Worst MMO experience - what is going on with the culture?

I'm really shocked by the player behaviors in an alpha. So far I've experienced:

- in game and out of game stalking to find my personal info, just because my clan wanted to contest a node for mayorship for the experience
- hours upon hours of PvE griefing in the form of training NPCs onto groups, having party members CC'd, or having my party be attacked without being flagged,but dying to NPCs so that the attacker doesn't go corrupt
- watching the same large groups of people exploit
- being contacted outside of game to sell a node to my clan...RMT in an alpha. Really?
- public chat channels being nothing but fighting and mud slinging
- Veteran guilds targetting tiny guilds of players who haven't even seen level 10 yet...killing them in town, repeatedly.
- Veteran players making large groups of low level alts to grief low level players, not caring that they go corrupt because 10 naked players > 1 level 5
- Large guilds intentionally ensuring nobody can interact with artisan systems by not upgrading towns

It is constant - not just a little bit here or there. MMOs are dying, and its not due to the design, but its due to the player culture being overrun by swaths of people who don't play for the love of the game. They consistently brag about being VIPS in other games, and making real life money by making content unreachable by the average player.

It is not that the game atmosphere is harsh, it is that it has become personal. This game has somehow attracted more toxic players than retail wow. It is impressive.

The game doesn't provide ways to report them, and not sure where the GMs are. It is clear these people are bored, and yet not interested in testing the game at all while driving away players that would help build a healthy gaming community.

My gaming community is already done with the game, and chalking it up as another New World situation, as the game is following the same trajectory, due to some of the same players that ruined NW.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Terranigma1

I work as a teacher and I'd say: behaviour is the result of (amongst other things) education. Currently, the design of Ashes as in its current state fosters antisocial behaviour and urges people to be competitive about even the most basic gameplay loop, e.g. killing mobs. Because there isn't any meaningful way to progress aside from grinding and because the game allows antisocial behaviour - others might call that "meaningful conflict" - people do just that.

If you want non-toxic players you have to motivate and foster non-toxic behaviour; in its current iteration, Ashes does the opposite, and part of that isn't due to the game being in alpha but it's by design. So it would disgree: players do what you allow them to do and what benefits them. That PvP-centric and heavily competitive games attract more toxic people than other games isn't a coincidence. If you want more cooperation and social behaviour you need systems that encourage this.

DvalinTTV

The looting system, where the first person to tag a mob gets the loot, really contributes to a toxic environment. People will go to great lengths to get you killed if you tag their mob first. This could easily be fixed with a shared loot system.

Lucascp92

Eve fantasy online ?

sciffer2014

I believe that players should face consequences for toxic behavior both inside and outside of the game. A universal Gamer Code of Conduct agreement could help establish clear expectations for behavior across gaming communities. This could be especially important in today’s gaming landscape, where streamers with celebrity-like appeal influence large followings. A general code could be supplemented by a Streamer Code of Conduct for those whose in-game actions directly impact broader community behavior, particularly if in-game features cater to or involve streamers.

Terranigma1 wrote: »

If you want non-toxic players you have to motivate and foster non-toxic behaviour; in its current iteration, Ashes does the opposite, and part of that isn't due to the game being in alpha but it's by design. So it would disgree: players do what you allow them to do and what benefits them. That PvP-centric and heavily competitive games attract more toxic people than other games isn't a coincidence. If you want more cooperation and social behaviour you need systems that encourage this.

In terms of game design, I find that many titles attempting to merge PvP and PvE environments often foster toxicity between the two communities. PvE players can end up resenting PvP players, seeing them as disruptive, while PvP players may dismiss PvE players as overly sensitive or "whiny." In my opinion, games attempting this balance would be better served by implementing server-specific rules instead of uniform game-wide rules.

For example, different server types could cater to various player preferences:

Hardcore PvP – Open combat where players can attack anyone at any time, with in-game mechanics in place to provide balance.
Roleplay PvP – Combat is allowed but restricted, such as prohibiting attacks on non-combatants or allies within the node system.
Limited PvP – Combat is tied to specific events, like caravan escorts or sieges, ensuring PvP happens in controlled, contextually appropriate scenarios.

This server-based approach would help align player expectations and reduce friction within the community by offering distinct experiences tailored to different playstyles. The only downfall of that approach is that easy target would become unlikely in hardcore pvp server but still, it would have it's appeal.

Taleof2Cities

sciffer2014 wrote: »

For example, different server types could cater to various player preferences:

Playstyle-specific servers aren’t happening due to a myriad of reasons, sciffer2014 … which has already been discussed in numerous prior Forums threads.

I’ll highlight a couple of the main barriers for you:

(a) Specific servers fragment (split) the playerbase into too many subsections … with each subsection unable to support the gameplay population that’s needed for the activities Ashes intends to include.

(b) It also goes against the “risk versus reward” pillar of the game. For example, PvE servers don’t foster any meaningful conflict … there would be no point to caravans and node sieges.

Bottom Line: A PvX playstyle is a core tenet to the game.

sciffer2014

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

sciffer2014 wrote: »

For example, different server types could cater to various player preferences:

Playstyle-specific servers aren’t happening due to a myriad of reasons, sciffer2014 … which has already been discussed in numerous prior Forums threads.

I’ll highlight a couple of the main barriers for you:

(a) Specific servers fragment (split) the playerbase into too many subsections … with each subsection unable to support the gameplay population that’s needed for the activities Ashes intends to include.

(b) It also goes against the “risk versus reward” pillar of the game. For example, PvE servers don’t foster any meaningful conflict … there would be no point to caravans and node sieges.

Bottom Line: A PvX playstyle is a core tenet to the game. The sooner you decide whether that’s a playstyle is for you … the sooner you will know whether Ashes is worthwhile investing your time (and money) in.

I would have to disagree. The division of the player base is inevitable simply by having multiple servers, so arguing against different type of PvP server types on that basis doesn’t hold much weight.

Additionally, I don’t think there’s a need for a large number of full PvP servers. Many PvP players prefer easy, unprepared targets rather than challenging, ready-for-action opponents. This tendency suggests that full PvP servers would likely attract the lowest populations.

Also, even in limited PvP server, game modes like caravan runs and node sieges would still function as meaningful PvP scenarios. These events would work within PvP settings without losing their significance or excitement. A limited PvP server doesn’t exclude the possibility of built-in PvP scenarios—it just changes the context in which they occur.

In fact, I think this setup could enhance the risk vs. reward dynamic. With fewer opportunities for PvP, the events that do allow it—such as caravans and sieges—would likely draw more attention and participation, creating higher stakes and a greater sense of significance for those involved.

Azherae

The PvP I see the most of is 'players who can't beat the top players whining at the top players for taking advantage of the opportunities that others refuse to challenge them for'.

Y'know, 'World Chat PvP'.

"There goes X alliance again, farming the world boss uncontested."
"We can wait for y'all to form up if you want."
"Who cares, you guys pushed all your competition off the server."
"Like I said, we'll wait here if you wanna fight."
"And get steamrolled by your zerg, no thanks."

Ashes needs PvX philosophy so that it slows down this effect. Other games work despite this because they don't have nodes, but a player driven PvP game of this type can't afford to rely entirely on event-based PvP, it would falter within 3 months after the first and second 'casual guild reshuffles'.

sciffer2014

Azherae wrote: »

Ashes needs PvX philosophy so that it slows down this effect. Other games work despite this because they don't have nodes, but a player driven PvP game of this type can't afford to rely entirely on event-based PvP, it would falter within 3 months after the first and second 'casual guild reshuffles'.

Realistically, this will likely happen anyway. With PVX, top guilds will dominate most world bosses and are also likely to control key resource-gathering areas through PvP. As the game world evolves, countermeasures will become increasingly scarce because the economy, hunting grounds, and key resources will be controlled by these dominant guilds. This could escalate to the point where access to certain parts of the map is entirely restricted, with strongholds becoming the primary hubs for those guild to interact with NPCs. The only real constraint for this system is travel time or if pvp status become account-wide and that those are awful like you don't kill anyone three day before a raid type of thing.

Otherwise, the game may develop into an oligopoly, where a small number of guilds trade premium resources among themselves based on proximity. This is essentially what an open-market structure leads to in this context.

The likelihood of a PvX system producing better results over time seems negligible. It's also likely to make it worst. However, if PvP elements are only system-driven—such as node wars (node sieges, territory control, etc.), freehold wars (to some extent, if the freehold is strong enough to be a menace for a node), or caravan battles— there could be opportunities to create a more balanced dynamic over time. By designing these systems to offer limited but meaningful chances for smaller groups to challenge and potentially overturn the dominance of larger guilds, you could avoid handing full control of the game’s economy and resources to the biggest players in the long run.

I'm not stating that's how it must be. Neither am I arguing that the game should be play only one way, but I do feel like there're limit to PVX, no matter how you build it.

Azherae

sciffer2014 wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Ashes needs PvX philosophy so that it slows down this effect. Other games work despite this because they don't have nodes, but a player driven PvP game of this type can't afford to rely entirely on event-based PvP, it would falter within 3 months after the first and second 'casual guild reshuffles'.

Realistically, this will likely happen anyway. With PVX, top guilds will dominate most world bosses and are also likely to control key resource-gathering areas through PvP. As the game world evolves, countermeasures will become increasingly scarce because the economy, hunting grounds, and key resources will be controlled by these dominant guilds. This could escalate to the point where access to certain parts of the map is entirely restricted, with strongholds becoming the primary hubs for those guild to interact with NPCs. The only real constraint for this system is travel time or if pvp status become account-wide and that those are awful like you don't kill anyone three day before a raid type of thing.

Well, I did say 'slow down'.

Also I'm not sure what you meant by 'awful like me' in this case.

I assume that you presumed something about my PvP tendencies or something, but just in case that wasn't it, if it's relevant somehow, lmk what it was you were referring to.

lukedawuke

DvalinTTV wrote: »

The looting system, where the first person to tag a mob gets the loot, really contributes to a toxic environment. People will go to great lengths to get you killed if you tag their mob first. This could easily be fixed with a shared loot system.

you also need to do 51% damage to be able to loot the mob no?

SmileGurney

Lucascp92 wrote: »

Eve fantasy online ?

In its current state? AoC is worse, even if the game doesnt offer as many "creative" ways to grief people.

Kalnazzar

DvalinTTV wrote: »

The looting system, where the first person to tag a mob gets the loot, really contributes to a toxic environment. People will go to great lengths to get you killed if you tag their mob first. This could easily be fixed with a shared loot system.

Terranigma1 wrote: »

I work as a teacher and I'd say: behaviour is the result of (amongst other things) education. Currently, the design of Ashes as in its current state fosters antisocial behaviour and urges people to be competitive about even the most basic gameplay loop, e.g. killing mobs. Because there isn't any meaningful way to progress aside from grinding and because the game allows antisocial behaviour - others might call that "meaningful conflict" - people do just that.

If you want non-toxic players you have to motivate and foster non-toxic behaviour; in its current iteration, Ashes does the opposite, and part of that isn't due to the game being in alpha but it's by design. So it would disgree: players do what you allow them to do and what benefits them. That PvP-centric and heavily competitive games attract more toxic people than other games isn't a coincidence. If you want more cooperation and social behaviour you need systems that encourage this.

It’s not about education—it’s about cultural shifts over time. The way players interact with games has drastically changed since the days of 1999 or even 2010. The modern gaming landscape often prioritizes speed and efficiency over the journey itself. Many players now focus on maximizing gains in the shortest amount of time, abandoning the slow and steady approach that fosters deeper engagement.

Why should someone expect to gain the same experience or rewards when they’re not putting in the same effort or time? It’s a reflection of a cultural change, and it creates a clash between old-school views and more modernized, fast-paced gaming styles. I’m someone who enjoys the journey—taking things slow and steady—but three days into a server wipe, we already see players hitting max level, towns with level-three nodes, and mayors elected. What’s the point of rushing through everything? People burn through content at breakneck speed and then complain there’s nothing left to do. They’ve devoured their cake in one sitting and blame the developers when there’s none left.

This isn’t an issue of education or lack of ways to progress. Even if there were 100 different ways to level, players would still gravitate toward the fastest, most efficient path. It’s not about PvP fostering toxicity either. Competitive environments and limited resources are essential for maintaining challenge and encouraging skill improvement. Without competition, resources would become overly abundant, and gameplay would stagnate.

The idea that everyone should receive rewards just for participation, like sharing loot from a mob regardless of their effort, diminishes the sense of achievement. Why not try again, take another run, and work for the reward? That’s what builds meaningful progress.

If someone feels pressured to rush leveling because they’re afraid their guild or friends will abandon them for not being “elite,” perhaps the problem lies not with the game, but with the culture and the company they keep. These issues aren’t solved by adding systems to make everything easier. Instead, they require a shift in mindset—both from players and the gaming community as a whole.

sciffer2014

Azherae wrote: »

sciffer2014 wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Ashes needs PvX philosophy so that it slows down this effect. Other games work despite this because they don't have nodes, but a player driven PvP game of this type can't afford to rely entirely on event-based PvP, it would falter within 3 months after the first and second 'casual guild reshuffles'.

Realistically, this will likely happen anyway. With PVX, top guilds will dominate most world bosses and are also likely to control key resource-gathering areas through PvP. As the game world evolves, countermeasures will become increasingly scarce because the economy, hunting grounds, and key resources will be controlled by these dominant guilds. This could escalate to the point where access to certain parts of the map is entirely restricted, with strongholds becoming the primary hubs for those guild to interact with NPCs. The only real constraint for this system is travel time or if pvp status become account-wide and that those are awful like you don't kill anyone three day before a raid type of thing.

Well, I did say 'slow down'.

Also I'm not sure what you meant by 'awful like me' in this case.

I assume that you presumed something about my PvP tendencies or something, but just in case that wasn't it, if it's relevant somehow, lmk what it was you were referring to.

Nan I'm sorry if it felt like I was attacking you, I meant the pvp status would need to be awfully long and painstaking. Like you got to have the corrupt debuff for a week or something - in order to help lower the overall impact of PVX.

Azherae

sciffer2014 wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

sciffer2014 wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Ashes needs PvX philosophy so that it slows down this effect. Other games work despite this because they don't have nodes, but a player driven PvP game of this type can't afford to rely entirely on event-based PvP, it would falter within 3 months after the first and second 'casual guild reshuffles'.

Realistically, this will likely happen anyway. With PVX, top guilds will dominate most world bosses and are also likely to control key resource-gathering areas through PvP. As the game world evolves, countermeasures will become increasingly scarce because the economy, hunting grounds, and key resources will be controlled by these dominant guilds. This could escalate to the point where access to certain parts of the map is entirely restricted, with strongholds becoming the primary hubs for those guild to interact with NPCs. The only real constraint for this system is travel time or if pvp status become account-wide and that those are awful like you don't kill anyone three day before a raid type of thing.

Well, I did say 'slow down'.

Also I'm not sure what you meant by 'awful like me' in this case.

I assume that you presumed something about my PvP tendencies or something, but just in case that wasn't it, if it's relevant somehow, lmk what it was you were referring to.

Nan I'm sorry if it felt like I was attacking you, I meant the pvp status would need to be awfully long and painstaking. Like you got to have the corrupt debuff for a week or something - in order to help lower the overall impact of PVX.

Thanks, yeah, a guildmate did point out that potential interpretation too, so I'm definitely aware that I took it in a way that wasn't the only (or even really the most reasonable) way to take it.

I think that the issues that come up aren't really a thing you can avoid in any multiplayer game though, certainly not those where a player's direct progression in something other than 'rankings' is affected by others.

Yet, MMORPGs are built entirely around that, and PvP/PvX ones are nearly never designed to put downward pressure on the top players, for relatively good reason (why aim for the top if things get explicitly harder at the top in a systemic way?).

Let's hope the travel time constraints do their job.

teddington

What happens now is exactly what you could expect. Everyone who played any kind of mmo with a pvp aspect in it in the last 2 decades should have known that. It is always the same. I personally hope they rethink their pvp ideas, otherwise we will have to deal with it and the majority will simply leave the game very fast.

Next funny moment will be, when they figure out that the bounty system will not work in the same way as it did not work in 10+ other games before. xD

All in all it is not a problem of people, it is a design problem, people act like you can aspect them to act.

Kotter

i blame today's school systems.

Mahes

There is a reason Dark Ages of Camelot had the best all around solution.

I sadly think if they keep PvP as it is, this game will have maybe 50K players. The real sad part is that you do not even have to PvP to get players killed. Its been a long time since I have seen the Mob Training mechanic used to purposely kill players. It took a few years, but even Everquest realized that player grieving eventually kills the game, if it is constantly allowed. I see nothing in the current design that does not say " If you have the largest guild, you control everything". PvP will become a moot point if everyone is on the same team. Adding in a system that allows for solo play might help a little. Why is that important? Because most people do not like to wait over an hour just to find a group. Almost nobody is going to initiate PvP until they are level capped at the very least, because most people do not like going into a PvP situation with a disadvantage.

The game has a long way to go...

Terranigma1

Kalnazzar wrote: »

The modern gaming landscape often prioritizes speed and efficiency over the journey itself. Many players now focus on maximizing gains in the shortest amount of time, abandoning the slow and steady approach that fosters deeper engagement.

That was however not the issue stated in the discussion of this thread. The discussion was about toxic behaviour, e.g. griefing and various other forms of antisocial behaviour. You wrote about a mentality that is focused on reaching the end of progression systems as fast as possible. I don't really see how that relates to the OP's point of discussion, because it doesn't concern my gaming experience if other people reach the max. level months before I do.

The only part of your post that I think addresses the original claim by the OP is this one here:

Kalnazzar wrote: »

The idea that everyone should receive rewards just for participation, like sharing loot from a mob regardless of their effort, diminishes the sense of achievement. Why not try again, take another run, and work for the reward? That’s what builds meaningful progress.

Here I can't understand your perspective, because killing a mob in an MMO isn't any achievement of any sort. It usually comes down to clicking the same buttons again and again. That is, if we talk about normal mobs and not about boss encounters, or the sort. Personally, I don't feel any sort of achievement when I kill a white mob in Ashes or any other MMO. There's no effort behind it, it's a mere time sink. So if a player attacks the same mob as I do and he gets a little reward for doing so, how does that concern me or dimish my enjoyment of the game? Worst case, it doesn't do anything. Best case, it is a slight nudge towards prosocial behaviour because you actually get small rewards for giving a helping hand to others, even though you're not in the same group.

So far, Ashes has lots of systems that actively encourage antisocial behaviour but hardly any systems that actively encourage prosocial behaviour, so I'm not suprised that you end up with many players doing just that what the systems (i) allow them to do and (ii) nudges them to do. That's a matter of game design. Games that allow griefing and toxic behaviour appeal to people who do that; and that's typical of free-for-all PvP games. Even PvP-centric games such as DaoC - or later WAR:O - organized their PvP-system around factions, so that you have prosocial behaviour within your own faction.

Mahes wrote: »

Almost nobody is going to initiate PvP until they are level capped at the very least, because most people do not like going into a PvP situation with a disadvantage.

Especially if the cost of dying are so grave as they're right now. The current systems encourage you to fight unfair and/or from a strong position, because loosing costs you dearly.

Rockyfour

You seem like a very toxic person too me from your post but on the opposite end of the spectrum. The side of the spectrum where people think everyone should conform to their beliefs or they are a PoS.

Like just the fact that you are having these problems speaks volumes about your character. Not to mention you had this problem in another game too? Like come on lol.

Kalnazzar

Terranigma1 wrote: »

Kalnazzar wrote: »

The modern gaming landscape often prioritizes speed and efficiency over the journey itself. Many players now focus on maximizing gains in the shortest amount of time, abandoning the slow and steady approach that fosters deeper engagement.

That was however not the issue stated in the discussion of this thread. The discussion was about toxic behaviour, e.g. griefing and various other forms of antisocial behaviour. You wrote about a mentality that is focused on reaching the end of progression systems as fast as possible. I don't really see how that relates to the OP's point of discussion, because it doesn't concern my gaming experience if other people reach the max. level months before I do.

The only part of your post that I think addresses the original claim by the OP is this one here:

Kalnazzar wrote: »

The idea that everyone should receive rewards just for participation, like sharing loot from a mob regardless of their effort, diminishes the sense of achievement. Why not try again, take another run, and work for the reward? That’s what builds meaningful progress.

Here I can't understand your perspective, because killing a mob in an MMO isn't any achievement of any sort. It usually comes down to clicking the same buttons again and again. That is, if we talk about normal mobs and not about boss encounters, or the sort. Personally, I don't feel any sort of achievement when I kill a white mob in Ashes or any other MMO. There's no effort behind it, it's a mere time sink. So if a player attacks the same mob as I do and he gets a little reward for doing so, how does that concern me or dimish my enjoyment of the game? Worst case, it doesn't do anything. Best case, it is a slight nudge towards prosocial behaviour because you actually get small rewards for giving a helping hand to others, even though you're not in the same group.

So far, Ashes has lots of systems that actively encourage antisocial behaviour but hardly any systems that actively encourage prosocial behaviour, so I'm not suprised that you end up with many players doing just that what the systems (i) allow them to do and (ii) nudges them to do. That's a matter of game design. Games that allow griefing and toxic behaviour appeal to people who do that; and that's typical of free-for-all PvP games. Even PvP-centric games such as DaoC - or later WAR:O - organized their PvP-system around factions, so that you have prosocial behaviour within your own faction.

Mahes wrote: »

Almost nobody is going to initiate PvP until they are level capped at the very least, because most people do not like going into a PvP situation with a disadvantage.

Especially if the cost of dying are so grave as they're right now. The current systems encourage you to fight unfair and/or from a strong position, because loosing costs you dearly.

Ah, I see we’ve reached the part where someone misreads who’s being addressed in a conversation. For a teacher, I’d have expected you to understand how to follow the thread of a discussion. My reply was directed at your post about 'education' being the cause of the issue, not the original topic post. Perhaps next time, take a moment to read carefully before responding. Are you sure you're a teacher? Seems like you might need a refresher course on context.

Now, to address your question directly: if you don’t understand how the toxic mindset of rushing through content as fast as possible—whether for progression, competitiveness, or simply because of the atmosphere it creates—negatively impacts the gaming community as a whole, then you’re either willfully ignorant or just blind to the reality of modern MMOs. This mentality fuels antisocial behavior and undermines the very essence of what makes MMOs engaging. The problem isn’t just limited to one game; it’s a cultural issue that affects the entire genre.

The mindset of entitlement—thinking everyone deserves the same rewards regardless of effort or time invested—is precisely the issue. Limited resources and the challenges associated with securing them are critical to creating meaningful gameplay. They foster competition and drive players to improve. If everyone got a participation trophy just for showing up, the experience would become stagnant and lose its edge. Fortunately, there are plenty of MMOs catering to players who want that kind of hand-holding experience. Ashes doesn’t need to be one of them.

As for the argument that the game will 'die' if it doesn’t cater to whiners or the loudest voices complaining about challenges—no, that’s not what kills a game. What truly kills a game is bending over backward to appease everyone, constantly changing the design to cater to every fleeting demand. A strong game knows its vision and sticks to it, even if it’s not for everyone. If you’re looking for a game that avoids challenges or competitive dynamics, there are hundreds out there that already fit that mold. Maybe this isn’t the game for you, and that’s perfectly fine.

Child Item