I was going by what was said by Steven, However, I have not kept a close eye on matters since November to be honest. I wasn't sure if new information had been given on the subject matter. Still, a system that punishes one or two kills to the extreme would be a bad system. You must be able to combat griefers because green griefers will be the worst kind.
He even referenced again on this stream talking about corruption and saying it highly discourages pvp around corruption use. So i guess it is up to each is own interpretation on the percent that it will reduce until they see more. But based on the wording it is going to be tuned towards pvers.
You say it will be tuned towards pvers but the ocean is forced pvp. Thus, pvers won't likely play in droves or they will simply be stuck on one land mass or the other.
What does the ocean have to do with corruption?!?!?
there is no corruption on the ocean...hence the whole reason people like Dygz won't play. If Dygz won't play then a lot of people of the same calibre as Dygz won't play for the same reasons. Its not about corruption, its about forced pvp. We had a debate about forced pvp a few months ago and it was stated the corruption system stops forced pvp. Well, my stance was it does not stop forced pvp because forced pvp does not exist in a pvx game. You sign up for pvp when you sign into the game. Thus, there should not be a disparity between pvp and pve players, just pvx players and no preferential treatment should be given to non conformists.
I think you are getting conversations mixed up, I'm not talking about general pvp I'm talking about corruption and its effects. in reducing pvp around it.
A conversation about the amount of pvp in the game is a different discussion.
I'm discussing corruption and the effect it has. No corruption on the ocean means pve players won't play. Therefore, a vain attempt to dissuade the pvp players elsewhere through over harsh punishments just won't fly. It won't stop anyone from killing a green because killing a green has reason behind it. It will stop massacres and people killing lower levels. However, green person hoarding resources - prime target. Green person taking my mobs - prime target. Green person training mobs into me - prime target.
Saying no corruption on ocean and no pve players will play is too much of a stretch to say that and using an extreme example like dygz does not make a lot of sense.
Again corruption has no link to the ocean in a disccusion around will corruption prevent someone from pking and then you are bringing up an entirely different system that does not effect what I'm talking about.
Even if someone is a prime target than your goal would be to making some kind of gain be it xp or items from mobs. The thing is people will always be "prime target" and you will lose more than gain from killing everyone farming mobs around you. Again yes you can get a potion of their drops but when you die being red you are dropping far more than you get on top of 4* xp debt. If the game as a population you are going to be seen by people and most likely killed unless you go deeper into corruption.
So if your goal is to gain xp / loot corruption is not going to be the best way at removing people without significant risk to losing more than what you got. Leading to relying on other pvp systems int he game over corruption (which means people will choose to not pk and wait to use the other system before killing someone)
In my experience a green player won't return to a spot where they've just been ganked. A long time ago i suggest to green players to kill red players on sight and the answers were 'no way' to be polite. Therefore, it is conducive to maintain a grind location for my group by initiating the combat and seeing where the combat leads. Only if my group are up for the challenge of course. If i'm solo i would invite others to join my group but a full group means there is no room for others and no reason to share...
I was going by what was said by Steven, However, I have not kept a close eye on matters since November to be honest. I wasn't sure if new information had been given on the subject matter. Still, a system that punishes one or two kills to the extreme would be a bad system. You must be able to combat griefers because green griefers will be the worst kind.
He even referenced again on this stream talking about corruption and saying it highly discourages pvp around corruption use. So i guess it is up to each is own interpretation on the percent that it will reduce until they see more. But based on the wording it is going to be tuned towards pvers.
You say it will be tuned towards pvers but the ocean is forced pvp. Thus, pvers won't likely play in droves or they will simply be stuck on one land mass or the other.
What does the ocean have to do with corruption?!?!?
there is no corruption on the ocean...hence the whole reason people like Dygz won't play. If Dygz won't play then a lot of people of the same calibre as Dygz won't play for the same reasons. Its not about corruption, its about forced pvp. We had a debate about forced pvp a few months ago and it was stated the corruption system stops forced pvp. Well, my stance was it does not stop forced pvp because forced pvp does not exist in a pvx game. You sign up for pvp when you sign into the game. Thus, there should not be a disparity between pvp and pve players, just pvx players and no preferential treatment should be given to non conformists.
I think you are getting conversations mixed up, I'm not talking about general pvp I'm talking about corruption and its effects. in reducing pvp around it.
A conversation about the amount of pvp in the game is a different discussion.
I'm discussing corruption and the effect it has. No corruption on the ocean means pve players won't play. Therefore, a vain attempt to dissuade the pvp players elsewhere through over harsh punishments just won't fly. It won't stop anyone from killing a green because killing a green has reason behind it. It will stop massacres and people killing lower levels. However, green person hoarding resources - prime target. Green person taking my mobs - prime target. Green person training mobs into me - prime target.
Saying no corruption on ocean and no pve players will play is too much of a stretch to say that and using an extreme example like dygz does not make a lot of sense.
Again corruption has no link to the ocean in a disccusion around will corruption prevent someone from pking and then you are bringing up an entirely different system that does not effect what I'm talking about.
Even if someone is a prime target than your goal would be to making some kind of gain be it xp or items from mobs. The thing is people will always be "prime target" and you will lose more than gain from killing everyone farming mobs around you. Again yes you can get a potion of their drops but when you die being red you are dropping far more than you get on top of 4* xp debt. If the game as a population you are going to be seen by people and most likely killed unless you go deeper into corruption.
So if your goal is to gain xp / loot corruption is not going to be the best way at removing people without significant risk to losing more than what you got. Leading to relying on other pvp systems int he game over corruption (which means people will choose to not pk and wait to use the other system before killing someone)
In my experience a green player won't return to a spot where they've just been ganked. A long time ago i suggest to green players to kill red players on sight and the answers were 'no way' to be polite. Therefore, it is conducive to maintain a grind location for my group by initiating the combat and seeing where the combat leads. Only if my group are up for the challenge of course. If i'm solo i would invite others to join my group but a full group means there is no room for others and no reason to share...
If any people in my group sees a red player they get jumped instantly, that is literally free loot no matter what.
I was going by what was said by Steven, However, I have not kept a close eye on matters since November to be honest. I wasn't sure if new information had been given on the subject matter. Still, a system that punishes one or two kills to the extreme would be a bad system. You must be able to combat griefers because green griefers will be the worst kind.
He even referenced again on this stream talking about corruption and saying it highly discourages pvp around corruption use. So i guess it is up to each is own interpretation on the percent that it will reduce until they see more. But based on the wording it is going to be tuned towards pvers.
You say it will be tuned towards pvers but the ocean is forced pvp. Thus, pvers won't likely play in droves or they will simply be stuck on one land mass or the other.
What does the ocean have to do with corruption?!?!?
there is no corruption on the ocean...hence the whole reason people like Dygz won't play. If Dygz won't play then a lot of people of the same calibre as Dygz won't play for the same reasons. Its not about corruption, its about forced pvp. We had a debate about forced pvp a few months ago and it was stated the corruption system stops forced pvp. Well, my stance was it does not stop forced pvp because forced pvp does not exist in a pvx game. You sign up for pvp when you sign into the game. Thus, there should not be a disparity between pvp and pve players, just pvx players and no preferential treatment should be given to non conformists.
I think you are getting conversations mixed up, I'm not talking about general pvp I'm talking about corruption and its effects. in reducing pvp around it.
A conversation about the amount of pvp in the game is a different discussion.
I'm discussing corruption and the effect it has. No corruption on the ocean means pve players won't play. Therefore, a vain attempt to dissuade the pvp players elsewhere through over harsh punishments just won't fly. It won't stop anyone from killing a green because killing a green has reason behind it. It will stop massacres and people killing lower levels. However, green person hoarding resources - prime target. Green person taking my mobs - prime target. Green person training mobs into me - prime target.
Saying no corruption on ocean and no pve players will play is too much of a stretch to say that and using an extreme example like dygz does not make a lot of sense.
Again corruption has no link to the ocean in a disccusion around will corruption prevent someone from pking and then you are bringing up an entirely different system that does not effect what I'm talking about.
Even if someone is a prime target than your goal would be to making some kind of gain be it xp or items from mobs. The thing is people will always be "prime target" and you will lose more than gain from killing everyone farming mobs around you. Again yes you can get a potion of their drops but when you die being red you are dropping far more than you get on top of 4* xp debt. If the game as a population you are going to be seen by people and most likely killed unless you go deeper into corruption.
So if your goal is to gain xp / loot corruption is not going to be the best way at removing people without significant risk to losing more than what you got. Leading to relying on other pvp systems int he game over corruption (which means people will choose to not pk and wait to use the other system before killing someone)
In my experience a green player won't return to a spot where they've just been ganked. A long time ago i suggest to green players to kill red players on sight and the answers were 'no way' to be polite. Therefore, it is conducive to maintain a grind location for my group by initiating the combat and seeing where the combat leads. Only if my group are up for the challenge of course. If i'm solo i would invite others to join my group but a full group means there is no room for others and no reason to share...
If any people in my group sees a red player they get jumped instantly, that is literally free loot no matter what.
Yeah, my whole guild is the same. That does not mean the pvp adverse players are just going to suddenly get a murderous streak and return to kill a red player. The revenge on the instigator is turning them red so others like us get involved for retribution. I see no need to be restricted or to be restrained. I will hunt reds for loot and i will stop greens for loot. Loot is king in ashes. Otherwise you'll just let all the best resources slip through your fingers because if you believe someone carrying legendary resources are going to stand and fight you are mistaken.
I was going by what was said by Steven, However, I have not kept a close eye on matters since November to be honest. I wasn't sure if new information had been given on the subject matter. Still, a system that punishes one or two kills to the extreme would be a bad system. You must be able to combat griefers because green griefers will be the worst kind.
He even referenced again on this stream talking about corruption and saying it highly discourages pvp around corruption use. So i guess it is up to each is own interpretation on the percent that it will reduce until they see more. But based on the wording it is going to be tuned towards pvers.
You say it will be tuned towards pvers but the ocean is forced pvp. Thus, pvers won't likely play in droves or they will simply be stuck on one land mass or the other.
What does the ocean have to do with corruption?!?!?
there is no corruption on the ocean...hence the whole reason people like Dygz won't play. If Dygz won't play then a lot of people of the same calibre as Dygz won't play for the same reasons. Its not about corruption, its about forced pvp. We had a debate about forced pvp a few months ago and it was stated the corruption system stops forced pvp. Well, my stance was it does not stop forced pvp because forced pvp does not exist in a pvx game. You sign up for pvp when you sign into the game. Thus, there should not be a disparity between pvp and pve players, just pvx players and no preferential treatment should be given to non conformists.
I think you are getting conversations mixed up, I'm not talking about general pvp I'm talking about corruption and its effects. in reducing pvp around it.
A conversation about the amount of pvp in the game is a different discussion.
I'm discussing corruption and the effect it has. No corruption on the ocean means pve players won't play. Therefore, a vain attempt to dissuade the pvp players elsewhere through over harsh punishments just won't fly. It won't stop anyone from killing a green because killing a green has reason behind it. It will stop massacres and people killing lower levels. However, green person hoarding resources - prime target. Green person taking my mobs - prime target. Green person training mobs into me - prime target.
Saying no corruption on ocean and no pve players will play is too much of a stretch to say that and using an extreme example like dygz does not make a lot of sense.
Again corruption has no link to the ocean in a disccusion around will corruption prevent someone from pking and then you are bringing up an entirely different system that does not effect what I'm talking about.
Even if someone is a prime target than your goal would be to making some kind of gain be it xp or items from mobs. The thing is people will always be "prime target" and you will lose more than gain from killing everyone farming mobs around you. Again yes you can get a potion of their drops but when you die being red you are dropping far more than you get on top of 4* xp debt. If the game as a population you are going to be seen by people and most likely killed unless you go deeper into corruption.
So if your goal is to gain xp / loot corruption is not going to be the best way at removing people without significant risk to losing more than what you got. Leading to relying on other pvp systems int he game over corruption (which means people will choose to not pk and wait to use the other system before killing someone)
In my experience a green player won't return to a spot where they've just been ganked. A long time ago i suggest to green players to kill red players on sight and the answers were 'no way' to be polite. Therefore, it is conducive to maintain a grind location for my group by initiating the combat and seeing where the combat leads. Only if my group are up for the challenge of course. If i'm solo i would invite others to join my group but a full group means there is no room for others and no reason to share...
If any people in my group sees a red player they get jumped instantly, that is literally free loot no matter what.
Yeah, my whole guild is the same. That does not mean the pvp adverse players are just going to suddenly get a murderous streak and return to kill a red player. The revenge on the instigator is turning them red so others like us get involved for retribution. I see no need to be restricted or to be restrained. I will hunt reds for loot and i will stop greens for loot. Loot is king in ashes. Otherwise you'll just let all the best resources slip through your fingers because if you believe someone carrying legendary resources are going to stand and fight you are mistaken.
If you know someone has something rare than ya that will be worth flagging up, but I'm be talking about the normal day to day over special instances that are rare.
It depends what's happening in a given location. I abide by the will of my superiors. Thus, general ganking is probably a no in the live game due to reputation and other matters. We'll have guild wars to fight and node wars to fight too which will be enough. However, if there is a green griefer I will take the green griefer out. Doesn't matter when or where the green griefer happens to cross my path. I'm not about to go on a murderous adventure though and I also don't kill lower levels. It has nothing to do with the corruption system though its just my roleplay models that I create.
I don't think you've played on a pvp server before if you think its any different to be red. Gankers names get called out on global and you get hunted constantly until you log off.
You can be confident, that the confident (lol) Gankers won't care, though.
They will either have Friends,
or will probably be "Stealth-Classes", or be otherwise confident in that they can play and tangle with others hunting them.
And to be completely honest here - > i personally hope there will be such People.
I hope PK'ers won't make it to easy for the rest of us to hunt them down and put them to Justice. ( )
I see it as something as the Brigands/Bandits from the PvE-Caravan Quest Moment. But as Reallife Players. Hmm, yummy yummy Challenges that some to many NPC Folks can not provide in the same Degree.
I'm wondering if the corruption system can accidentally punish getting "the jump" in wpvp in both 1v1 & group v group scenarios?
1v1:
Getting the jump / using environmental advantages is a big, and valid, part of wpvp.
Might people (getting jumped) decide they're already at such a disadvantage in the fight anyway, that they'll not bother fighting back and basically dare the attacker to take corruption penalties? This could be despite the victim being a willing and active pvper.
The attacker may then stop to avoid corruption, giving the victim the opportunity to heal up, buff up, and attack his attacker.
To me this would feel a bit broken and like the system is getting in the way.
Group v group:
Another related scenario is the example from the recent caravan showcase, where a group waited to ambush and started by focusing one enemy (sensible strat). The attackers were able to focus one enemy and take him down quickly with the group's damage combined.
My question here is, outside of a caravan scenario, would this cause the group to all incur corruption + extra 50% drop penalty for the victim, as there was no time to respond?
Again here we're assuming the context is two groups of willing & active pvpers, perhaps fighting to control a resource.
I want to add here, that the corruption system overall seems a v clever attempt at solving the pvp problem for everyone. We want to minimise griefing particularly for non-pvpers, while also giving the world that element of danger and encouraging fair open world pvp for those who wish to participate (me!).
I should also clarify that, in the context of wpvp, "fair" to me is mostly about a) level and b) general appetite for pvp. Mostly level though.
Gaining the advantage via situation / environment is (imo) totally valid in a wpvp setting.
Having experienced a very similar system in Lineage 2 Karma system, you will not be able to get the jump on people if you are not willing to PK. However what usually happened in my experienced is one player provokes and baits the enemy while the rest of his party hides with terrain advantage waiting for the enemy to return the attack.
Also remember you can declare war on other Guilds/Nodes and that would suspend the corruption system so you can definitely get the jump on enemies with wars declared.
In my opinion the system doesn't feel bad when you get used to it and you can still take the corruption if you really want to kill the player as long as you don't abuse it.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
there is no corruption on the ocean...hence the whole reason people like Dygz won't play. If Dygz won't play then a lot of people of the same calibre as Dygz won't play for the same reasons. Its not about corruption, its about forced pvp. We had a debate about forced pvp a few months ago and it was stated the corruption system stops forced pvp. Well, my stance was it does not stop forced pvp because forced pvp does not exist in a pvx game. You sign up for pvp when you sign into the game. Thus, there should not be a disparity between pvp and pve players, just pvx players and no preferential treatment should be given to non conformists.
I consider PvX to be playing on a PvP-centric server, so...
I kinda agree.
Once I know that it's going to be a PvP-centric server, I'm not going to play.
Because gamers who play with that ruleset fail to acknowledge the concept of non-consensual PvP.
And I'm not willing to play on the same servers as gamers who fail to acknowledge non-consensual PvP.
I'm not an extreme example with regard to non-consensual PvP.
It's really just going to be "PvXers" playing Ashes. Precisely as Songcaller stated.
there is no corruption on the ocean...hence the whole reason people like Dygz won't play. If Dygz won't play then a lot of people of the same calibre as Dygz won't play for the same reasons. Its not about corruption, its about forced pvp. We had a debate about forced pvp a few months ago and it was stated the corruption system stops forced pvp. Well, my stance was it does not stop forced pvp because forced pvp does not exist in a pvx game. You sign up for pvp when you sign into the game. Thus, there should not be a disparity between pvp and pve players, just pvx players and no preferential treatment should be given to non conformists.
I consider PvX to be playing on a PvP-centric server, so...
I kinda agree.
Once I know that it's going to be a PvP-centric server, I'm not going to play.
Because gamers who play with that ruleset fail to acknowledge the concept of non-consensual PvP.
And I'm not willing to play on the same servers as gamers who fail to acknowledge non-consensual PvP.
I'm not an extreme example with regard to non-consensual PvP.
It's really just going to be "PvXers" playing Ashes. Precisely as Songcaller stated.
Did not Steven said the game will be pvx which means with pvp enabled in all servers already?
Just asking because in alot of your post in pvp/pve related it seems you still believe Steven (who clearly said he won't change his stance) is still thinking if he might change it for non wpvp and only consensual pvp (duel request or arenas/instanced and wars/sieges).
So knowing he won't change we can assume you won't actually be playing the game is that it? Or play until few gank or gank snipe happens and then leave.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited April 5
Mmmmn. So....
When Jeffrey Bard was Lead Game Designer - the spin on the design seemed more inclusive of diverse playstyles. And we could hear Steven acknowledge that MMORPGs need to support diverse playstyles.
We could get some hints that Steven doesn't really have an understanding of how to support diverse playstyles when RPers would ask how Steven plans to support RP "Players will be able to RP in Taverns."
Prior to the addition of the Open Seas in 2022 (which is after Jeffrey Bard left and Steven spent 1.5 years as Acting Lead GAme Designer), I understood PvX to mean that the server would have both PvP and PvE.
Sieges and Cravans would have significant impact and important... and PvE activities, like Dungeons, Raids and would also have significant impact and importance. As would PvX activities, like Monster Coin Events.
When the Open Seas were revealed, we could also clearly see Steven's obession with Risk v Reward take the forefront - "There can be no Reward without significant Risk." And for Steven, that "risk" is really PvP.
Steven wants the "risk" of PvP to permeate as many thing as possible so that we are always evalauting potential PvP - even when we are doing PvE stuff, like Gathering.
And that is not what I thought PvX was prior to 2023.
My label for that is PvP-centric.
I consider EvE to be PvP-centric. I consider ArcheAge to be PvP-centric. And I consider Ashes to be PvP-centric.
Originally, PvX referred to Guilds on PvP servers who were equally interested in PvP and PvE instead of being a Guild focused on PvP or a Guild focused on PvE.
So... the way Steven is trying to use PvX is new to me. And also meaningless to me because I consider his vision of PvX to be worse (for my playstyle) than playing on a WoW or EQ PvP server.
But, that only became clear after he added The Open Seas.
And that's OK. Because Ashes is not made for everyone. (Which is also a bit different than the original spin when Jeffrey Bard was around.)
I think Steven's vision is great for gamers for his playstyle.
It's just now clear that I am not the target audience.
I'm not sure what is meant by "knowing he won't change" because the addition of The Open Seas is a significant change from the original design and from how he answered my questions about Ashes PvP back in 2018.
But... yes. I won't be pursuing or supporting any progression paths in Ashes after launch. I will just be exploring as much of the map as possible while maintaining the lowest Adventurer Level possible.
With a goal of 0 Kills.
The Ultimate Carebear Challenge
Gank or Gank Snipe is irrelevant because I will have nothing of import to lose.
0 Kills and minimal progression means I don't have to be concerned about death penalties.
Hmm i see i see. Well good luck then.
I am just silently following this game and few times engaging here and there, and your posts related to pvp/pve took my attention few times.
I myself am liking the style ashes of creation is going for, because i am already 22+ years playing tibia and ashes is the most near game that comes close to how tibia world works in terms of pvp, which i find nice.
I'm wondering if the corruption system can accidentally punish getting "the jump" in wpvp in both 1v1 & group v group scenarios?
1v1:
Getting the jump / using environmental advantages is a big, and valid, part of wpvp.
Might people (getting jumped) decide they're already at such a disadvantage in the fight anyway, that they'll not bother fighting back and basically dare the attacker to take corruption penalties? This could be despite the victim being a willing and active pvper.
The attacker may then stop to avoid corruption, giving the victim the opportunity to heal up, buff up, and attack his attacker.
To me this would feel a bit broken and like the system is getting in the way.
Group v group:
Another related scenario is the example from the recent caravan showcase, where a group waited to ambush and started by focusing one enemy (sensible strat). The attackers were able to focus one enemy and take him down quickly with the group's damage combined.
My question here is, outside of a caravan scenario, would this cause the group to all incur corruption + extra 50% drop penalty for the victim, as there was no time to respond?
Again here we're assuming the context is two groups of willing & active pvpers, perhaps fighting to control a resource.
I want to add here, that the corruption system overall seems a v clever attempt at solving the pvp problem for everyone. We want to minimise griefing particularly for non-pvpers, while also giving the world that element of danger and encouraging fair open world pvp for those who wish to participate (me!).
I should also clarify that, in the context of wpvp, "fair" to me is mostly about a) level and b) general appetite for pvp. Mostly level though.
Gaining the advantage via situation / environment is (imo) totally valid in a wpvp setting.
scenario #1
if you see the dude healing up and buffing (assuming he wasn't already buffed) you can just keep attacking him so he doesn't start the fight at full health -_- system isn't broken and doesn't get in the way.
Originally, PvX referred to Guilds on PvP servers who were equally interested in PvP and PvE instead of being a Guild focused on PvP or a Guild focused on PvE.
So... the way Steven is trying to use PvX is new to me.
When you say "Originally, PvX referred to..." you say how PvX is used by guilds in other MMORPGs
Those PvX guilds exist in environments which allow them to do both PvP and PvE or only one aspect.
AoC environment is different.
The way Steven is using PvX suggests he wants to make a PvP game but to put more effort into the PvE part compared to those sandbox PvP focused games.
The "PvX" label is intended to sandbox PvPers who want more PvE rather than to PvE players. PvE-ers are constantly pushed away from the very beginning, in 2016.
I cannot find any encouragement for PvE-only players to come to AoC.
This is the disadvantage of people using labels and logos. We should always pay attention to what product we buy.
Originally, PvX referred to Guilds on PvP servers who were equally interested in PvP and PvE instead of being a Guild focused on PvP or a Guild focused on PvE.
So... the way Steven is trying to use PvX is new to me.
I cannot find any encouragement for PvE-only players to come to AoC.
.
I agree with that. the same way pvp players arent encouraged to play pve games. or people who like strawberry ice cream arent encouraged to buy vanilla ice cream
Originally, PvX referred to Guilds on PvP servers who were equally interested in PvP and PvE instead of being a Guild focused on PvP or a Guild focused on PvE.
So... the way Steven is trying to use PvX is new to me.
I cannot find any encouragement for PvE-only players to come to AoC.
.
I agree with that. the same way pvp players arent encouraged to play pve games. or people who like strawberry ice cream arent encouraged to buy vanilla ice cream
or to encourage pizza eaters to put pineapple on top... oh wait...
Originally, PvX referred to Guilds on PvP servers who were equally interested in PvP and PvE instead of being a Guild focused on PvP or a Guild focused on PvE.
So... the way Steven is trying to use PvX is new to me.
I cannot find any encouragement for PvE-only players to come to AoC.
.
I agree with that. the same way pvp players arent encouraged to play pve games. or people who like strawberry ice cream arent encouraged to buy vanilla ice cream
or to encourage pizza eaters to put pineapple on top... oh wait...
that's why you can buy a pizza without pineapple
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
When you say "Originally, PvX referred to..." you say how PvX is used by guilds in other MMORPGs
Those PvX guilds exist in environments which allow them to do both PvP and PvE or only one aspect.
AoC environment is different.
EVen in Ashes, there can be Guilds that focus more on PvP and other Guilds that focus more on PvE and other Guilds th
at are PvX.
The way Steven is using PvX suggests he wants to make a PvP game but to put more effort into the PvE part compared to those sandbox PvP focused games.
The "PvX" label is intended to sandbox PvPers who want more PvE rather than to PvE players. PvE-ers are constantly pushed away from the very beginning, in 2016.
No. The way Steven is using PvX is, he wants to make a PvP-centric game.
And he wants all players to constantly be thinking about PvP even when doing PvE activities, like Gathering.
So that there is minimal separation between PvP stuff and PvE stuff.
PvEers were more supported when Jeffrey Bard was Lead Game Designer.
Actually, Jeffrey Bard would have said that diverse playstyles are necessary for good MMORPGs. And Steven would attempt to parrot that.
Steven's obsession with PvP and Risk v Reward became more clear after Jeffrey left and Steven no longer had an experienced Lead Game Designer to counsel him about making the game too niche.
I cannot find any encouragement for PvE-only players to come to AoC.
Yep. This is true.
But, what Jeffrey and Steven said in 2016 and 2017 is that Ashes should feel comfortable for the majority of MMORPG players except those who want 0% PvP. Because Corruption is in play everywhere and Corruption should keep the occurances of ganking down to a reasonable level - especially since it is harsher than L2 Karma. So... come test it. And see if Corruption is a reasonable compromise for those who don't 100% hate PvP combat.
This is the disadvantage of people using labels and logos. We should always pay attention to what product we buy.
Well, the disadvantage comes when the Creative Director strives to creatively use terms to obfuscate his true intentions and refuses to clearly state what the designs are.
Pay attention to the products we buy, sure.
I financially support Ashes so that devs can gain experience working on systems like Nodes - which help eliminate Endgame. Regardless of whether I actually choose to play Ashes.
So that it will be quicker and easier for them to develop similar systems in future games that I might enjoy playing more than Ashes. Pretty sure I got what I paid for.
There were several years where I needed to wait to test Corruption to know how comfortable I would be with the PvP in Ashes because I like flagging for PvP sometimes - specifically to defend objectives.
The addition of the Open Seas and Steven's now clear obsession with Risk v Reward finally made it apparent that my playstyle is not part of the Ashes target audience.
Which is great to know.
When you say "Originally, PvX referred to..." you say how PvX is used by guilds in other MMORPGs
Those PvX guilds exist in environments which allow them to do both PvP and PvE or only one aspect.
AoC environment is different.
EVen in Ashes, there can be Guilds that focus more on PvP and other Guilds that focus more on PvE and other Guilds that are PvX.
The guilds which focus more on PvE, if have no choice but also do some PvP, would we still call them PvE guilds or PvX guilds?
But I see your point. If the guild advertises PvX then it embraces the PvP too. If the guild wants to avoid PvP, (even if AoC will not allow that), such a guild can call itself PvE.
The way Steven is using PvX suggests he wants to make a PvP game but to put more effort into the PvE part compared to those sandbox PvP focused games.
The "PvX" label is intended to sandbox PvPers who want more PvE rather than to PvE players. PvE-ers are constantly pushed away from the very beginning, in 2016.
No. The way Steven is using PvX is, he wants to make a PvP-centric game.
And he wants all players to constantly be thinking about PvP even when doing PvE activities, like Gathering.
So that there is minimal separation between PvP stuff and PvE stuff.
PvEers were more supported when Jeffrey Bard was Lead Game Designer.
Actually, Jeffrey Bard would have said that diverse playstyles are necessary for good MMORPGs. And Steven would attempt to parrot that.
Steven's obsession with PvP and Risk v Reward became more clear after Jeffrey left and Steven no longer had an experienced Lead Game Designer to counsel him about making the game too niche.
Maybe difference of vision played a role in Jeffrey Bard's leaving too.
I do not know much about Jeffrey Bard. I seen only a few quotes on wiki and older interviews.
"diverse playstyles are necessary for good MMORPGs" - to maximize profit. Yet when profit is chased we see more often studios trying to separate PvP from PvE.
This is the disadvantage of people using labels and logos. We should always pay attention to what product we buy.
Well, the disadvantage comes when the Creative Director strives to creatively use terms to obfuscate his true intentions and refuses to clearly state what the designs are.
Pay attention to the products we buy, sure.
I financially support Ashes so that devs can gain experience working on systems like Nodes - which help eliminate Endgame. Regardless of whether I actually choose to play Ashes.
So that it will be quicker and easier for them to develop similar systems in future games that I might enjoy playing more than Ashes. Pretty sure I got what I paid for.
Maybe the node concept will help with the end game elimination.
I think the progress in AI will have an even bigger impact. NPCs with such an AI will have a more realistic behavior. Players will want to team up with NPCs rather than other players.
There were several years where I needed to wait to test Corruption to know how comfortable I would be with the PvP in Ashes because I like flagging for PvP sometimes - specifically to defend objectives.
The addition of the Open Seas and Steven's now clear obsession with Risk v Reward finally made it apparent that my playstyle is not part of the Ashes target audience.
Which is great to know.
You said "diverse playstyles are necessary for good MMORPGs".
The deep sea was created for a different audience. Why does it bother you?
You think those players would not have joined AoC?
The only reason I see to be upset is if you want to gather achievements and you cannot visit some interesting areas in the sea.
I cannot find any encouragement for PvE-only players to come to AoC.
Yep. This is true.
But, what Jeffrey and Steven said in 2016 and 2017 is that Ashes should feel comfortable for the majority of MMORPG players except those who want 0% PvP. Because Corruption is in play everywhere and Corruption should keep the occurances of ganking down to a reasonable level - especially since it is harsher than L2 Karma. So... come test it. And see if Corruption is a reasonable compromise for those who don't 100% hate PvP combat.
We have to see how corruption will be balanced.
They'll start with some values but at the end of Alpha 2 there might be other values.
And I still see the divine nodes the preferred place to those guilds which will try to do more PvE than PvP.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The guilds which focus more on PvE, if have no choice but also do some PvP, would we still call them PvE guilds or PvX guilds?
But I see your point. If the guild advertises PvX then it embraces the PvP too. If the guild wants to avoid PvP, (even if AoC will not allow that), such a guild can call itself PvE.
If they are playing Ashes, it's unlikely that the PvE Guilds will want to avoid PvP, they just focus significantly more on PvE than they do on PvP.
Maybe difference of vision played a role in Jeffrey Bard's leaving too.
I do not know much about Jeffrey Bard. I seen only a few quotes on wiki and older interviews.
"diverse playstyles are necessary for good MMORPGs" - to maximize profit. Yet when profit is chased we see more often studios trying to separate PvP from PvE.
Not even to maximize profit - just to have comfortable sustainability for more than a decade.
In EQ and WoW, PvE servers have the highest populations.
And, yes, PvP-centric MMORPGs tend to be niche.
So publishers hoping to sustain populations similar to EQ or WoW or FF for more than a decade are very likely to have separate servers types (PvP/PvE/RP)... or, like, NWO have instanced PvP... or, like NW have a toggle that allows players to have PvP turned off when they are not interested in PvP combat.
Maybe the node concept will help with the end game elimination.
I think the progress in AI will have an even bigger impact. NPCs with such an AI will have a more realistic behavior. Players will want to team up with NPCs rather than other players.
Yep. The hope is that systems like Nodes will help put an end to Endgame.
7 years after the Ashes Kickstarter - Game Designers have at least a handful of other options to help eliminate Endgame.
The deep sea was created for a different audience. Why does it bother you?
You think those players would not have joined AoC?
The only reason I see to be upset is if you want to gather achievements and you cannot visit some interesting areas in the sea.
I dunno what you mean by "bother" me.
And who said I was upset?
It's just a ruleset that I don't like to play because I abhor non-consensual PvP.
The Open Seas was added for the target audience playstyle. I think that's great.
I am not upset by that at all.
We have to see how corruption will be balanced.
They'll start with some values but at the end of Alpha 2 there might be other values.
And I still see the divine nodes the preferred place to those guilds which will try to do more PvE than PvP.
How Corruption is balanced will have no effect on my decision not to play.
But, yes, we will have to see whether Corruption meets its design goals.
I expect it will.
The corruption system has one purpose: punish griefing to deter griefing.
Willing PvPers in OW will not trigger corruption. You’re both purple. Killing one green isn’t designed to immediately corrupt you into oblivion. It’s meant to build up logarithmically as more greens are murdered.
Trust me, Steven isn’t looking to curb a perfect ambush on a green gatherer loaded up with mats. That’s a perfect risk v. reward scenario. What they don’t want is some schmuck with epic gear trouncing either the new folks in the starter zone or repetitively ganking players that don’t want to pvp for fun.
2
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The perfect Risk v Reward scenario is The Open Seas.
The guilds which focus more on PvE, if have no choice but also do some PvP, would we still call them PvE guilds or PvX guilds?
But I see your point. If the guild advertises PvX then it embraces the PvP too. If the guild wants to avoid PvP, (even if AoC will not allow that), such a guild can call itself PvE.
If they are playing Ashes, it's unlikely that the PvE Guilds will want to avoid PvP, they just focus significantly more on PvE than they do on PvP.
Maybe difference of vision played a role in Jeffrey Bard's leaving too.
I do not know much about Jeffrey Bard. I seen only a few quotes on wiki and older interviews.
"diverse playstyles are necessary for good MMORPGs" - to maximize profit. Yet when profit is chased we see more often studios trying to separate PvP from PvE.
Not even to maximize profit - just to have comfortable sustainability for more than a decade.
In EQ and WoW, PvE servers have the highest populations.
And, yes, PvP-centric MMORPGs tend to be niche.
So publishers hoping to sustain populations similar to EQ or WoW or FF for more than a decade are very likely to have separate servers types (PvP/PvE/RP)... or, like, NWO have instanced PvP... or, like NW have a toggle that allows players to have PvP turned off when they are not interested in PvP combat.
I don't like the NW toggle system.
And having separate servers is like a permanent toggle you choose when you make a character. Is somewhat better but I still have doubts about that. Not from player base size but from developers ability to stay true to the PvP side of game while the majority of players might be on the PvE side.
I prefer some players who would go to PvE servers to actually try to play and become PvX players.
And some to not come at all.
The deep sea was created for a different audience. Why does it bother you?
You think those players would not have joined AoC?
The only reason I see to be upset is if you want to gather achievements and you cannot visit some interesting areas in the sea.
I dunno what you mean by "bother" me.
And who said I was upset?
It's just a ruleset that I don't like to play because I abhor non-consensual PvP.
The Open Seas was added for the target audience playstyle. I think that's great.
I am not upset by that at all.
I that area makes you less likely to play the game, then you have a problem with it.
We have to see how corruption will be balanced.
They'll start with some values but at the end of Alpha 2 there might be other values.
And I still see the divine nodes the preferred place to those guilds which will try to do more PvE than PvP.
How Corruption is balanced will have no effect on my decision not to play.
But, yes, we will have to see whether Corruption meets its design goals.
I expect it will.
You are not a typical PvE player. Also players playing on present day PvE servers are different from the players 20 years ago. They are not there only for a story and combat with NPCs but for cosmetics and achievements. Those were less present long time ago.
The corruption system has one purpose: punish griefing to deter griefing.
Willing PvPers in OW will not trigger corruption. You’re both purple. Killing one green isn’t designed to immediately corrupt you into oblivion. It’s meant to build up logarithmically as more greens are murdered.
Trust me, Steven isn’t looking to curb a perfect ambush on a green gatherer loaded up with mats. That’s a perfect risk v. reward scenario. What they don’t want is some schmuck with epic gear trouncing either the new folks in the starter zone or repetitively ganking players that don’t want to pvp for fun.
Will it be logarithmic or exponential?
Logarithmic means the added corruption becomes smaller with each additional kill.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I don't like the NW toggle system.
And having separate servers is like a permanent toggle you choose when you make a character. Is somewhat better but I still have doubts about that. Not from player base size but from developers ability to stay true to the PvP side of game while the majority of players might be on the PvE side.
I prefer some players who would go to PvE servers to actually try to play and become PvX players.
And some to not come at all.
Of course, you don't like the NW toggle system. Why did you think you needed to tell me that?
Of course, gamers who play MMORPGs on servers designed for "PvX" are highly likely to prefer "PvX" servers.
Steven plans to stay true to catering to his playstyle preference as the almost exclusive target audience - which he labels PvX.
MMORPGs have been around for 25 years - the vast majority of MMORPG players have already tried different server types and already know their preferences with regard to PvP rulesets.
I that area makes you less likely to play the game, then you have a problem with it.
I abhor non-consensual PvP. I don't play MMORPGs with large, permanent Open World areas designated for non-consensual PvP.
I'm not "bothered" by the addition of that ruleset. I'm not upset by the addition of the ruleset.
Just as I'm not upset by the PvP in EvE and I'm not upset by the PvP in ArcheAge.
I don't enjoy that type of PvP so I don't play those games. Same thing with Ashes.
I think it's great that Steven added the Open Seas to better support his PvP-centric/Risk v Reward playstyle.
You are not a typical PvE player. Also players playing on present day PvE servers are different from the players 20 years ago. They are not there only for a story and combat with NPCs but for cosmetics and achievements. Those were less present long time ago.
Well, it would be the players playing on PvE servers 8 years ago - especially the EQNext fans who typically play MMORPGS in general, and EQ/EQ2 specifically, on PvE servers. I have a good idea how those players feel about the concept of "PvX" servers because I spent 3 years in the EQNext Forums reading their explanations about their playstyle needs in MMORPGs.
Ashes had their Kickstarter 7 years so there is quite a lot of crossover.
Cosmetics and Achievements have been in MMORPGs since at least 2010.
Playstyles have not changed significantly for MMORPGs in the past 7 years.
Also, Cosmetics and Achievements don't really have an impact on whether someone abhors non-consensual PvP.
I love Cosmetics. And I typically pursue Achievements in current MMOs that have Battle-Passes.
Those activities have little to no impact on whether a player who typically plays MMORPGs on PvE servers will suddenly be OK with playing on a PvP or PvX server.
We can get Cosmetics and BattlePass Achievements in MMORPGs that don't have non-consensual PvP.
But, sure... the gamers who like to play "PvX" MMORPGs will enjoy playing Ashes. Even the gamers who typically focus on PvE when they play "PvX" MMORPGs, like Lineage II, EvE and ArcheAge.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
cosmetics have been around since at least the early 2000s
also, lots of PVP players play in wow pve servers. they like pvp arenas, they just don't like open world pvp
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
lots of PVP players play in wow pve servers. they like pvp arenas, they just don't like open world pvp
I categorize by the server type the player plays on - so, for me, PvP players who play on PvE servers in WoW because they don't like "Open World PvP" would be PvEers.
Technically, I don't consider myself to be a PvEer because I like to flag for PvP sometimes in order to participate in Town defense and other forms of PvP-related objective-defense. Like, I would enjoy Sieges and Caravans even though that is Open World PvP.
I abhor non-consensual PvP to the degree that I always eventually leave PvP-Optional servers to play on PvE-Only servers - even though I sometimes like to flag for PvP.
But, in these discussions, it's easier to place myself into the PvEer category.
cosmetics have been around since at least the early 2000s
also, lots of PVP players play in wow pve servers. they like pvp arenas, they just don't like open world pvp
I categorize by the server type the player plays on - so, for me, PvP players who play on PvE servers in WoW because they don't like "Open World PvP" would be PvEers.
Technically, I don't consider myself to be a PvEer because I like to flag for PvP sometimes in order to participate in Town defense and other forms of PvP-related objective-defense. Like, I would enjoy Sieges and Caravans even though that is Open World PvP.
I abhor non-consensual PvP to the degree that I always eventually leave PvP-Optional servers to play on PvE-Only servers - even though I sometimes like to flag for PvP.
But, in these discussions, it's easier to place myself into the PvEer category.
so what would be the difference between you (a player who sometimes flags or participates in PVP events) and a player who NEVER does any type of PVP? how can we distinguish them if we call them both PVE players?
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited April 8
The difference is that I like to flag sometimes and then there are also players who never want to flag.
With regard to Ashes, I think there is no need to distinguish between the two if both types of players don't enjoy non-consensual PvP.
What matters is who typically plays MMORPGs on PvE servers. Those players are highly unlikely to be playing Ashes - even if some of them, like me, sometimes like to flag for PvP.
Ashes has non-consensual PvP. Players who abhor non-consensual PvP will not be playing Ashes.
Players who are OK with non-consensual PvP in MMORPGs will very likely enjoy playing Ashes.
Players who enjoy playing MMORPGs, like Lineage II, EvE and ArcheAge (and Ashes), I would categorize as PvPers because I consider those MMORPGs to be PvP-centric. But, if you want to label them PvX MMORPGs, I would consider them all to be PvXers because that is the server type they enjoy playing on.
what i mean is, for the purpose of the discussion, how can we tell apart a player who plays in a wow pve server and does arena, vs a player who plays in the same pve server and never does any type of PVP. you call them both pve players, and that's wrong IMO. that's why you think there are more pve players than pvp because thee pve servers have more people. you cant call someone who does arena a pve player because he plays in a pve server. if you do si, you will get the wrong numbers when counting population.
an arena player is a PVP player, even if he plays in a pve server.
Comments
In my experience a green player won't return to a spot where they've just been ganked. A long time ago i suggest to green players to kill red players on sight and the answers were 'no way' to be polite. Therefore, it is conducive to maintain a grind location for my group by initiating the combat and seeing where the combat leads. Only if my group are up for the challenge of course. If i'm solo i would invite others to join my group but a full group means there is no room for others and no reason to share...
If any people in my group sees a red player they get jumped instantly, that is literally free loot no matter what.
Yeah, my whole guild is the same. That does not mean the pvp adverse players are just going to suddenly get a murderous streak and return to kill a red player. The revenge on the instigator is turning them red so others like us get involved for retribution. I see no need to be restricted or to be restrained. I will hunt reds for loot and i will stop greens for loot. Loot is king in ashes. Otherwise you'll just let all the best resources slip through your fingers because if you believe someone carrying legendary resources are going to stand and fight you are mistaken.
If you know someone has something rare than ya that will be worth flagging up, but I'm be talking about the normal day to day over special instances that are rare.
You can be confident, that the confident (lol) Gankers won't care, though.
They will either have Friends,
or will probably be "Stealth-Classes", or be otherwise confident in that they can play and tangle with others hunting them.
And to be completely honest here - > i personally hope there will be such People.
I hope PK'ers won't make it to easy for the rest of us to hunt them down and put them to Justice. (
I see it as something as the Brigands/Bandits from the PvE-Caravan Quest Moment. But as Reallife Players. Hmm, yummy yummy Challenges that some to many NPC Folks can not provide in the same Degree.
Having experienced a very similar system in Lineage 2 Karma system, you will not be able to get the jump on people if you are not willing to PK. However what usually happened in my experienced is one player provokes and baits the enemy while the rest of his party hides with terrain advantage waiting for the enemy to return the attack.
Also remember you can declare war on other Guilds/Nodes and that would suspend the corruption system so you can definitely get the jump on enemies with wars declared.
In my opinion the system doesn't feel bad when you get used to it and you can still take the corruption if you really want to kill the player as long as you don't abuse it.
I kinda agree.
Once I know that it's going to be a PvP-centric server, I'm not going to play.
Because gamers who play with that ruleset fail to acknowledge the concept of non-consensual PvP.
And I'm not willing to play on the same servers as gamers who fail to acknowledge non-consensual PvP.
I'm not an extreme example with regard to non-consensual PvP.
It's really just going to be "PvXers" playing Ashes. Precisely as Songcaller stated.
Did not Steven said the game will be pvx which means with pvp enabled in all servers already?
Just asking because in alot of your post in pvp/pve related it seems you still believe Steven (who clearly said he won't change his stance) is still thinking if he might change it for non wpvp and only consensual pvp (duel request or arenas/instanced and wars/sieges).
So knowing he won't change we can assume you won't actually be playing the game is that it? Or play until few gank or gank snipe happens and then leave.
When Jeffrey Bard was Lead Game Designer - the spin on the design seemed more inclusive of diverse playstyles. And we could hear Steven acknowledge that MMORPGs need to support diverse playstyles.
We could get some hints that Steven doesn't really have an understanding of how to support diverse playstyles when RPers would ask how Steven plans to support RP "Players will be able to RP in Taverns."
Prior to the addition of the Open Seas in 2022 (which is after Jeffrey Bard left and Steven spent 1.5 years as Acting Lead GAme Designer), I understood PvX to mean that the server would have both PvP and PvE.
Sieges and Cravans would have significant impact and important... and PvE activities, like Dungeons, Raids and would also have significant impact and importance. As would PvX activities, like Monster Coin Events.
When the Open Seas were revealed, we could also clearly see Steven's obession with Risk v Reward take the forefront - "There can be no Reward without significant Risk." And for Steven, that "risk" is really PvP.
Steven wants the "risk" of PvP to permeate as many thing as possible so that we are always evalauting potential PvP - even when we are doing PvE stuff, like Gathering.
And that is not what I thought PvX was prior to 2023.
My label for that is PvP-centric.
I consider EvE to be PvP-centric. I consider ArcheAge to be PvP-centric. And I consider Ashes to be PvP-centric.
Originally, PvX referred to Guilds on PvP servers who were equally interested in PvP and PvE instead of being a Guild focused on PvP or a Guild focused on PvE.
So... the way Steven is trying to use PvX is new to me. And also meaningless to me because I consider his vision of PvX to be worse (for my playstyle) than playing on a WoW or EQ PvP server.
But, that only became clear after he added The Open Seas.
And that's OK. Because Ashes is not made for everyone. (Which is also a bit different than the original spin when Jeffrey Bard was around.)
I think Steven's vision is great for gamers for his playstyle.
It's just now clear that I am not the target audience.
I'm not sure what is meant by "knowing he won't change" because the addition of The Open Seas is a significant change from the original design and from how he answered my questions about Ashes PvP back in 2018.
But... yes. I won't be pursuing or supporting any progression paths in Ashes after launch. I will just be exploring as much of the map as possible while maintaining the lowest Adventurer Level possible.
With a goal of 0 Kills.
The Ultimate Carebear Challenge
Gank or Gank Snipe is irrelevant because I will have nothing of import to lose.
0 Kills and minimal progression means I don't have to be concerned about death penalties.
I am just silently following this game and few times engaging here and there, and your posts related to pvp/pve took my attention few times.
I myself am liking the style ashes of creation is going for, because i am already 22+ years playing tibia and ashes is the most near game that comes close to how tibia world works in terms of pvp, which i find nice.
scenario #1
if you see the dude healing up and buffing (assuming he wasn't already buffed) you can just keep attacking him so he doesn't start the fight at full health -_- system isn't broken and doesn't get in the way.
scenario #2
only the last hitter gets corruption
also, forget about fair.
Those PvX guilds exist in environments which allow them to do both PvP and PvE or only one aspect.
AoC environment is different.
The way Steven is using PvX suggests he wants to make a PvP game but to put more effort into the PvE part compared to those sandbox PvP focused games.
The "PvX" label is intended to sandbox PvPers who want more PvE rather than to PvE players. PvE-ers are constantly pushed away from the very beginning, in 2016.
I cannot find any encouragement for PvE-only players to come to AoC.
This is the disadvantage of people using labels and logos. We should always pay attention to what product we buy.
I agree with that. the same way pvp players arent encouraged to play pve games. or people who like strawberry ice cream arent encouraged to buy vanilla ice cream
or to encourage pizza eaters to put pineapple on top... oh wait...
that's why you can buy a pizza without pineapple
at are PvX.
No. The way Steven is using PvX is, he wants to make a PvP-centric game.
And he wants all players to constantly be thinking about PvP even when doing PvE activities, like Gathering.
So that there is minimal separation between PvP stuff and PvE stuff.
PvEers were more supported when Jeffrey Bard was Lead Game Designer.
Actually, Jeffrey Bard would have said that diverse playstyles are necessary for good MMORPGs. And Steven would attempt to parrot that.
Steven's obsession with PvP and Risk v Reward became more clear after Jeffrey left and Steven no longer had an experienced Lead Game Designer to counsel him about making the game too niche.
Yep. This is true.
But, what Jeffrey and Steven said in 2016 and 2017 is that Ashes should feel comfortable for the majority of MMORPG players except those who want 0% PvP. Because Corruption is in play everywhere and Corruption should keep the occurances of ganking down to a reasonable level - especially since it is harsher than L2 Karma. So... come test it. And see if Corruption is a reasonable compromise for those who don't 100% hate PvP combat.
Well, the disadvantage comes when the Creative Director strives to creatively use terms to obfuscate his true intentions and refuses to clearly state what the designs are.
Pay attention to the products we buy, sure.
I financially support Ashes so that devs can gain experience working on systems like Nodes - which help eliminate Endgame. Regardless of whether I actually choose to play Ashes.
So that it will be quicker and easier for them to develop similar systems in future games that I might enjoy playing more than Ashes. Pretty sure I got what I paid for.
There were several years where I needed to wait to test Corruption to know how comfortable I would be with the PvP in Ashes because I like flagging for PvP sometimes - specifically to defend objectives.
The addition of the Open Seas and Steven's now clear obsession with Risk v Reward finally made it apparent that my playstyle is not part of the Ashes target audience.
Which is great to know.
But I see your point. If the guild advertises PvX then it embraces the PvP too. If the guild wants to avoid PvP, (even if AoC will not allow that), such a guild can call itself PvE.
Maybe difference of vision played a role in Jeffrey Bard's leaving too.
I do not know much about Jeffrey Bard. I seen only a few quotes on wiki and older interviews.
"diverse playstyles are necessary for good MMORPGs" - to maximize profit. Yet when profit is chased we see more often studios trying to separate PvP from PvE.
Maybe the node concept will help with the end game elimination.
I think the progress in AI will have an even bigger impact. NPCs with such an AI will have a more realistic behavior. Players will want to team up with NPCs rather than other players.
You said "diverse playstyles are necessary for good MMORPGs".
The deep sea was created for a different audience. Why does it bother you?
You think those players would not have joined AoC?
The only reason I see to be upset is if you want to gather achievements and you cannot visit some interesting areas in the sea.
We have to see how corruption will be balanced.
They'll start with some values but at the end of Alpha 2 there might be other values.
And I still see the divine nodes the preferred place to those guilds which will try to do more PvE than PvP.
Not even to maximize profit - just to have comfortable sustainability for more than a decade.
In EQ and WoW, PvE servers have the highest populations.
And, yes, PvP-centric MMORPGs tend to be niche.
So publishers hoping to sustain populations similar to EQ or WoW or FF for more than a decade are very likely to have separate servers types (PvP/PvE/RP)... or, like, NWO have instanced PvP... or, like NW have a toggle that allows players to have PvP turned off when they are not interested in PvP combat.
Yep. The hope is that systems like Nodes will help put an end to Endgame.
7 years after the Ashes Kickstarter - Game Designers have at least a handful of other options to help eliminate Endgame.
I dunno what you mean by "bother" me.
And who said I was upset?
It's just a ruleset that I don't like to play because I abhor non-consensual PvP.
The Open Seas was added for the target audience playstyle. I think that's great.
I am not upset by that at all.
How Corruption is balanced will have no effect on my decision not to play.
But, yes, we will have to see whether Corruption meets its design goals.
I expect it will.
Willing PvPers in OW will not trigger corruption. You’re both purple. Killing one green isn’t designed to immediately corrupt you into oblivion. It’s meant to build up logarithmically as more greens are murdered.
Trust me, Steven isn’t looking to curb a perfect ambush on a green gatherer loaded up with mats. That’s a perfect risk v. reward scenario. What they don’t want is some schmuck with epic gear trouncing either the new folks in the starter zone or repetitively ganking players that don’t want to pvp for fun.
I don't like the NW toggle system.
And having separate servers is like a permanent toggle you choose when you make a character. Is somewhat better but I still have doubts about that. Not from player base size but from developers ability to stay true to the PvP side of game while the majority of players might be on the PvE side.
I prefer some players who would go to PvE servers to actually try to play and become PvX players.
And some to not come at all.
I that area makes you less likely to play the game, then you have a problem with it.
You are not a typical PvE player. Also players playing on present day PvE servers are different from the players 20 years ago. They are not there only for a story and combat with NPCs but for cosmetics and achievements. Those were less present long time ago.
Will it be logarithmic or exponential?
Logarithmic means the added corruption becomes smaller with each additional kill.
Of course, you don't like the NW toggle system. Why did you think you needed to tell me that?
Of course, gamers who play MMORPGs on servers designed for "PvX" are highly likely to prefer "PvX" servers.
Steven plans to stay true to catering to his playstyle preference as the almost exclusive target audience - which he labels PvX.
MMORPGs have been around for 25 years - the vast majority of MMORPG players have already tried different server types and already know their preferences with regard to PvP rulesets.
I abhor non-consensual PvP. I don't play MMORPGs with large, permanent Open World areas designated for non-consensual PvP.
I'm not "bothered" by the addition of that ruleset. I'm not upset by the addition of the ruleset.
Just as I'm not upset by the PvP in EvE and I'm not upset by the PvP in ArcheAge.
I don't enjoy that type of PvP so I don't play those games. Same thing with Ashes.
I think it's great that Steven added the Open Seas to better support his PvP-centric/Risk v Reward playstyle.
Well, it would be the players playing on PvE servers 8 years ago - especially the EQNext fans who typically play MMORPGS in general, and EQ/EQ2 specifically, on PvE servers. I have a good idea how those players feel about the concept of "PvX" servers because I spent 3 years in the EQNext Forums reading their explanations about their playstyle needs in MMORPGs.
Ashes had their Kickstarter 7 years so there is quite a lot of crossover.
Cosmetics and Achievements have been in MMORPGs since at least 2010.
Playstyles have not changed significantly for MMORPGs in the past 7 years.
Also, Cosmetics and Achievements don't really have an impact on whether someone abhors non-consensual PvP.
I love Cosmetics. And I typically pursue Achievements in current MMOs that have Battle-Passes.
Those activities have little to no impact on whether a player who typically plays MMORPGs on PvE servers will suddenly be OK with playing on a PvP or PvX server.
We can get Cosmetics and BattlePass Achievements in MMORPGs that don't have non-consensual PvP.
But, sure... the gamers who like to play "PvX" MMORPGs will enjoy playing Ashes. Even the gamers who typically focus on PvE when they play "PvX" MMORPGs, like Lineage II, EvE and ArcheAge.
also, lots of PVP players play in wow pve servers. they like pvp arenas, they just don't like open world pvp
Technically, I don't consider myself to be a PvEer because I like to flag for PvP sometimes in order to participate in Town defense and other forms of PvP-related objective-defense. Like, I would enjoy Sieges and Caravans even though that is Open World PvP.
I abhor non-consensual PvP to the degree that I always eventually leave PvP-Optional servers to play on PvE-Only servers - even though I sometimes like to flag for PvP.
But, in these discussions, it's easier to place myself into the PvEer category.
so what would be the difference between you (a player who sometimes flags or participates in PVP events) and a player who NEVER does any type of PVP? how can we distinguish them if we call them both PVE players?
With regard to Ashes, I think there is no need to distinguish between the two if both types of players don't enjoy non-consensual PvP.
What matters is who typically plays MMORPGs on PvE servers. Those players are highly unlikely to be playing Ashes - even if some of them, like me, sometimes like to flag for PvP.
Ashes has non-consensual PvP. Players who abhor non-consensual PvP will not be playing Ashes.
Players who are OK with non-consensual PvP in MMORPGs will very likely enjoy playing Ashes.
Players who enjoy playing MMORPGs, like Lineage II, EvE and ArcheAge (and Ashes), I would categorize as PvPers because I consider those MMORPGs to be PvP-centric. But, if you want to label them PvX MMORPGs, I would consider them all to be PvXers because that is the server type they enjoy playing on.
an arena player is a PVP player, even if he plays in a pve server.