I don't believe there should be anything in Ashes in a Safe Zone that has any economic impact. I don't perceive that to be a solution either, because you will get the other side, where optimizers abuse that fiat protection from PvP.
Ace1234 wrote: » @Azherae I don't believe there should be anything in Ashes in a Safe Zone that has any economic impact. I don't perceive that to be a solution either, because you will get the other side, where optimizers abuse that fiat protection from PvP. Okay I think you might have misunderstood, I don't mean for these seperate experiences to interact with each other in any way that can spill over and affect a larger system, because that defeats the purpose of the larger more emergent system existing if your efforts can be subverted through a more simplistic system. If there was a ton of instanced fishing competitions/content for example, I don't think you should be able to go into the open world and sell your fish or anything like that. I think there could be fun instanced fishing content, and its just that, its own experience using the design philosophies of Ashes, with rewards only relevant to that particular system. Wheras, fishers in the open world, would choose to participate in the open world for the added layers and complexity that it provides, and can sell fish in the open world because they earned those fish in the open world. Two separate experience options for different types of players, that is more the reasoning behind what I was saying. Maaaaybe allow for fish earned in the open world to be used in the instanced content, or better yet another "mode" where your open world rewards are relevant in that instanced content. You can see how scope creep could start to become a problem, though the conflict bwtween the different types of players within the playerbase could also be appeased to a higher degree, on the other hand.
But my more important thought in response to 'themepark ride' style content such as 'instanced fishing contests with no capacity to level up your fishing or make any money from the fish' would be 'wouldn't it just be better to play a different game at that point, or just have an observer account in Ashes?'
Obviously the option to swap between 'Solo Play' and 'Open' is important sometimes for many reasons, though, so I get it. If Intrepid eventually decides to go with more instanced, 'meaningless to open world and Node system' content, though, I fear that the result would be similar to Elite.
Ace1234 wrote: » @Azherae But my more important thought in response to 'themepark ride' style content such as 'instanced fishing contests with no capacity to level up your fishing or make any money from the fish' would be 'wouldn't it just be better to play a different game at that point, or just have an observer account in Ashes?' The main value would be through the properties unique to Ashes, being the execution on design pillars, as well as the potential content that might not be feasible with a small indie company providing a similar experience. Also, the social aspects of being able to talk to other mmo players about systems that you are all experiencing, regardless of whether it occurs as instanced or open world. It could also be something more abstract like the ratios of skill-checks that particular system demands on the player and how that compares to other titles with the same type of system, or the pacing of the gameplay. I mean, theres plenty of games I could play that mimic some kind of specific system I might engage with in Ashes, but its still appealing to me to have the idea of strategy, skill, risk/reward, other players to interact with, etc., at the forefront of said system and the decision-making process of the dev team behind that system's components. Probably some other aspects as well, hard to put tangible thoughts words on this idea at the moment but basically "why do we choose to play any game over another alternative similar game". Obviously the option to swap between 'Solo Play' and 'Open' is important sometimes for many reasons, though, so I get it. If Intrepid eventually decides to go with more instanced, 'meaningless to open world and Node system' content, though, I fear that the result would be similar to Elite. I interpret this as you saying "players will impose their preferred instanced content playstyle on the open world server"?
Azherae wrote: » Why play Ashes when we have new upcoming games that can deliver all the same things without the parts I don't like? The appeal, to those people, would be 'the intensity of the world', because Ashes is not 'winning' on any other metric that anyone has actually seen, anymore.
Ah, no, I meant that we'd end up with something similar to 'two separate games' where there are a bunch of people who are trying to get through Ashes without ever having to seriously engage with non-themepark-ride content.
Also, I don't know if you're as aware but, depending on your level of abstraction, nearly nothing whatsoever in Ashes is original as an experience except maybe the 'Nodes look different from each other'. This was barely even true in 2016. What has generally happened, is that a lot of people who are very into MMOs and disregarded certain trends and options in gaming, or were fans of very specific MMOs that Steven played (and therefore come across Ashes through word of mouth or similar) have less experience about what is 'out there
Basically, 'all MMOs with the same goals will turn out the same because there's only probably one way to do it correctly'. That is actually the core, underlying premise of this thread. If you want your game to have micro-competition and macro-competition side by side and both be meaningful, your methods for getting this are pretty limited. If you don't want that, and instead want to focus on macro-competition and 'Risk vs Reward', you have an original idea, that excludes a certain playerset. Which is ok because Ashes is not for everyone.
blat wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Why play Ashes when we have new upcoming games that can deliver all the same things without the parts I don't like? The appeal, to those people, would be 'the intensity of the world', because Ashes is not 'winning' on any other metric that anyone has actually seen, anymore. Which games did you have your eye on?
Azherae wrote: » Otr wrote: » Fishing can bring people together. But maybe works only for PvP players because PvE players are greedy selfish jerks. Also doubling down on this. You label it as the PvE players, but you can use any label for any other-group you like. The point is, there are players who come to competitive games that have economies and are 'greedy selfish jerks' like me. I don't care about your 'fair fights'. I don't care about what Corruption is 'supposed to do'. I want money and if you are in the way of my money and the game implies that killing you is the optimal answer to that, then I'm going to kill you because I didn't log into this game to lose.
Otr wrote: » Fishing can bring people together. But maybe works only for PvP players because PvE players are greedy selfish jerks.
Azherae wrote: » Otr wrote: » Azherae wrote: » 2. A PvP-enjoyer (let's say me, a 'fishing rights enforcer') enters the game with the idea of getting good at controlling an economic space. That person is in micro-competition with the PvP skill or the organizational ability (or zerg factor) of anyone who wants control of that economic space. But there's one catch to consider. In this case, the PvP-enjoyer has a vastly diminished incentive to cooperate compared to even a Survival game (but let's look at games where some attempt at simulating a world is happening, instead). I do not understand this sentence: "That person is in micro-competition with the PvP skill or the organizational ability (or zerg factor) of anyone who wants control of that economic space." - micro-competition with the PvP skill - micro-competition with the organizational ability - micro-competition with the zerg factor? Also "macro competition" is new to me. I know a PvP player who likes fishing and he was sharing the fishing spot with another player in our guild. Then he noticed a fisher being attacked by a creature. The player was from an enemy guild. We would kill each-other always on sight. Yet in that moment he rushed to save him. Just because in all the chaos of a full loot PvP world they shared the passion for fishing. Fishing can bring people together. But maybe works only for PvP players because PvE players are greedy selfish jerks. I'll simplify. I have 8 people in my group. You don't get to fish by yourself in my area without one of them killing you. Ever. What competition are we having?
Otr wrote: » Azherae wrote: » 2. A PvP-enjoyer (let's say me, a 'fishing rights enforcer') enters the game with the idea of getting good at controlling an economic space. That person is in micro-competition with the PvP skill or the organizational ability (or zerg factor) of anyone who wants control of that economic space. But there's one catch to consider. In this case, the PvP-enjoyer has a vastly diminished incentive to cooperate compared to even a Survival game (but let's look at games where some attempt at simulating a world is happening, instead). I do not understand this sentence: "That person is in micro-competition with the PvP skill or the organizational ability (or zerg factor) of anyone who wants control of that economic space." - micro-competition with the PvP skill - micro-competition with the organizational ability - micro-competition with the zerg factor? Also "macro competition" is new to me. I know a PvP player who likes fishing and he was sharing the fishing spot with another player in our guild. Then he noticed a fisher being attacked by a creature. The player was from an enemy guild. We would kill each-other always on sight. Yet in that moment he rushed to save him. Just because in all the chaos of a full loot PvP world they shared the passion for fishing. Fishing can bring people together. But maybe works only for PvP players because PvE players are greedy selfish jerks.
Azherae wrote: » 2. A PvP-enjoyer (let's say me, a 'fishing rights enforcer') enters the game with the idea of getting good at controlling an economic space. That person is in micro-competition with the PvP skill or the organizational ability (or zerg factor) of anyone who wants control of that economic space. But there's one catch to consider. In this case, the PvP-enjoyer has a vastly diminished incentive to cooperate compared to even a Survival game (but let's look at games where some attempt at simulating a world is happening, instead).
Azherae wrote: » blat wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Why play Ashes when we have new upcoming games that can deliver all the same things without the parts I don't like? The appeal, to those people, would be 'the intensity of the world', because Ashes is not 'winning' on any other metric that anyone has actually seen, anymore. Which games did you have your eye on? Ah, sorry, I think you misread the 'I' in that sentence for meaning me, when, in context, it meant 'A person who enjoys open worlds and change factors, but does not enjoy the restricted micro-competition'. So let's be clear, I personally want Ashes to soar like the blazing Phoenix it is, beyond Throne and Liberty (which seems to be taking the approach I expect of releasing a minimum product and iterating), beyond ArcheAge 2 (which is dialing back the harder structures), beyond Pax Dei (which is wobbling along trying to figure out how to be slightly better MineCraft), beyond Reign of Guilds (just look it up), beyond even the Riot MMO (good luck to them with that, though). Hence my supercritical prickly attitude (despite which, I want to encourage and defend Ashes Devs at all times). But just note that for a person with less faith and investment than me, Ashes is mostly words, and maybe some pain-point implementations. Looking at the same Riot MMO, a person might go 'That will probably never release, it'll be cardboard when it does, Riot only knows how to make lowest common denominator games'. But that's the same type of judgement that Ashes can get from a lot of people. (I feel like I kinda-answered your 'question' even if it wasn't actually about me, lmk if I didn't)
Otr wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Otr wrote: » Fishing can bring people together. But maybe works only for PvP players because PvE players are greedy selfish jerks. Also doubling down on this. You label it as the PvE players, but you can use any label for any other-group you like. The point is, there are players who come to competitive games that have economies and are 'greedy selfish jerks' like me. I don't care about your 'fair fights'. I don't care about what Corruption is 'supposed to do'. I want money and if you are in the way of my money and the game implies that killing you is the optimal answer to that, then I'm going to kill you because I didn't log into this game to lose. True. I apologize. We are all selfish, willing to get the game we want. Azherae wrote: » Otr wrote: » Azherae wrote: » 2. A PvP-enjoyer (let's say me, a 'fishing rights enforcer') enters the game with the idea of getting good at controlling an economic space. That person is in micro-competition with the PvP skill or the organizational ability (or zerg factor) of anyone who wants control of that economic space. But there's one catch to consider. In this case, the PvP-enjoyer has a vastly diminished incentive to cooperate compared to even a Survival game (but let's look at games where some attempt at simulating a world is happening, instead). I do not understand this sentence: "That person is in micro-competition with the PvP skill or the organizational ability (or zerg factor) of anyone who wants control of that economic space." - micro-competition with the PvP skill - micro-competition with the organizational ability - micro-competition with the zerg factor? Also "macro competition" is new to me. I know a PvP player who likes fishing and he was sharing the fishing spot with another player in our guild. Then he noticed a fisher being attacked by a creature. The player was from an enemy guild. We would kill each-other always on sight. Yet in that moment he rushed to save him. Just because in all the chaos of a full loot PvP world they shared the passion for fishing. Fishing can bring people together. But maybe works only for PvP players because PvE players are greedy selfish jerks. I'll simplify. I have 8 people in my group. You don't get to fish by yourself in my area without one of them killing you. Ever. What competition are we having? This is not a risk vs reward setup. If I can see your people and I have fewer in my group then is not a matter of risk. Not even a competition. If you kill me even when I do not fight back, you become red and depending how valuable the fish is, you can do it once or a few more times. Then you have no choice but to let me fish. But maybe you can solve that by pulling some NPCs to do the killing blow, which is a valid strategy. Then I have no other option but to wait until there is nobody around. That is when the risk happens. Maybe your people hide in water. Or maybe I stay too long and eventually I'll have no way to escape when you surround me. But if my reward was the fishing activity (not the fish) I could try giving it to you and you would get it 100% instead of just a fraction when I flag up. Or maybe I will not give it to you if you are unfriendly. And I will try to escape somehow, maybe swimming if I have a water mount and then you can chase me. And that will be fun too But such scenarios where you cannot progress because other players do something I seen even if you do not flag for PvP. For example in New World a quest would require a drop from a special alpha bear or wolf and players were camping that because not each could loot. Or resources were constantly mined by bots or very dedicated players. What kind of competition is that? The only solution is to make every player be able to loot the resource from resource nodes or NPCs. And PvE content to exist in instances, as many as needed. Then what kind of competition is that? Players competing with themselves to see if they can progress a bit more against a preprogrammed AI? Anyway, AoC will not go on this path. It must be balanced to offer risk. Your setup was not quite ok to deliver on this game pillar.
blat wrote: » Azherae wrote: » blat wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Why play Ashes when we have new upcoming games that can deliver all the same things without the parts I don't like? The appeal, to those people, would be 'the intensity of the world', because Ashes is not 'winning' on any other metric that anyone has actually seen, anymore. Which games did you have your eye on? Ah, sorry, I think you misread the 'I' in that sentence for meaning me, when, in context, it meant 'A person who enjoys open worlds and change factors, but does not enjoy the restricted micro-competition'. So let's be clear, I personally want Ashes to soar like the blazing Phoenix it is, beyond Throne and Liberty (which seems to be taking the approach I expect of releasing a minimum product and iterating), beyond ArcheAge 2 (which is dialing back the harder structures), beyond Pax Dei (which is wobbling along trying to figure out how to be slightly better MineCraft), beyond Reign of Guilds (just look it up), beyond even the Riot MMO (good luck to them with that, though). Hence my supercritical prickly attitude (despite which, I want to encourage and defend Ashes Devs at all times). But just note that for a person with less faith and investment than me, Ashes is mostly words, and maybe some pain-point implementations. Looking at the same Riot MMO, a person might go 'That will probably never release, it'll be cardboard when it does, Riot only knows how to make lowest common denominator games'. But that's the same type of judgement that Ashes can get from a lot of people. (I feel like I kinda-answered your 'question' even if it wasn't actually about me, lmk if I didn't) You did indeed. Reassuring tbh as I tend to go all-in on one game at a time, and don't usually have time to keep an eye on all the competition. I get the impression there aren't any obvious challengers on the horizon. Related: I wonder what the market is like generally for an MMO these days. Obviously at the heights of WoW (the game I know best) there was a lot of younger interest, whereas it seems the community has aged together and we're all 35+ year olds with wives & kids (generalisation alert). All the PvP / PvE playstyle differences aside; is the market lively enough to give Ashes the launch & life it hopefully deserves?
mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » I wouldn't say there is a flaw here, it's more that this isn't a fishing sim. In Ashes, when you fish, you aren't in a fishing tournament competing with other fishers, you are pulling resources out of the world. Player conflict is something ashes wants to encourage and one of the ways they do that is by limiting resources and giving the ability to fight over them. Yea, if someone wants to play a fishing simulator and loads up ashes, they might not have the best time but that doesn't mean people won't enjoy it. Also, If fishing tournaments become a thing the devs want to support, they could find ways to prevent pvp from interrupting them. I only speak of flaws relative to 'combining the concept of a living world with similar social rules/appeal to cooperative players' and 'owPvP'. As Dygz would say, 'people who don't perceive this as an issue will very likely enjoy Ashes, these are likely to be people who enjoyed L2, EVE, and ArcheAge'. Now from my own perspective I can add this for any devs. "Your world of Nodes is not appealing enough to me while it contains this flaw." I don't necessarily think you (the devs) CARE about that, but this is still mostly a thread about 'why PvE players/worldsim enjoyers/microcompetition fans' might have opinions about Ashes that should get a little more respect than they sometimes do. I feel like you are starting to play Dygz's semantics game of taking what they have said and deciding it's meaning to fit your purposes. The game can do both, giving you reasons to cooperate with and fight against players. Those aren't mutually exclusive things. I don't think it's right to say they don't care, it's more people who have low to no tolerance for pvp aren't the target audience for Ashes. As the Helldivers devs said, "A game for everyone is a game for no one." Maybe future intrepid games will be designed to appeal to those players. You can feel whatever you like, it's why I don't talk to you. We can go back to that. I engaged for clarification, if you don't wanna accept it because of your feelings, don't. How would you prefer me to express my interpretation of what you said? It sounded like you were making an argument based off semantics. They have called the game a living world, you decided to define what a living world is and claim what they are making is not one. Yes, I could have given my own definition or made some death is part of life argument but at the end of the day, living world doesn't seem like a phrase that should be taken too seriously, and arguing about it seems pedantic. I don't care how you express it. The fact that your mind goes in that direction at all is the reason I don't interact with you. That's why the best course of action here is for me to not do that. What's wrong with the direction my mind went?
Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » I wouldn't say there is a flaw here, it's more that this isn't a fishing sim. In Ashes, when you fish, you aren't in a fishing tournament competing with other fishers, you are pulling resources out of the world. Player conflict is something ashes wants to encourage and one of the ways they do that is by limiting resources and giving the ability to fight over them. Yea, if someone wants to play a fishing simulator and loads up ashes, they might not have the best time but that doesn't mean people won't enjoy it. Also, If fishing tournaments become a thing the devs want to support, they could find ways to prevent pvp from interrupting them. I only speak of flaws relative to 'combining the concept of a living world with similar social rules/appeal to cooperative players' and 'owPvP'. As Dygz would say, 'people who don't perceive this as an issue will very likely enjoy Ashes, these are likely to be people who enjoyed L2, EVE, and ArcheAge'. Now from my own perspective I can add this for any devs. "Your world of Nodes is not appealing enough to me while it contains this flaw." I don't necessarily think you (the devs) CARE about that, but this is still mostly a thread about 'why PvE players/worldsim enjoyers/microcompetition fans' might have opinions about Ashes that should get a little more respect than they sometimes do. I feel like you are starting to play Dygz's semantics game of taking what they have said and deciding it's meaning to fit your purposes. The game can do both, giving you reasons to cooperate with and fight against players. Those aren't mutually exclusive things. I don't think it's right to say they don't care, it's more people who have low to no tolerance for pvp aren't the target audience for Ashes. As the Helldivers devs said, "A game for everyone is a game for no one." Maybe future intrepid games will be designed to appeal to those players. You can feel whatever you like, it's why I don't talk to you. We can go back to that. I engaged for clarification, if you don't wanna accept it because of your feelings, don't. How would you prefer me to express my interpretation of what you said? It sounded like you were making an argument based off semantics. They have called the game a living world, you decided to define what a living world is and claim what they are making is not one. Yes, I could have given my own definition or made some death is part of life argument but at the end of the day, living world doesn't seem like a phrase that should be taken too seriously, and arguing about it seems pedantic. I don't care how you express it. The fact that your mind goes in that direction at all is the reason I don't interact with you. That's why the best course of action here is for me to not do that.
mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » I wouldn't say there is a flaw here, it's more that this isn't a fishing sim. In Ashes, when you fish, you aren't in a fishing tournament competing with other fishers, you are pulling resources out of the world. Player conflict is something ashes wants to encourage and one of the ways they do that is by limiting resources and giving the ability to fight over them. Yea, if someone wants to play a fishing simulator and loads up ashes, they might not have the best time but that doesn't mean people won't enjoy it. Also, If fishing tournaments become a thing the devs want to support, they could find ways to prevent pvp from interrupting them. I only speak of flaws relative to 'combining the concept of a living world with similar social rules/appeal to cooperative players' and 'owPvP'. As Dygz would say, 'people who don't perceive this as an issue will very likely enjoy Ashes, these are likely to be people who enjoyed L2, EVE, and ArcheAge'. Now from my own perspective I can add this for any devs. "Your world of Nodes is not appealing enough to me while it contains this flaw." I don't necessarily think you (the devs) CARE about that, but this is still mostly a thread about 'why PvE players/worldsim enjoyers/microcompetition fans' might have opinions about Ashes that should get a little more respect than they sometimes do. I feel like you are starting to play Dygz's semantics game of taking what they have said and deciding it's meaning to fit your purposes. The game can do both, giving you reasons to cooperate with and fight against players. Those aren't mutually exclusive things. I don't think it's right to say they don't care, it's more people who have low to no tolerance for pvp aren't the target audience for Ashes. As the Helldivers devs said, "A game for everyone is a game for no one." Maybe future intrepid games will be designed to appeal to those players. You can feel whatever you like, it's why I don't talk to you. We can go back to that. I engaged for clarification, if you don't wanna accept it because of your feelings, don't. How would you prefer me to express my interpretation of what you said? It sounded like you were making an argument based off semantics. They have called the game a living world, you decided to define what a living world is and claim what they are making is not one. Yes, I could have given my own definition or made some death is part of life argument but at the end of the day, living world doesn't seem like a phrase that should be taken too seriously, and arguing about it seems pedantic.
Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » I wouldn't say there is a flaw here, it's more that this isn't a fishing sim. In Ashes, when you fish, you aren't in a fishing tournament competing with other fishers, you are pulling resources out of the world. Player conflict is something ashes wants to encourage and one of the ways they do that is by limiting resources and giving the ability to fight over them. Yea, if someone wants to play a fishing simulator and loads up ashes, they might not have the best time but that doesn't mean people won't enjoy it. Also, If fishing tournaments become a thing the devs want to support, they could find ways to prevent pvp from interrupting them. I only speak of flaws relative to 'combining the concept of a living world with similar social rules/appeal to cooperative players' and 'owPvP'. As Dygz would say, 'people who don't perceive this as an issue will very likely enjoy Ashes, these are likely to be people who enjoyed L2, EVE, and ArcheAge'. Now from my own perspective I can add this for any devs. "Your world of Nodes is not appealing enough to me while it contains this flaw." I don't necessarily think you (the devs) CARE about that, but this is still mostly a thread about 'why PvE players/worldsim enjoyers/microcompetition fans' might have opinions about Ashes that should get a little more respect than they sometimes do. I feel like you are starting to play Dygz's semantics game of taking what they have said and deciding it's meaning to fit your purposes. The game can do both, giving you reasons to cooperate with and fight against players. Those aren't mutually exclusive things. I don't think it's right to say they don't care, it's more people who have low to no tolerance for pvp aren't the target audience for Ashes. As the Helldivers devs said, "A game for everyone is a game for no one." Maybe future intrepid games will be designed to appeal to those players. You can feel whatever you like, it's why I don't talk to you. We can go back to that. I engaged for clarification, if you don't wanna accept it because of your feelings, don't.
mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » I wouldn't say there is a flaw here, it's more that this isn't a fishing sim. In Ashes, when you fish, you aren't in a fishing tournament competing with other fishers, you are pulling resources out of the world. Player conflict is something ashes wants to encourage and one of the ways they do that is by limiting resources and giving the ability to fight over them. Yea, if someone wants to play a fishing simulator and loads up ashes, they might not have the best time but that doesn't mean people won't enjoy it. Also, If fishing tournaments become a thing the devs want to support, they could find ways to prevent pvp from interrupting them. I only speak of flaws relative to 'combining the concept of a living world with similar social rules/appeal to cooperative players' and 'owPvP'. As Dygz would say, 'people who don't perceive this as an issue will very likely enjoy Ashes, these are likely to be people who enjoyed L2, EVE, and ArcheAge'. Now from my own perspective I can add this for any devs. "Your world of Nodes is not appealing enough to me while it contains this flaw." I don't necessarily think you (the devs) CARE about that, but this is still mostly a thread about 'why PvE players/worldsim enjoyers/microcompetition fans' might have opinions about Ashes that should get a little more respect than they sometimes do. I feel like you are starting to play Dygz's semantics game of taking what they have said and deciding it's meaning to fit your purposes. The game can do both, giving you reasons to cooperate with and fight against players. Those aren't mutually exclusive things. I don't think it's right to say they don't care, it's more people who have low to no tolerance for pvp aren't the target audience for Ashes. As the Helldivers devs said, "A game for everyone is a game for no one." Maybe future intrepid games will be designed to appeal to those players.
Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » I wouldn't say there is a flaw here, it's more that this isn't a fishing sim. In Ashes, when you fish, you aren't in a fishing tournament competing with other fishers, you are pulling resources out of the world. Player conflict is something ashes wants to encourage and one of the ways they do that is by limiting resources and giving the ability to fight over them. Yea, if someone wants to play a fishing simulator and loads up ashes, they might not have the best time but that doesn't mean people won't enjoy it. Also, If fishing tournaments become a thing the devs want to support, they could find ways to prevent pvp from interrupting them. I only speak of flaws relative to 'combining the concept of a living world with similar social rules/appeal to cooperative players' and 'owPvP'. As Dygz would say, 'people who don't perceive this as an issue will very likely enjoy Ashes, these are likely to be people who enjoyed L2, EVE, and ArcheAge'. Now from my own perspective I can add this for any devs. "Your world of Nodes is not appealing enough to me while it contains this flaw." I don't necessarily think you (the devs) CARE about that, but this is still mostly a thread about 'why PvE players/worldsim enjoyers/microcompetition fans' might have opinions about Ashes that should get a little more respect than they sometimes do.
mcstackerson wrote: » I wouldn't say there is a flaw here, it's more that this isn't a fishing sim. In Ashes, when you fish, you aren't in a fishing tournament competing with other fishers, you are pulling resources out of the world. Player conflict is something ashes wants to encourage and one of the ways they do that is by limiting resources and giving the ability to fight over them. Yea, if someone wants to play a fishing simulator and loads up ashes, they might not have the best time but that doesn't mean people won't enjoy it. Also, If fishing tournaments become a thing the devs want to support, they could find ways to prevent pvp from interrupting them.
Azherae wrote: » Otr wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Otr wrote: » Fishing can bring people together. But maybe works only for PvP players because PvE players are greedy selfish jerks. Also doubling down on this. You label it as the PvE players, but you can use any label for any other-group you like. The point is, there are players who come to competitive games that have economies and are 'greedy selfish jerks' like me. I don't care about your 'fair fights'. I don't care about what Corruption is 'supposed to do'. I want money and if you are in the way of my money and the game implies that killing you is the optimal answer to that, then I'm going to kill you because I didn't log into this game to lose. True. I apologize. We are all selfish, willing to get the game we want. Azherae wrote: » Otr wrote: » Azherae wrote: » 2. A PvP-enjoyer (let's say me, a 'fishing rights enforcer') enters the game with the idea of getting good at controlling an economic space. That person is in micro-competition with the PvP skill or the organizational ability (or zerg factor) of anyone who wants control of that economic space. But there's one catch to consider. In this case, the PvP-enjoyer has a vastly diminished incentive to cooperate compared to even a Survival game (but let's look at games where some attempt at simulating a world is happening, instead). I do not understand this sentence: "That person is in micro-competition with the PvP skill or the organizational ability (or zerg factor) of anyone who wants control of that economic space." - micro-competition with the PvP skill - micro-competition with the organizational ability - micro-competition with the zerg factor? Also "macro competition" is new to me. I know a PvP player who likes fishing and he was sharing the fishing spot with another player in our guild. Then he noticed a fisher being attacked by a creature. The player was from an enemy guild. We would kill each-other always on sight. Yet in that moment he rushed to save him. Just because in all the chaos of a full loot PvP world they shared the passion for fishing. Fishing can bring people together. But maybe works only for PvP players because PvE players are greedy selfish jerks. I'll simplify. I have 8 people in my group. You don't get to fish by yourself in my area without one of them killing you. Ever. What competition are we having? This is not a risk vs reward setup. If I can see your people and I have fewer in my group then is not a matter of risk. Not even a competition. If you kill me even when I do not fight back, you become red and depending how valuable the fish is, you can do it once or a few more times. Then you have no choice but to let me fish. But maybe you can solve that by pulling some NPCs to do the killing blow, which is a valid strategy. Then I have no other option but to wait until there is nobody around. That is when the risk happens. Maybe your people hide in water. Or maybe I stay too long and eventually I'll have no way to escape when you surround me. But if my reward was the fishing activity (not the fish) I could try giving it to you and you would get it 100% instead of just a fraction when I flag up. Or maybe I will not give it to you if you are unfriendly. And I will try to escape somehow, maybe swimming if I have a water mount and then you can chase me. And that will be fun too But such scenarios where you cannot progress because other players do something I seen even if you do not flag for PvP. For example in New World a quest would require a drop from a special alpha bear or wolf and players were camping that because not each could loot. Or resources were constantly mined by bots or very dedicated players. What kind of competition is that? The only solution is to make every player be able to loot the resource from resource nodes or NPCs. And PvE content to exist in instances, as many as needed. Then what kind of competition is that? Players competing with themselves to see if they can progress a bit more against a preprogrammed AI? Anyway, AoC will not go on this path. It must be balanced to offer risk. Your setup was not quite ok to deliver on this game pillar. I feel like what happened here is that you slightly projected your frustrations with bad games, onto my potential mindset for Ashes. So if you don't mind, let's step back a moment. Disregarding the fact that only the person who lands the killing blow gets any Corruption in Ashes at this time, I am talking about a person who wants to fish, to improve at fishing or support their economic needs in game, becoming unable to fish due to my willingness to kill them. This player could absolutely, as you say, just hand over the fish. But it's not the fish necessarily that is the target. What if I want my bard to level up their Fishing and you fishing at all at the spot, is therefore a problem? I agree with you that bots, gatekeeping players from quest mobs, etc, is bad and also not competition. That's the core problem I'm taling about. We are immortal, we are locusts, we do not tire, we do not eat, we do not sleep. We are all Daywalker Vampires who just can't kill magical town guards or shopkeepers. As for my setup that does not deliver on the game pillar, can you describe it to me? I don't feel like I offered a 'setup' to try to deliver anything, so I'd appreciate that clarified.
Azherae wrote: » People misunderstand forced-PvP-averse vs owPvP-enjoyer in MMORPGs because of some stuff. For a game to be enjoyable for most PvE-focused players, something must enforce the micro-competition within their skillsets. Otherwise, the only micro-competition they can be assured of getting to experience is PvP. This was the original failpoint of New World.
Otr wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Otr wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Otr wrote: » Fishing can bring people together. But maybe works only for PvP players because PvE players are greedy selfish jerks. Also doubling down on this. You label it as the PvE players, but you can use any label for any other-group you like. The point is, there are players who come to competitive games that have economies and are 'greedy selfish jerks' like me. I don't care about your 'fair fights'. I don't care about what Corruption is 'supposed to do'. I want money and if you are in the way of my money and the game implies that killing you is the optimal answer to that, then I'm going to kill you because I didn't log into this game to lose. True. I apologize. We are all selfish, willing to get the game we want. Azherae wrote: » Otr wrote: » Azherae wrote: » 2. A PvP-enjoyer (let's say me, a 'fishing rights enforcer') enters the game with the idea of getting good at controlling an economic space. That person is in micro-competition with the PvP skill or the organizational ability (or zerg factor) of anyone who wants control of that economic space. But there's one catch to consider. In this case, the PvP-enjoyer has a vastly diminished incentive to cooperate compared to even a Survival game (but let's look at games where some attempt at simulating a world is happening, instead). I do not understand this sentence: "That person is in micro-competition with the PvP skill or the organizational ability (or zerg factor) of anyone who wants control of that economic space." - micro-competition with the PvP skill - micro-competition with the organizational ability - micro-competition with the zerg factor? Also "macro competition" is new to me. I know a PvP player who likes fishing and he was sharing the fishing spot with another player in our guild. Then he noticed a fisher being attacked by a creature. The player was from an enemy guild. We would kill each-other always on sight. Yet in that moment he rushed to save him. Just because in all the chaos of a full loot PvP world they shared the passion for fishing. Fishing can bring people together. But maybe works only for PvP players because PvE players are greedy selfish jerks. I'll simplify. I have 8 people in my group. You don't get to fish by yourself in my area without one of them killing you. Ever. What competition are we having? This is not a risk vs reward setup. If I can see your people and I have fewer in my group then is not a matter of risk. Not even a competition. If you kill me even when I do not fight back, you become red and depending how valuable the fish is, you can do it once or a few more times. Then you have no choice but to let me fish. But maybe you can solve that by pulling some NPCs to do the killing blow, which is a valid strategy. Then I have no other option but to wait until there is nobody around. That is when the risk happens. Maybe your people hide in water. Or maybe I stay too long and eventually I'll have no way to escape when you surround me. But if my reward was the fishing activity (not the fish) I could try giving it to you and you would get it 100% instead of just a fraction when I flag up. Or maybe I will not give it to you if you are unfriendly. And I will try to escape somehow, maybe swimming if I have a water mount and then you can chase me. And that will be fun too But such scenarios where you cannot progress because other players do something I seen even if you do not flag for PvP. For example in New World a quest would require a drop from a special alpha bear or wolf and players were camping that because not each could loot. Or resources were constantly mined by bots or very dedicated players. What kind of competition is that? The only solution is to make every player be able to loot the resource from resource nodes or NPCs. And PvE content to exist in instances, as many as needed. Then what kind of competition is that? Players competing with themselves to see if they can progress a bit more against a preprogrammed AI? Anyway, AoC will not go on this path. It must be balanced to offer risk. Your setup was not quite ok to deliver on this game pillar. I feel like what happened here is that you slightly projected your frustrations with bad games, onto my potential mindset for Ashes. So if you don't mind, let's step back a moment. Disregarding the fact that only the person who lands the killing blow gets any Corruption in Ashes at this time, I am talking about a person who wants to fish, to improve at fishing or support their economic needs in game, becoming unable to fish due to my willingness to kill them. This player could absolutely, as you say, just hand over the fish. But it's not the fish necessarily that is the target. What if I want my bard to level up their Fishing and you fishing at all at the spot, is therefore a problem? I agree with you that bots, gatekeeping players from quest mobs, etc, is bad and also not competition. That's the core problem I'm taling about. We are immortal, we are locusts, we do not tire, we do not eat, we do not sleep. We are all Daywalker Vampires who just can't kill magical town guards or shopkeepers. As for my setup that does not deliver on the game pillar, can you describe it to me? I don't feel like I offered a 'setup' to try to deliver anything, so I'd appreciate that clarified. I had the feeling you want to continue the discussion about risk vs reward but in a different thread. But you also used the Micro-Competition and Macro-Competition expressions which I had no time to reverse engineer yet from other posts. This thread exploded with comments fast. You gave me an example which was supposed to explain them but I still didn't understood. And is important because you said in the OP that there is a misunderstanding: Azherae wrote: » People misunderstand forced-PvP-averse vs owPvP-enjoyer in MMORPGs because of some stuff. For a game to be enjoyable for most PvE-focused players, something must enforce the micro-competition within their skillsets. Otherwise, the only micro-competition they can be assured of getting to experience is PvP. This was the original failpoint of New World.
Azherae wrote: » Again, almost perfect, with one huge problem. In a system based around 'Corruption', the PvP focused player has much less power. The PvE focused player doesn't need to cooperate with them. Their only actual option is to 'use their PvP skills to set back the PvE focused player', and that's assuming that PvE focused player doesn't have greater PvP skills than them.
Ace1234 wrote: » Oh, gotchya. You think that more instanced content would be the cause of this? To me, it would have the opposite effect, more instanced content would provide those players with that fix, so they arent looking for it in the open world, so the open world will draw the players who are interested in its natural appeal. I might be missing an obvious point you are trying to make on this though.
Ace1234 wrote: » No im not aware. As im sure you know "in all your data" as you like to say, a general idea of what I like to play. Haven't really found anything super appealing. But like you said, the specific combination of Ashes is appealing to me, but you are also talking to someone who never actually seriously played an mmo and I have no development experience. I determine my preferences/opinions through analysis/extrapolation, so I actually have no idea what the actual "combination" will feel like in Ashes, even if I Iike its individual components. Some of my favorite gameplay was from single player games that I wish had pvp, because the combat systems were more fun to me than what I see on the market for a lot of fighting games/mobas. I also like the idea of being able to dabble in some of the other systems I haven't really experienced yet as well, though, like economy, naval, etc. and the idea of having them all in one place is convenient. I doubt I would actually like those playstyles as much though, I enjoy the faster paced, high mobility isometric competitive gameplay the most. So, im not really aware of many alternative options that are out there that would provide the gameplay feel/depth/pvp/etc. elements for each of those individual systems.
Ace1234 wrote: » Yea I agree. I think the whole "basically just make separate games each with varying layers/degrees of depth in the macro-competition to cater to different types of players, smash them all together through things like instanced content, and call it Ashes", was basically my take on this, unless its not feasible, in which case I am on your side of sticking with the more hardcore pvx/emergent side of things and saying its not for everyone.
Azherae wrote: » I don't believe there should be anything in Ashes in a Safe Zone that has any economic impact. I don't perceive that to be a solution either, because you will get the other side, where optimizers abuse that fiat protection from PvP.
