of what I am talking about than anything at all in this game is something like a guild or alliance killing a boss (unhindered) that then triggers a node to spawn at level 4. This is then followed by a PvP event with 5 sides, where the winning side determines if the node will be scientific, military, economic, religious or destroyed.
I wouldn't like that one because the better PvPers would chose to make military nodes.
As it is now, the game sets the number and placement of the divine nodes which seem to favor PvE players and they will go there and do their PvE stuff and try to defend their homes.
An in game example of build then change that doesn't quite work for Ashes but is a better illustration of what I am talking about than anything at all in this game is something like a guild or alliance killing a boss (unhindered) that then triggers a node to spawn at level 4. This is then followed by a PvP event with 5 sides, where the winning side determines if the node will be scientific, military, economic, religious or destroyed.
I wouldn't like that one because the better PvPers would chose to make military nodes.
As it is now, the game sets the number and placement of the divine nodes which seem to favor PvE players and they will go there and do their PvE stuff and try to defend their homes.
I wouldn't either - it was just an examples of the mechanics of how a game based on the notion of PvE to build and PvP to change would work.
That is why I said it wouldn't quite work for Ashes - it was only meant as an illustration, not a suggestion.
I think you don't understand the concept of evolution especially in MMORPGS.
To evolve does not mean to improve, it means that you had to adapt to something that forced you to adapt in order to continue surviving and thanks to that adaptation you can have the concept of evolution.
There is no evolution without previous adaptation and for there to be a previous adaptation there must be an environment that requires you to adapt in order to continue surviving.
That is what the MMORPG world is in right now, That is what the MMORPG GENRE is in right now.
Don't you realize it? RIOT already realized it, Intrepid realized it a long time ago and many others are realizing it, you can feel the winds of change, a new era is coming and the development studios that know how to adapt to it will be the ones that will really evolve.
#LETTHEMCOOK a good dish seasoned with evolution.
Ah, that's 'unfortunate' but I guess RIOT of all people are really not in a position to take the other path.
I'm glad they realized it, though. With six different development methodologies in play now, we're sure to get something good out of one of them... right...?
They had something that required a lot of work, "Arcane", they did it very well, I have no doubts but no proof that they could make an MMORPG really as good as ARCANE was, but the mentality they have to make an MMORPG is based on the fact from what Tryndamare wrote in that Tweet, so that gives a small glimmer of hope.
It seems that many here have a closed vision when referring to groups of MMORPG players, if this is PvE, if this is PvP, if this can or cannot be done by this group of players, if this content is exclusive to them and not to the others , BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH ....
Why strive to separate when you can strive to unite, why continue thinking about a single specific group (be it PvP or PvE) when you can think about a dependent and cooperative union that helps each of them improve?
For me that is PvX, it unites the players so that each one in their own way contributes things that are enhanced if they cooperate with each other.
I do not intend to "force others to think like me or manipulate them so that they like things that I like, but if someone has a doubt or lack of knowledge about something (as happened in the meme I made of PvX on reddit) and therefore has a bad misconception then I will be there to remove your doubt and teach you what the potential of PvX is in AoC and possibly in other MMORPGs, it is as simple as that.
And yes, that thought may be very idealistic but ideas that have great character, personality and a lot of potential tend to be the most idealistic, I can't see the future, I don't really know if it will work excellently but what I do know is It's that I want and must believe in an idea that can help improve a genre that has been needing players who REALLY want to play AN MMORPG and not a single player game or a single player group game , an MMORPG has never been a single-player game or a single-group game , an MMORRPG must recover its style, its personality, its own vision.
Everyone knows the personality of an FPS, MOBA, SHOOTER, but the personality that MMORPGs had over the years of single-player or single-group MMORPGs have been lost.
I believe in people who are making an effort to cook a great dish.
#LETTHEMCOOK
#WHENDEMONICDARKELVES ?
Sorry MybroViajero, but I don't think there are many PvE players interested in depending on a team of babysitters each time they log in. Put it however you want, you wont sell your PvP protection plan to many.
Your vision of MMOs of the past is also somewhat skewed: there has always been people spending most of their time playing on their own or with a very limited group of friends. That was always part of the DNA of MMOs, although rarely a dominant gene as far as expressed content provided.
You " WILL " be ready and willing to defend yourself in the Open World of Verra, when You get Stuff done - beat down Mobs or Questmobs, farm Ressources or World Bosses,
and then some Playerkillers want to sneak up on You and want to try and murder You, just for shxts and giggles and because they think it's funny to troll Others.
You can run away and even uninstall the Game if you wish -> but i think we all know you will not do that. NOT if you truly waited for a vast, beautiful and amazing MMO. You will grow some Balls and a Spine (lol) whetever you like it, or not.
0
Options
FantmxMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
These opinions are coming from players in the PvE community. Trying to explain to them that there are different types of PvErs seems to serve no function.
I find myself in the middle, a PvE player that will PvP when needed and when desired. I can tell you 100% I do not want to have to try and find a bodyguard every time I log into the game.
People uninstall games for all kinds of reasons and this could be a big one for some. We will have to wait and see.
None of this discussion has anything to do with Intrepid's ability to create a great game.
These opinions are coming from players in the PvE community. Trying to explain to them that there are different types of PvErs seems to serve no function.
I find myself in the middle, a PvE player that will PvP when needed and when desired. I can tell you 100% I do not want to have to try and find a bodyguard every time I log into the game.
People uninstall games for all kinds of reasons and this could be a big one for some. We will have to wait and see.
None of this discussion has anything to do with Intrepid's ability to create a great game.
body guards lol no ones advocating body guards but you will be part of a node, that node will have PVP'ers in it and if you have been PK'ed by someone in the area talk to one of the PVP'er ask for help from the community of your node... no ones going to hold your hand but they very may be willing to fight for you knowing there PVE'ers of the node are getting killed by out-siders. and look I'm not even saying this is how its going to work but be open to the possibility that its possible. or maybe the game is not for you...!
0
Options
FantmxMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
These opinions are coming from players in the PvE community. Trying to explain to them that there are different types of PvErs seems to serve no function.
I find myself in the middle, a PvE player that will PvP when needed and when desired. I can tell you 100% I do not want to have to try and find a bodyguard every time I log into the game.
People uninstall games for all kinds of reasons and this could be a big one for some. We will have to wait and see.
None of this discussion has anything to do with Intrepid's ability to create a great game.
body guards lol no ones advocating body guards but you will be part of a node, that node will have PVP'ers in it and if you have been PK'ed by someone in the area talk to one of the PVP'er ask for help from the community of your node... no ones going to hold your hand but they very may be willing to fight for you knowing there PVE'ers of the node are getting killed by out-siders. and look I'm not even saying this is how its going to work but be open to the possibility that its possible. or maybe the game is not for you...!
If you would hire either NPC Guards or other Players, in Expectation to protect yourself from Player Killers, THAT ITSELF would be a form of Preparation for PvP. 😁
These opinions are coming from players in the PvE community. Trying to explain to them that there are different types of PvErs seems to serve no function.
I find myself in the middle, a PvE player that will PvP when needed and when desired. I can tell you 100% I do not want to have to try and find a bodyguard every time I log into the game.
People uninstall games for all kinds of reasons and this could be a big one for some. We will have to wait and see.
None of this discussion has anything to do with Intrepid's ability to create a great game.
body guards lol no ones advocating body guards but you will be part of a node, that node will have PVP'ers in it and if you have been PK'ed by someone in the area talk to one of the PVP'er ask for help from the community of your node... no ones going to hold your hand but they very may be willing to fight for you knowing there PVE'ers of the node are getting killed by out-siders. and look I'm not even saying this is how its going to work but be open to the possibility that its possible. or maybe the game is not for you...!
It is equally as possible that it is PvP'ers from that same node that are the ones killing the PvE players of that same node.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The only thing that needs to be done to educate Carebears is to tell them clearly that Ashes is a PvP-centric game that will have no separate PvE servers.
There will be plenty of other games for us to play besides Ashes. Since Ashes will not release before 2020.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Why does the term PvX continue to get thrown around. Is it to hide the term PvP in hopes that somehow PvE players will be more tolerant of the discussion? If that is the case I don't think it is going to work. They don't care or worry about PvX. There are already numerous games that exist with PvX. They care about forced PvP. It is that simple and this version of PvX includes that. Ask any PvE player with reservations about Ashes and that is what they will tell you. Saying "well you just don't know what PvX is" means nothing and will do nothing. I see PvX as a gimmick or marketing term to try and shoot the middle of two very different groups, hoping to bring some of them closer together.
The only thing that needs to be done to educate Carebears is to tell them clearly that Ashes is a PvP-centric game that will have no separate PvE servers.
There will be plenty of other games for us to play besides Ashes. Since Ashes will not release before 2020.
Why does the term PvX continue to get thrown around. Is it to hide the term PvP in hopes that somehow PvE players will be more tolerant of the discussion? If that is the case I don't think it is going to work. They don't care or worry about PvX. There are already numerous games that exist with PvX. They care about forced PvP. It is that simple and this version of PvX includes that. Ask any PvE player with reservations about Ashes and that is what they will tell you. Saying "well you just don't know what PvX is" means nothing and will do nothing. I see PvX as a gimmick or marketing term to try and shoot the middle of two very different groups, hoping to bring some of them closer together.
Exactly!
Is the MMORPG genre an important one compared to games in general?
If yes, we can say for sure what players want, by looking which mmorpgs are the most popular ones.
If no, then we know only that a large part of players who do not play mmorpgs want something new.
I think many players played mmorpgs sometime ago and are tired of the same formula, whether grinding experience and resources killing NPCs or fighting with other players in arenas.
What AoC tries to do, is to bring players back to play mmorpgs again by offering a new experience. That is the risk aspect. It does not try to steal the player base of other traditional mmorpgs.
You cannot say AoC is PvP centric because it does not encourage players to fight on daily basis. Sometime there will be node wars and sieges when a normal player might find itself flagged against some other nodes but it can still play on the other side of the map and probably will be safe.
If he really does not want to PvP, the corruption will discourage killing the player.
If he wants to transport goods via caravans, again that player will not run toward other players to engage them. Will run away from PvP.
But you have to like the risk part of the so called "risk vs reward" pillar.
The risk is directly bound to losing something, typically resources.
Some players will lose the illusion that they are powerful, which Fantmx describes
This is not a who gets to be a hero discussion. All of us play to feel powerful, to feel that growth, to be proud of our accomplishments. This includes those trying to dominate other player characters. It gives you a feeling of power, of strength, of heroics.
[/b]
And Steven agrees:
... a concept that got lost today in mmorpgs, and that's risk versus reward. You know this idea that the more you risk the greater potential reward should be present is a complete paradigm shift away from everyone's a winner, everybody gets a participation reward, and here you go, congratulations you're a player in this game; and that's boring. ... [16] – Steven Sharif
A PvP centric game would not punish PvP using the corruption mechanic. Would not tell that they are monsters. In a PvP centric game, players would lose on death gold and gear too.
Why does the term PvX continue to get thrown around. Is it to hide the term PvP in hopes that somehow PvE players will be more tolerant of the discussion? If that is the case I don't think it is going to work.
What I can agree on is that I sometime have doubts too.
I cannot say for sure that it will work.
Just that I like the approach and I hope it will.
A PvP centric game would not punish PvP using the corruption mechanic.
Yes it would.
Assuming we are talking about persistent world MMORPG's, a PvP game absolutely would have some form of restriction in place. Literally every PvP focused MMORPG has something in place to restrict PvP.
If you are talking about non-persistent games (lobby games such as most FPS and BR games), then who cares what they do?
Everyone who discusses here, or in this case the vast majority, has an idea of what they are talking about the future ideas and potential of having a PvX in AoC.
Many PvErs players , carebears and others DO NOT HAVE IT , they have the wrong idea , like many of the comments on that reddit meme.
I really think the lack of knowledge " in this new age of MMORPGS". , it affects a lot to future MMORPGS to try to make more systems that favor PvX.
It seems that the modern MMORPG genre strives to pigeonhole itself into "PvE" and "PvP" but not give the opportunity for the two to grow together.
For my part I consider that the new generations need the older generations for their growth to be good and if we have that kind of knowledge then it should be taught otherwise the pigeonholed idea of "PvE or PvP but never together" will continue to grow.
The leaf lives the time it has been given and does not fight against the wind that carries it away. The leaf does no harm and eventually falls to make way for new leaves. This is how it should be with all PvPers and PvErs.
This is why PVE mainly focused people will not play, the use of CareBear, is the response of a toxic PVP'er who will grief people, in their mind.
It's a shame that people have to be toxic, there will always be griefers, for this reason PVP games have tiny populations.
That tiny population could be the death of this game before it is ever released, the game has huge ambition that is PVE based, many great idea's and mechanics, but it's PVE based so of little interest to PVP'ers, the PVE'ers are not interested in trying to do something special if they are getting griefed whilst trying to do it.
Perception is the thing that needs to be addressed, PVE'ers see hardcore PVP'er's as nothing more than potential griefers. PVP'ers see any complaints against PVP as CareBears and crybabies.
So any game that is considered PVP focused will struggle.
Well i can give you a dozen examples of PvE focused games in wich PvE'rs are ten times more toxic than PvP'ers.
A PvP centric game would not punish PvP using the corruption mechanic.
Yes it would.
Assuming we are talking about persistent world MMORPG's, a PvP game absolutely would have some form of restriction in place. Literally every PvP focused MMORPG has something in place to restrict PvP.
If you are talking about non-persistent games (lobby games such as most FPS and BR games), then who cares what they do?
Truth is that I cannot give any example.
I still think AoC corruption will be balanced to prevent players becoming red and players will be relatively safe when exploring the land.
A PvP centric game would not punish PvP using the corruption mechanic.
Yes it would.
Assuming we are talking about persistent world MMORPG's, a PvP game absolutely would have some form of restriction in place. Literally every PvP focused MMORPG has something in place to restrict PvP.
If you are talking about non-persistent games (lobby games such as most FPS and BR games), then who cares what they do?
Truth is that I cannot give any example.
That is because there aren't any.
There is no doubt at all that PvP games are more popular online than PvE games. I'm willing to argue that point with anyone that disagrees, but I doubt anyone seriously will.
It's the notion of a persistent world and PvP together that is significantly less popular.
The fact that Bounty Hunter exists as a progression path dictates that Intrepid need to balance corruption in a way where people are sometimes willing to gain corruption. As long as that exists, they have no choice.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Is the MMORPG genre an important one compared to games in general?
If yes, we can say for sure what players want, by looking which mmorpgs are the most popular ones.
Specific to MMORPGs. Yes.
The vast majority of MMORPG players play on servers that are not PvP servers.
If no, then we know only that a large part of players who do not play mmorpgs want something new.
I think many players played mmorpgs sometime ago and are tired of the same formula, whether grinding experience and resources killing NPCs or fighting with other players in arenas.
Well. Tired of the Edngame treadmill.
I stopped playing EQ2 and WoW and NW back in 2013.
I determined that WoW would need some form of WoW 2.0 that would put an end to Endgame - reaching max level in 3 weeks and then waiting 2 years for an expansion. I want an MMORPG where I can ever quest with new content. Rather than repeating dungeons and raids ad nauseum.
(Questing to level is not a grind. Grinding is farming individual mobs or gathering individual resources for minimal xp rather than getting xp boosts from questing.
What people are tired of is reaching the end of questing in 3-6 weeks and then being left with nothing but dungeons and raids for 2+ years.)
That very week EQ Next was announced. They basically had a Nodes system similar to Ashes.
Even then, we were wondering how the devs would get PvPers and PvEers to play on the same servers.
The quickest way to cause people to get banned on the EQ Next Forus was to offer a suggestion for how that could work.
The PvPers would offer a suggestion and the PvEers would be offended and outraged and start flaming.
The PvEers would offer a suggestion and the PvPers would be offended and outraged and start flaming.
The Ashes design for Nodes was new and exciting still in 2017 - 4 years after the EQNext reveal.
Phenomneal if theyhad released before 2020.
At this point, there are plenty of other games that offer similar or better solutions to end Endgame - without the need to compromise with regard to non-consensual PvP.
Even WoW has enticed me back with Shadowlands and Dragonflight - especially Dragonflight and their BattlePasses.
What AoC tries to do, is to bring players back to play mmorpgs again by offering a new experience. That is the risk aspect. It does not try to steal the player base of other traditional mmorpgs.
Again, here by risk... what you actually mean is PvP.
Mobs and NPCs can have plenty of risk.
The AoC design will not "bring players back to play MMORPGs".
The gamers who have Steven's playstyle will have tons of fun playing Ashes of Creation.
Gamers who loved playing Lineage II, ArcheAge and EvE (and ShadowBane).
Players who didn't love playing those games are unlikely to play Ashes.
Also notice that the devs who created L2 and ArcheAge have chosen to put lesser focus on PvP because most MMORPG players don't like a lot of PvP.
You cannot say AoC is PvP centric because it does not encourage players to fight on daily basis. Sometime there will be node wars and sieges when a normal player might find itself flagged against some other nodes but it can still play on the other side of the map and probably will be safe.
If he really does not want to PvP, the corruption will discourage killing the player.
If he wants to transport goods via caravans, again that player will not run toward other players to engage them. Will run away from PvP.
Show me the dictionary that defines PvP-centric as "encouraging players to fight on a daily basis".
Ashes is the equivalent of a PvP-server in EQ/EQ2/WoW. I don't play on PvP-servers.
Players who typically play EQ/EQ2/WoW on servers that are not PvP-servers probably will not be playing Ashes.
But you have to like the risk part of the so called "risk vs reward" pillar.
The risk is directly bound to losing something, typically resources.
Again, "Risk v Reward" actually means, the greater the reward, the more likely you will have to engage in PvP.
In Ashes, Risk is always synonymous with PvP.
And the precious commodity that is lost is actually time - not resources.
When PvPers disrupt RP wedding events - the complaint is not about losing materials. The complaint is about disrupting their game session. It's a factor time. The players want to be doing other stuff during that time that is not PvP.
So, yes. Now, it is clear that you have to love PvP and embrace the Ashes pillar of the "risk" of PvP being infused in everything. Because Ashes is PvP-centric.
This is not a who gets to be a hero discussion. All of us play to feel powerful, to feel that growth, to be proud of our accomplishments. This includes those trying to dominate other player characters. It gives you a feeling of power, of strength, of heroics.
[/b]
Irrelevant. I suppose that may be true for competitive gamers.
I am non-competitive. And nothing Fantm said talks about players losing the illusion of being powerful.
I don't use dominating other players as a measure of feeling powerful in an MMORPG.
And losing PvP battles does not make me feel weak or not powerful.
A gamer forcing me to engage in PvP when I'd rather be doing something else makes me angry that other people have more control over my game session than I do.
I like PvP. Sometimes. When I'm in the mood.
But I need absolute control over when I choose to engage in PvP - rather than some gamer making that choice for me.
And Steven agrees:
... a concept that got lost today in mmorpgs, and that's risk versus reward. You know this idea that the more you risk the greater potential reward should be present is a complete paradigm shift away from everyone's a winner, everybody gets a participation reward, and here you go, congratulations you're a player in this game; and that's boring. ... [16] – Steven Sharif
Rather...
Steven is obsessed with "Risk v Reward".
Most MMORPG devs do not share Steven's obsession.
Most MMORPG players do not share Steven's obsession with "Risk (of PvP) v Reward".
That is a prime motivator for Steven. It's not an incentive at all for me.
Typically, MMORPGs are designed to accomodate a variety of playstyles.
Ashes is designed specifically for Steven's playstyle. Nothing wrong with that.
Ashes is not made for everyone. Ashes is made specifically for gamers who love PvP, like Steven.
And, yes, Steven's perspective is not the perspective of an experienced game designer - Steven's perspective is the pov of a highly competitive gamer who was able to obtain enough funds to hire a dev team to create an MMORPG that he would love to play, based on his homebrew Pathfinder campaign.
A PvP centric game would not punish PvP using the corruption mechanic. Would not tell that they are monsters. In a PvP centric game, players would lose on death gold and gear too.
What you really mean, here, is that Ashes is not a "Hardcore PvP" game.
Ashes is a "hardcore-challenge", PvP-centric game.
It is not a game with "Hardcore PvP".
Is the MMORPG genre an important one compared to games in general?
If yes, we can say for sure what players want, by looking which mmorpgs are the most popular ones.
Specific to MMORPGs. Yes.
The vast majority of MMORPG players play on servers that are not PvP servers.
If no, then we know only that a large part of players who do not play mmorpgs want something new.
I think many players played mmorpgs sometime ago and are tired of the same formula, whether grinding experience and resources killing NPCs or fighting with other players in arenas.
Well. Tired of the Edngame treadmill.
I stopped playing EQ2 and WoW and NW back in 2013.
I determined that WoW would need some form of WoW 2.0 that would put an end to Endgame - reaching max level in 3 weeks and then waiting 2 years for an expansion. I want an MMORPG where I can ever quest with new content. Rather than repeating dungeons and raids ad nauseum.
(Questing to level is not a grind. Grinding is farming individual mobs or gathering individual resources for minimal xp rather than getting xp boosts from questing.
What people are tired of is reaching the end of questing in 3-6 weeks and then being left with nothing but dungeons and raids for 2+ years.)
That very week EQ Next was announced. They basically had a Nodes system similar to Ashes.
Even then, we were wondering how the devs would get PvPers and PvEers to play on the same servers.
The quickest way to cause people to get banned on the EQ Next Forus was to offer a suggestion for how that could work.
The PvPers would offer a suggestion and the PvEers would be offended and outraged and start flaming.
The PvEers would offer a suggestion and the PvPers would be offended and outraged and start flaming.
The Ashes design for Nodes was new and exciting still in 2017 - 4 years after the EQNext reveal.
Phenomneal if theyhad released before 2020.
At this point, there are plenty of other games that offer similar or better solutions to end Endgame - without the need to compromise with regard to non-consensual PvP.
Even WoW has enticed me back with Shadowlands and Dragonflight - especially Dragonflight and their BattlePasses.
What AoC tries to do, is to bring players back to play mmorpgs again by offering a new experience. That is the risk aspect. It does not try to steal the player base of other traditional mmorpgs.
Again, here by risk... what you actually mean is PvP.
Mobs and NPCs can have plenty of risk.
The AoC design will not "bring players back to play MMORPGs".
The gamers who have Steven's playstyle will have tons of fun playing Ashes of Creation.
Gamers who loved playing Lineage II, ArcheAge and EvE (and ShadowBane).
Players who didn't love playing those games are unlikely to play Ashes.
Also notice that the devs who created L2 and ArcheAge have chosen to put lesser focus on PvP because most MMORPG players don't like a lot of PvP.
You cannot say AoC is PvP centric because it does not encourage players to fight on daily basis. Sometime there will be node wars and sieges when a normal player might find itself flagged against some other nodes but it can still play on the other side of the map and probably will be safe.
If he really does not want to PvP, the corruption will discourage killing the player.
If he wants to transport goods via caravans, again that player will not run toward other players to engage them. Will run away from PvP.
Show me the dictionary that defines PvP-centric as "encouraging players to fight on a daily basis".
Ashes is the equivalent of a PvP-server in EQ/EQ2/WoW. I don't play on PvP-servers.
Players who typically play EQ/EQ2/WoW on servers that are not PvP-servers probably will not be playing Ashes.
But you have to like the risk part of the so called "risk vs reward" pillar.
The risk is directly bound to losing something, typically resources.
Again, "Risk v Reward" actually means, the greater the reward, the more likely you will have to engage in PvP.
In Ashes, Risk is always synonymous with PvP.
And the precious commodity that is lost is actually time - not resources.
When PvPers disrupt RP wedding events - the complaint is not about losing materials. The complaint is about disrupting their game session. It's a factor time. The players want to be doing other stuff during that time that is not PvP.
So, yes. Now, it is clear that you have to love PvP and embrace the Ashes pillar of the "risk" of PvP being infused in everything. Because Ashes is PvP-centric.
This is not a who gets to be a hero discussion. All of us play to feel powerful, to feel that growth, to be proud of our accomplishments. This includes those trying to dominate other player characters. It gives you a feeling of power, of strength, of heroics.
[/b]
Irrelevant. I suppose that may be true for competitive gamers.
I am non-competitive. And nothing Fantm said talks about players losing the illusion of being powerful.
I don't use dominating other players as a measure of feeling powerful in an MMORPG.
And losing PvP battles does not make me feel weak or not powerful.
A gamer forcing me to engage in PvP when I'd rather be doing something else makes me angry that other people have more control over my game session than I do.
I like PvP. Sometimes. When I'm in the mood.
But I need absolute control over when I choose to engage in PvP - rather than some gamer making that choice for me.
And Steven agrees:
... a concept that got lost today in mmorpgs, and that's risk versus reward. You know this idea that the more you risk the greater potential reward should be present is a complete paradigm shift away from everyone's a winner, everybody gets a participation reward, and here you go, congratulations you're a player in this game; and that's boring. ... [16] – Steven Sharif
Rather...
Steven is obsessed with "Risk v Reward".
Most MMORPG devs do not share Steven's obsession.
Most MMORPG players do not share Steven's obsession with "Risk (of PvP) v Reward".
That is a prime motivator for Steven. It's not an incentive at all for me.
Typically, MMORPGs are designed to accomodate a variety of playstyles.
Ashes is designed specifically for Steven's playstyle. Nothing wrong with that.
Ashes is not made for everyone. Ashes is made specifically for gamers who love PvP, like Steven.
And, yes, Steven's perspective is not the perspective of an experienced game designer - Steven's perspective is the pov of a highly competitive gamer who was able to obtain enough funds to hire a dev team to create an MMORPG that he would love to play, based on his homebrew Pathfinder campaign.
A PvP centric game would not punish PvP using the corruption mechanic. Would not tell that they are monsters. In a PvP centric game, players would lose on death gold and gear too.
What you really mean, here, is that Ashes is not a "Hardcore PvP" game.
Ashes is a "hardcore-challenge", PvP-centric game.
It is not a game with "Hardcore PvP".
I have little time to answer to every quote but I read it all.
I also noticed another post of yours on another thread where you call Eve Online PvP centric.
That was the reason why I made the mistake above which Noani pointed out.
Eve Online can be played with minimal PvP, just staying in the High sector. I see that area similar to what will happen on land in AoC being protected by corruption. But depends on how corruption is balanced. If they make it so that you kill a rabbit and you clean 10 levels of corruption then AoC becomes a hard core PvP.
And Eve can also be played by staying in the nul sector and that is like being in the deep ocean all the time in AoC but even so, in AoC you don't lose your gear and gold. So depending on where you play, the same game can offer a very different experience.
Regarding risk vs reward, I am specifically interested in the risk aspect of the game.
If there is no risk while doing quests, I find them boring and that will be a worse game loop than killing random NPCs on the map.
Also the risk being combined with PvP is better than being provided by NPCs which are more predictable. If they are not then I would have the feeling that the risk is just an RNG algorithm. That I dislike. The randomness must come for me from outside of the game mechanics and must have a purpose, not really random. Players trying to take my resources is the ideal mechanic for me.
Regarding the power, you said you see the power as being able to dominate others. I never thought to that.
To me power can also mean ability to avoid risk more than 50% of the time and reach any place on the map even if I need to do some scouting in advance to not head into a zerg. For you, if you like to do quests and some quests are in the deep ocean, and you cannot do them, that is a case where you will feel weak. But this is an example of a case where you would play solo. And can be an example even for offline games where the deep ocean would have NPC pirates.
A person PK's a player. The attacker gets a bounty put on them. I check the bounty board because of vigilante justice, that's why. I hunt the attacker and get rewarded for it.
Let's remember how Ashes servers collect data from player inputs... I'm certain there will be a way to prevent griefers from taking over the servers.
Vanilla WoW had open-world PvP with zero consequences and it was extremely fun... even though I was typically on the losing side since I had a young family with very little spare time. It just added a whole layer to the game and gave me a goal (to one day get lvl cap and hunt that guy down! And also, I made sure to help out other faction members when there was a confrontation because I remembered being a noob and how it felt when someone came over and stood up for me, some epic battles were had and some long-term friendships were made.) It would have been even better if there was a bounty system for bored max-level characters to fulfil. And I know WoW took PvP out of their game to appeal to the masses.. however, I don't think they were appealing to the masses but rather appealing to the people who had the most time to complain. Look how popular the re-release was. Games suck if there's no risk... and no confrontation. Let it fuel you rather than beat you down... sheesh.
Comments
are you aware that the games with the biggest playerbases are pvp games?
also, most people prefer cooperative-competitive games over purely cooperative or solo games.
The games with the biggest populations are non-presistent.
When it comes to persistent games, PvP is a very small minority.
This is one of the quotes that has kept me most interested in this game as well. The problem; is the implications of it.
If people are trying to "build the world" at the same time other people are trying to "change the world", then nothing gets build, and thus there is nothing to change.
The above quote suggests that building and changing are seperate, distinct activities - not that they are some random messy conglomerate of "play" that is all happening together.
PvErs might summon a dragon through some actions, but then pvpers would come to that dragon and prevent its killing because it might lead to the node falling or smth. PvErs open up a dungeon by progressing a story event and then pvpers fight amongst each other for the content within the dungeon. Etc etc
PvErs come first, because w/o their actions pvpers can't do shit really. And this is w/o even saying that pvpers themselves would need to pve first, if they want to be successful in pvp, so there's even more pveing happening in the game before any pvp can take place.
Like, you can build a house, and you can change a house - if you try and do both at the same time you are likely to end up with a pile of broken house rather than something you can live in.
Build - then change. In that order. Not together - never together. These two activities do not belong together.
I want to point out that I am specifically only talking about the act of building and changing here. I am not using them as proxies for PvP and PvE - even though that is kind of what we are talking about. If anything, this is just another of those contradictions.
A game where PvE unlocks content only for PvP players to block people from running it (your suggestions above) just sounds like absolute shit.
For me it sounds nice
As for simultaneous build-changing of things, afaik that is a practice in quite a few industries. Plans change on the fly even during the building process (hell, gaming is probably the biggest example of that). And quite often a late-stage change could lead to a much better result, because the already-built stuff creates a new perspective on the previously established plans.
I see AoC's systems in the same way. A group of nodes might be progressing in a certain manner (building the world) when suddenly a new piece of content opens up that has a hook towards a certain next setup, which would then require some pvp influence to shift the node growth towards that.
I feel like this is what Steven's talking about in that quote and to me these things happen "at the same time" in the overall process of build-changing the world. The world keeps being built up, but in a changed way, because in Ashes even destruction simply means a shift in resources rather than a removal of them (well, unless we're talking caravans dying, but then it's a way more pvp thing than a pvx one).
If we are talking about the gaming industry, it would be some coder sitting at their desk changing the basic game design as they are writing code - that is both happining together, and would be a mess.
Working on the game and then stopping to have a meeting about potential different ways to develop going forward and then going back to working on the game literally is one thing at a time.
An in game example of build then change that doesn't quite work for Ashes but is a better illustration of what I am talking about than anything at all in this game is something like a guild or alliance killing a boss (unhindered) that then triggers a node to spawn at level 4. This is then followed by a PvP event with 5 sides, where the winning side determines if the node will be scientific, military, economic, religious or destroyed.
To me, that is how a PvX game where you build via PvE and then chage via PvP would have to operate.
Ashes isn't that game, but then I also don't see Ashes as fitting the description that Steven talked about regardless of how interesting that description actually would be if properly implemented.
I wouldn't like that one because the better PvPers would chose to make military nodes.
As it is now, the game sets the number and placement of the divine nodes which seem to favor PvE players and they will go there and do their PvE stuff and try to defend their homes.
I wouldn't either - it was just an examples of the mechanics of how a game based on the notion of PvE to build and PvP to change would work.
That is why I said it wouldn't quite work for Ashes - it was only meant as an illustration, not a suggestion.
They had something that required a lot of work, "Arcane", they did it very well, I have no doubts but no proof that they could make an MMORPG really as good as ARCANE was, but the mentality they have to make an MMORPG is based on the fact from what Tryndamare wrote in that Tweet, so that gives a small glimmer of hope.
Why strive to separate when you can strive to unite, why continue thinking about a single specific group (be it PvP or PvE) when you can think about a dependent and cooperative union that helps each of them improve?
For me that is PvX, it unites the players so that each one in their own way contributes things that are enhanced if they cooperate with each other.
I do not intend to "force others to think like me or manipulate them so that they like things that I like, but if someone has a doubt or lack of knowledge about something (as happened in the meme I made of PvX on reddit) and therefore has a bad misconception then I will be there to remove your doubt and teach you what the potential of PvX is in AoC and possibly in other MMORPGs, it is as simple as that.
And yes, that thought may be very idealistic but ideas that have great character, personality and a lot of potential tend to be the most idealistic, I can't see the future, I don't really know if it will work excellently but what I do know is It's that I want and must believe in an idea that can help improve a genre that has been needing players who REALLY want to play AN MMORPG and not a single player game or a single player group game , an MMORPG has never been a single-player game or a single-group game , an MMORRPG must recover its style, its personality, its own vision.
Everyone knows the personality of an FPS, MOBA, SHOOTER, but the personality that MMORPGs had over the years of single-player or single-group MMORPGs have been lost.
I believe in people who are making an effort to cook a great dish.
#LETTHEMCOOK
#WHENDEMONICDARKELVES ?
Your vision of MMOs of the past is also somewhat skewed: there has always been people spending most of their time playing on their own or with a very limited group of friends. That was always part of the DNA of MMOs, although rarely a dominant gene as far as expressed content provided.
You " WILL " be ready and willing to defend yourself in the Open World of Verra, when You get Stuff done - beat down Mobs or Questmobs, farm Ressources or World Bosses,
and then some Playerkillers want to sneak up on You and want to try and murder You, just for shxts and giggles and because they think it's funny to troll Others.
You can run away and even uninstall the Game if you wish -> but i think we all know you will not do that. NOT if you truly waited for a vast, beautiful and amazing MMO. You will grow some Balls and a Spine (lol) whetever you like it, or not.
I find myself in the middle, a PvE player that will PvP when needed and when desired. I can tell you 100% I do not want to have to try and find a bodyguard every time I log into the game.
People uninstall games for all kinds of reasons and this could be a big one for some. We will have to wait and see.
None of this discussion has anything to do with Intrepid's ability to create a great game.
body guards lol no ones advocating body guards but you will be part of a node, that node will have PVP'ers in it and if you have been PK'ed by someone in the area talk to one of the PVP'er ask for help from the community of your node... no ones going to hold your hand but they very may be willing to fight for you knowing there PVE'ers of the node are getting killed by out-siders. and look I'm not even saying this is how its going to work but be open to the possibility that its possible. or maybe the game is not for you...!
You're funny. I like that
Would be PvP. 😁
If you would hire either NPC Guards or other Players, in Expectation to protect yourself from Player Killers, THAT ITSELF would be a form of Preparation for PvP. 😁
It is equally as possible that it is PvP'ers from that same node that are the ones killing the PvE players of that same node.
There will be plenty of other games for us to play besides Ashes. Since Ashes will not release before 2020.
Is the MMORPG genre an important one compared to games in general?
If yes, we can say for sure what players want, by looking which mmorpgs are the most popular ones.
If no, then we know only that a large part of players who do not play mmorpgs want something new.
I think many players played mmorpgs sometime ago and are tired of the same formula, whether grinding experience and resources killing NPCs or fighting with other players in arenas.
What AoC tries to do, is to bring players back to play mmorpgs again by offering a new experience. That is the risk aspect. It does not try to steal the player base of other traditional mmorpgs.
You cannot say AoC is PvP centric because it does not encourage players to fight on daily basis. Sometime there will be node wars and sieges when a normal player might find itself flagged against some other nodes but it can still play on the other side of the map and probably will be safe.
If he really does not want to PvP, the corruption will discourage killing the player.
If he wants to transport goods via caravans, again that player will not run toward other players to engage them. Will run away from PvP.
But you have to like the risk part of the so called "risk vs reward" pillar.
The risk is directly bound to losing something, typically resources.
Some players will lose the illusion that they are powerful, which Fantmx describes
And Steven agrees:
... a concept that got lost today in mmorpgs, and that's risk versus reward. You know this idea that the more you risk the greater potential reward should be present is a complete paradigm shift away from everyone's a winner, everybody gets a participation reward, and here you go, congratulations you're a player in this game; and that's boring. ... [16] – Steven Sharif
A PvP centric game would not punish PvP using the corruption mechanic. Would not tell that they are monsters. In a PvP centric game, players would lose on death gold and gear too.
I cannot say for sure that it will work.
Just that I like the approach and I hope it will.
Assuming we are talking about persistent world MMORPG's, a PvP game absolutely would have some form of restriction in place. Literally every PvP focused MMORPG has something in place to restrict PvP.
If you are talking about non-persistent games (lobby games such as most FPS and BR games), then who cares what they do?
Well i can give you a dozen examples of PvE focused games in wich PvE'rs are ten times more toxic than PvP'ers.
Truth is that I cannot give any example.
I still think AoC corruption will be balanced to prevent players becoming red and players will be relatively safe when exploring the land.
That is because there aren't any.
There is no doubt at all that PvP games are more popular online than PvE games. I'm willing to argue that point with anyone that disagrees, but I doubt anyone seriously will.
It's the notion of a persistent world and PvP together that is significantly less popular.
The fact that Bounty Hunter exists as a progression path dictates that Intrepid need to balance corruption in a way where people are sometimes willing to gain corruption. As long as that exists, they have no choice.
The vast majority of MMORPG players play on servers that are not PvP servers.
Well. Tired of the Edngame treadmill.
I stopped playing EQ2 and WoW and NW back in 2013.
I determined that WoW would need some form of WoW 2.0 that would put an end to Endgame - reaching max level in 3 weeks and then waiting 2 years for an expansion. I want an MMORPG where I can ever quest with new content. Rather than repeating dungeons and raids ad nauseum.
(Questing to level is not a grind. Grinding is farming individual mobs or gathering individual resources for minimal xp rather than getting xp boosts from questing.
What people are tired of is reaching the end of questing in 3-6 weeks and then being left with nothing but dungeons and raids for 2+ years.)
That very week EQ Next was announced. They basically had a Nodes system similar to Ashes.
Even then, we were wondering how the devs would get PvPers and PvEers to play on the same servers.
The quickest way to cause people to get banned on the EQ Next Forus was to offer a suggestion for how that could work.
The PvPers would offer a suggestion and the PvEers would be offended and outraged and start flaming.
The PvEers would offer a suggestion and the PvPers would be offended and outraged and start flaming.
The Ashes design for Nodes was new and exciting still in 2017 - 4 years after the EQNext reveal.
Phenomneal if theyhad released before 2020.
At this point, there are plenty of other games that offer similar or better solutions to end Endgame - without the need to compromise with regard to non-consensual PvP.
Even WoW has enticed me back with Shadowlands and Dragonflight - especially Dragonflight and their BattlePasses.
Again, here by risk... what you actually mean is PvP.
Mobs and NPCs can have plenty of risk.
The AoC design will not "bring players back to play MMORPGs".
The gamers who have Steven's playstyle will have tons of fun playing Ashes of Creation.
Gamers who loved playing Lineage II, ArcheAge and EvE (and ShadowBane).
Players who didn't love playing those games are unlikely to play Ashes.
Also notice that the devs who created L2 and ArcheAge have chosen to put lesser focus on PvP because most MMORPG players don't like a lot of PvP.
Show me the dictionary that defines PvP-centric as "encouraging players to fight on a daily basis".
Ashes is the equivalent of a PvP-server in EQ/EQ2/WoW. I don't play on PvP-servers.
Players who typically play EQ/EQ2/WoW on servers that are not PvP-servers probably will not be playing Ashes.
Again, "Risk v Reward" actually means, the greater the reward, the more likely you will have to engage in PvP.
In Ashes, Risk is always synonymous with PvP.
And the precious commodity that is lost is actually time - not resources.
When PvPers disrupt RP wedding events - the complaint is not about losing materials. The complaint is about disrupting their game session. It's a factor time. The players want to be doing other stuff during that time that is not PvP.
So, yes. Now, it is clear that you have to love PvP and embrace the Ashes pillar of the "risk" of PvP being infused in everything. Because Ashes is PvP-centric.
Irrelevant. I suppose that may be true for competitive gamers.
I am non-competitive. And nothing Fantm said talks about players losing the illusion of being powerful.
I don't use dominating other players as a measure of feeling powerful in an MMORPG.
And losing PvP battles does not make me feel weak or not powerful.
A gamer forcing me to engage in PvP when I'd rather be doing something else makes me angry that other people have more control over my game session than I do.
I like PvP. Sometimes. When I'm in the mood.
But I need absolute control over when I choose to engage in PvP - rather than some gamer making that choice for me.
Rather...
Steven is obsessed with "Risk v Reward".
Most MMORPG devs do not share Steven's obsession.
Most MMORPG players do not share Steven's obsession with "Risk (of PvP) v Reward".
That is a prime motivator for Steven. It's not an incentive at all for me.
Typically, MMORPGs are designed to accomodate a variety of playstyles.
Ashes is designed specifically for Steven's playstyle. Nothing wrong with that.
Ashes is not made for everyone. Ashes is made specifically for gamers who love PvP, like Steven.
And, yes, Steven's perspective is not the perspective of an experienced game designer - Steven's perspective is the pov of a highly competitive gamer who was able to obtain enough funds to hire a dev team to create an MMORPG that he would love to play, based on his homebrew Pathfinder campaign.
What you really mean, here, is that Ashes is not a "Hardcore PvP" game.
Ashes is a "hardcore-challenge", PvP-centric game.
It is not a game with "Hardcore PvP".
I have little time to answer to every quote but I read it all.
I also noticed another post of yours on another thread where you call Eve Online PvP centric.
That was the reason why I made the mistake above which Noani pointed out.
Eve Online can be played with minimal PvP, just staying in the High sector. I see that area similar to what will happen on land in AoC being protected by corruption. But depends on how corruption is balanced. If they make it so that you kill a rabbit and you clean 10 levels of corruption then AoC becomes a hard core PvP.
And Eve can also be played by staying in the nul sector and that is like being in the deep ocean all the time in AoC but even so, in AoC you don't lose your gear and gold. So depending on where you play, the same game can offer a very different experience.
Regarding risk vs reward, I am specifically interested in the risk aspect of the game.
If there is no risk while doing quests, I find them boring and that will be a worse game loop than killing random NPCs on the map.
Also the risk being combined with PvP is better than being provided by NPCs which are more predictable. If they are not then I would have the feeling that the risk is just an RNG algorithm. That I dislike. The randomness must come for me from outside of the game mechanics and must have a purpose, not really random. Players trying to take my resources is the ideal mechanic for me.
Regarding the power, you said you see the power as being able to dominate others. I never thought to that.
To me power can also mean ability to avoid risk more than 50% of the time and reach any place on the map even if I need to do some scouting in advance to not head into a zerg. For you, if you like to do quests and some quests are in the deep ocean, and you cannot do them, that is a case where you will feel weak. But this is an example of a case where you would play solo. And can be an example even for offline games where the deep ocean would have NPC pirates.
Let's remember how Ashes servers collect data from player inputs... I'm certain there will be a way to prevent griefers from taking over the servers.
Vanilla WoW had open-world PvP with zero consequences and it was extremely fun... even though I was typically on the losing side since I had a young family with very little spare time. It just added a whole layer to the game and gave me a goal (to one day get lvl cap and hunt that guy down! And also, I made sure to help out other faction members when there was a confrontation because I remembered being a noob and how it felt when someone came over and stood up for me, some epic battles were had and some long-term friendships were made.) It would have been even better if there was a bounty system for bored max-level characters to fulfil. And I know WoW took PvP out of their game to appeal to the masses.. however, I don't think they were appealing to the masses but rather appealing to the people who had the most time to complain. Look how popular the re-release was. Games suck if there's no risk... and no confrontation. Let it fuel you rather than beat you down... sheesh.