OW PVP is not the issue. Non-consensual PvP combat has been an issue at least since UO. Which is why EQ, EQ2 and WoW all started with separate servers for the PVP combat spectrum playstyles.
when people are talking open world pvp, @Dygz they aren't referring to Carvan they are talking about ganking, attacking players when they feel like. Carvan system is considered "battlegrounds" in the eyes of Steven and the team, Open world pvp is what you call "non-consensual pvp".
I think this is one of the issues community faces, is that they have a large difference of opinion of open world pvp, The IS team believes open world pvp is what I stated above. They have already stated they wont have RP or PVE only servers, like I've said before Steven has said this game wont be for everyone, if PVP is that big of an issue/barrier for players,and they cant find ways to enjoy the game you might not want to play (unfortunate since your a nice dude).
This is IS vision for the game, we need to accept that. Either figure out how to enjoy the game with the PVP elements or don't play those are the two choices it boils down to. People need to start understand that PVP Open world is there for a reason, to cause conflict, to make it so people who are tired of certain people and rise up and change the world.
I just usually call it "random PVP" but I also mean OWPVP- Boiling down PVP that is basically only about looking for other players in a semi random fashion and ganking them for reasons outside anything to do with Node protection or guild/Node conflict. "Caravans" sound like they will be kind of a mix of random and structured PVP and a good outlet for both.
There are some downsides to NOT allowing open(random) PVP to consider as well. You can't chase away players from farming resources or mobs that you want/need without having to do a big guild vs guild or Node vs Node without it...
IMO, they are already doing the game a disservice by splitting the player base up with diff servers anyway. It's 2018!
@Dygz EQ2 no longer has any PvP servers (no population to support it). The only PvP is arena and if you listen you will hear crickets. Since EQ2 started as a PvE game, it was discovered that PvP servers negatively impacted PvE. Also, even though there was a vocal minority clammering for PvP; the proof was, most people wanted a PvE game.
It's very hard to add PvP after the fact; the game must be designed for it.
I mean i thrived in Eq2 PVP. But yes many did suffer....... But Eq2 pvp was really great system, for titles etc. Was a fun time made some PVE difficult if you weren't a top player.
meh making a pve server is really simple, the corruption variable has to be changed from 1, to 1 billion or so... minus int overflow. It would screw mechanics however make the intended experience boring as all hell and be a bad game. You cannot design for both pve and pvx and have the same game. If they do make it, the population will devour the content and get bored. I could see them making a high corruption server(x2-4), normal and lawless server however(x.25 ish).
@Dygz EQ2 no longer has any PvP servers (no population to support it). The only PvP is arena and if you listen you will hear crickets. Since EQ2 started as a PvE game, it was discovered that PvP servers negatively impacted PvE. Also, even though there was a vocal minority clammering for PvP; the proof was, most people wanted a PvE game.
It's very hard to add PvP after the fact; the game must be designed for it.
In games with separate PvP and PvE servers, the PvP servers are usually low population.
Because RPGs have traditionally been primarily cooperative PvE, so the majority of RPG fans ("role players") are primarily PvEers. "Gamers" tend to be competitive PvP folk... and it was predominately gamers playing online RPGs when MMORPGs arrived, so we now have a generation of gamers who think that all MMORPGs should have a heavy focus on PvP combat.
The difficulty of adding PvP combat after the fact is a strange topic to bring to the conversation. I don't see the relevance here.
@chaogoesmu
As far as I know, no one is really asking for a non-PvX server; rather they are asking for a server with the non-consensual PvP combat outside of battlegrounds shut off. Which would make the Corruption mechanic unnecessary. Bounty Hunting Corrupted player characters would not be a thing, I guess. Consensual PvP combat in battlegrounds -sieges and caravans- would still be core mechanics, so players would not be devouring the content any faster than normal servers.
I'm interested to see if players are able to maintain a de facto PvE server and de facto RP server. One where the vast majority of the population is PvEers and one where the vast majority of the population is RPers.
@Dygz EQ2 no longer has any PvP servers (no population to support it). The only PvP is arena and if you listen you will hear crickets. Since EQ2 started as a PvE game, it was discovered that PvP servers negatively impacted PvE. Also, even though there was a vocal minority clammering for PvP; the proof was, most people wanted a PvE game.
It's very hard to add PvP after the fact; the game must be designed for it.
The difficulty of adding PvP combat after the fact is a strange topic to bring to the conversation. I don't see the relevance here.
That's because it was information to update you, @Dygz. Also a comment about how games were designed. And btw as a PvE person I consider myself a Gamer, as do many others.
This discussion is simplistically resolved in 1 statement. The answer from Intrepid has been a "NO" there will not be separate servers.
Additionally, the corruption mechanic or crime point mechanic or whatever a game calls it in other games, all failed in 1 major way. They failed to provide adequate PvP mechanics of a meaningful scope to supplement the need to force unsolicited PvP. Either way it boils down to Ashes being a PvX game. I mean isn't immersion the goal here? I will be very straight forward here ... in game i can do a whole lot more than I can IRL and in game if you give me reason to be upset with you ... I will flag up and I will kill your toon. Enough said ... that is true immersion. We do not need to look very far to see that the success of many MMORPG's has been directly proportional to freedom of choice and content. If what you seek is a game to play where you can Pvp ... but only if you want or when you want, might I suggest looking at ESO, LOTRO, EQ2 or many other titles? Just being real here ...
T-Elf said: That's because it was information to update you, @Dygz. Also a comment about how games were designed. And btw as a PvE person I consider myself a Gamer, as do many others. I am very excited by Ashes being a PvX game.
I don't agree that PvP combat was an after-thought in EQ, EQ2 or WoW. It simply was not a primary focus.
People can consider themselves and others all kinds of things. My Activision colleagues considered me not to be a gamer because I only play a handful of games per year, though I spend a hardcore amount of time in those handful of games. The distinction I'm making is between the players who wish to eke out a life and enact a story in a multiplayer evolving online world and the players who wish to compete in a game against other players.
You get to define gamer however you wish. I don't play RPGs for the competitive game aspects - I play RPGs for the cooperative storytelling aspects. And, I believe that is a significant distinction between PvPers and PvEers. We can disagree. That's fine.
I'm excited that Ashes is a PvX game, too. Ashes battlegrounds should be excellent. Battlegrounds are consensual PvP combat. I'm still not a fan of non-consensual PvP combat. And I'm highly skeptical that Corruption will be a sufficient deterrent for non-consensual PvP combat. But, again, we will have to play the game in Beta to really know.
If non-consensual PvP combat is too prevalent in Ashes of Creation, despite the Corruption mechanic, players who don't like non-consensual PvP combat won't play Ashes of Creation. It really is that simple. And that is also keeping it real. There is no disagreement.
(But, yeah... basically no separate PvE server... which is why this thread became obsolete a year ago. Surprising necro. )
If non-consensual PvP combat is too prevalent in Ashes of Creation, despite the Corruption mechanic, players who don't like non-consensual PvP combat won't play Ashes of Creation. It really is that simple. And that is also keeping it real. There is no disagreement.
(But, yeah... basically no separate PvE server... which is why this thread became obsolete a year ago. Surprising necro. )
If non-consensual PvP combat is too prevalent in Ashes of Creation, despite the Corruption mechanic, players who don't like non-consensual PvP combat won't play Ashes of Creation. It really is that simple. And that is also keeping it real. There is no disagreement.
(But, yeah... basically no separate PvE server... which is why this thread became obsolete a year ago. Surprising necro. )
I blame Nagash! it's always his fault ...
hey hey hey I resent that remark its ALMOST always my fault see there's a difference ^^
most people don't bother to gank people eve being the outlier but then they don't have many players this game is not full loot no one really going to make money ganking people in open world if they make it full loot almost no one will play
The title of this Thread was already asked & answered long time ago
No
Right. Answered over and over and over again. If you're going to get bothered that much by pvp then this game is NOT for you. You may also want to seek some kind of therapy for being able to be bothered by something in a virtual world so much. Your loss really.
OW PVP is not the issue. Non-consensual PvP combat has been an issue at least since UO. Which is why EQ, EQ2 and WoW all started with separate servers for the PVP combat spectrum playstyles.
I miss Ultima Online. Trammel was the worst thing that ever happened. I hated being pk'ed, but the possibility of it made it fun. Stumbling across random people wasn't usually a life-threatening situation either. Most people were passive, and if a pk'er/griefer came along, he was put down. People were allies until someone got flagged.
What I don't like is the approach Albion took. Everyone is an enemy unless they're in your guild or alliance.That shit stressed me out. I was a T8 tailor/harvester in that game, and was usually off on my own, harvesting some T7 fiber. God knows how many times I got ganked.
So to sum this up, I'm glad there wont be PVE/PVP servers. Trammel was garbage. But I hope theres more of a sense of camaraderie with random passersby than the idea that everyone needs to be attacked.
@Ezenkrul87 To be fair, i do understand their sentiments & concerns. But thats the whole point for the Corruption System - to have an enjoyable PvP encounter with someone else ... or a group ?
1v1, 2v1, 3v1
Initially, such a thing may not be reassuring ... but that'll be based on how Intrepid incorporates Combat, Gear, Level differential ( no Level cap might be better ), Skill, and many other types of abilities to test out
Such as abilities that deal dmg based on a set percentage
or Defensive abilties
( anything that help Low-levels defend themselves against high-lvls .)
Becasue in some MMOs - there is too much emphasis on Gear - and thus becomes the sole deciding factor in the Victor.
And most of these Sentiments & Concerns are based on their past experiences - very reasonable & understandable to feel that way
I agree that we won't know how IS's intended PvX mechanics will play out, until we...well, play it out. But, I do believe that despite some players apprehensions about open world PvP, to "modify" it in any way, would have rippling ramifications, on a micro and macro level.
For example, two opposing players may engage in battle of a resource. Not necessarily for immediate personal gain, but because one of the players is from a neighboring node, and wishes to slow the advancement of an opposing node. Take this away by making PvP consent-based, and you take the element of intrigue out of the game. Now, everything becomes merely a foot race in gathering, exploring, questing, etc, to build up nodes...outside of caravan runs, and such.
Open world PvP may at times be frustrating but, imo, it's gives the players the agency to make their own stories, instead of relying soley on organized events for random interplay. Sometimes it's that random interplay that can lead to great lasting friendships...or unending enmity.
Hope Intrepid gets the mix right. They have their work cut out for them!
The title of this Thread was already asked & answered long time ago
No
Right. Answered over and over and over again. If you're going to get bothered that much by pvp then this game is NOT for you. You may also want to seek some kind of therapy for being able to be bothered by something in a virtual world so much. Your loss really.
#stopbeingcarebears
I am proud to be a carebear. Stop being a griefer.
I agree that we won't know how IS's intended PvX mechanics will play out, until we...well, play it out. But, I do believe that despite some players apprehensions about open world PvP, to "modify" it in any way, would have rippling ramifications, on a micro and macro level.
For example, two opposing players may engage in battle of a resource. Not necessarily for immediate personal gain, but because one of the players is from a neighboring node, and wishes to slow the advancement of an opposing node. Take this away by making PvP consent-based, and you take the element of intrigue out of the game. Now, everything becomes merely a foot race in gathering, exploring, questing, etc, to build up nodes...outside of caravan runs, and such.
Open world PvP may at times be frustrating but, imo, it's gives the players the agency to make their own stories, instead of relying soley on organized events for random interplay. Sometimes it's that random interplay that can lead to great lasting friendships...or unending enmity.
Hope Intrepid gets the mix right. They have their work cut out for them!
Intrigue is as subjective as immersion. You slow the advancement of a node via caravan raids - which is inherently consensual PvP combat. Hence, no Corruption mechanic there. Open world PvP combat is not frustrating. Open world PvP combat is merely non-instanced PvP combat. Being forced to participate in an activity by another player is frustrating. Just as slavery and **** are frustrating. Loss of "intrigue" is infinitely more acceptable than the loss of autonomy of other players forcing me into gameplay I'm not in the mood for. It should not be up to other players to determine against my will how much more game time I must invest in order to progress my character(s). If the consequences for PvP combat in Ashes were similar to the consequences in Fallout 76, this probably would not be an issue.
Comments
Non-consensual PvP combat has been an issue at least since UO.
Which is why EQ, EQ2 and WoW all started with separate servers for the PVP combat spectrum playstyles.
I think this is one of the issues community faces, is that they have a large difference of opinion of open world pvp, The IS team believes open world pvp is what I stated above. They have already stated they wont have RP or PVE only servers, like I've said before Steven has said this game wont be for everyone, if PVP is that big of an issue/barrier for players,and they cant find ways to enjoy the game you might not want to play (unfortunate since your a nice dude).
This is IS vision for the game, we need to accept that. Either figure out how to enjoy the game with the PVP elements or don't play those are the two choices it boils down to. People need to start understand that PVP Open world is there for a reason, to cause conflict, to make it so people who are tired of certain people and rise up and change the world.
I just usually call it "random PVP" but I also mean OWPVP- Boiling down PVP that is basically only about looking for other players in a semi random fashion and ganking them for reasons outside anything to do with Node protection or guild/Node conflict. "Caravans" sound like they will be kind of a mix of random and structured PVP and a good outlet for both.
There are some downsides to NOT allowing open(random) PVP to consider as well. You can't chase away players from farming resources or mobs that you want/need without having to do a big guild vs guild or Node vs Node without it...
IMO, they are already doing the game a disservice by splitting the player base up with diff servers anyway. It's 2018!
It's very hard to add PvP after the fact; the game must be designed for it.
Because RPGs have traditionally been primarily cooperative PvE, so the majority of RPG fans ("role players") are primarily PvEers.
"Gamers" tend to be competitive PvP folk... and it was predominately gamers playing online RPGs when MMORPGs arrived, so we now have a generation of gamers who think that all MMORPGs should have a heavy focus on PvP combat.
The difficulty of adding PvP combat after the fact is a strange topic to bring to the conversation. I don't see the relevance here.
@chaogoesmu
As far as I know, no one is really asking for a non-PvX server; rather they are asking for a server with the non-consensual PvP combat outside of battlegrounds shut off. Which would make the Corruption mechanic unnecessary.
Bounty Hunting Corrupted player characters would not be a thing, I guess.
Consensual PvP combat in battlegrounds -sieges and caravans- would still be core mechanics, so players would not be devouring the content any faster than normal servers.
I'm interested to see if players are able to maintain a de facto PvE server and de facto RP server. One where the vast majority of the population is PvEers and one where the vast majority of the population is RPers.
Additionally, the corruption mechanic or crime point mechanic or whatever a game calls it in other games, all failed in 1 major way. They failed to provide adequate PvP mechanics of a meaningful scope to supplement the need to force unsolicited PvP. Either way it boils down to Ashes being a PvX game. I mean isn't immersion the goal here? I will be very straight forward here ... in game i can do a whole lot more than I can IRL and in game if you give me reason to be upset with you ... I will flag up and I will kill your toon. Enough said ... that is true immersion. We do not need to look very far to see that the success of many MMORPG's has been directly proportional to freedom of choice and content. If what you seek is a game to play where you can Pvp ... but only if you want or when you want, might I suggest looking at ESO, LOTRO, EQ2 or many other titles? Just being real here ...
It simply was not a primary focus.
People can consider themselves and others all kinds of things.
My Activision colleagues considered me not to be a gamer because I only play a handful of games per year, though I spend a hardcore amount of time in those handful of games.
The distinction I'm making is between the players who wish to eke out a life and enact a story in a multiplayer evolving online world and the players who wish to compete in a game against other players.
You get to define gamer however you wish.
I don't play RPGs for the competitive game aspects - I play RPGs for the cooperative storytelling aspects. And, I believe that is a significant distinction between PvPers and PvEers.
We can disagree. That's fine.
I'm excited that Ashes is a PvX game, too. Ashes battlegrounds should be excellent.
Battlegrounds are consensual PvP combat.
I'm still not a fan of non-consensual PvP combat. And I'm highly skeptical that Corruption will be a sufficient deterrent for non-consensual PvP combat.
But, again, we will have to play the game in Beta to really know.
@Belle-bot.exe ♡
Immersion is subjective.
If non-consensual PvP combat is too prevalent in Ashes of Creation, despite the Corruption mechanic, players who don't like non-consensual PvP combat won't play Ashes of Creation.
It really is that simple. And that is also keeping it real.
There is no disagreement.
(But, yeah... basically no separate PvE server... which is why this thread became obsolete a year ago. Surprising necro.
#stopbeingcarebears
What I don't like is the approach Albion took. Everyone is an enemy unless they're in your guild or alliance.That shit stressed me out. I was a T8 tailor/harvester in that game, and was usually off on my own, harvesting some T7 fiber. God knows how many times I got ganked.
So to sum this up, I'm glad there wont be PVE/PVP servers. Trammel was garbage. But I hope theres more of a sense of camaraderie with random passersby than the idea that everyone needs to be attacked.
- 1v1, 2v1, 3v1
Initially, such a thing may not be reassuring ... but that'll be based on how Intrepid incorporates Combat, Gear, Level differential ( no Level cap might be better ), Skill, and many other types of abilities to test out- Such as abilities that deal dmg based on a set percentage
- or Defensive abilties
- ( anything that help Low-levels defend themselves against high-lvls .)
Becasue in some MMOs - there is too much emphasis on Gear - and thus becomes the sole deciding factor in the Victor.And most of these Sentiments & Concerns are based on their past experiences - very reasonable & understandable to feel that way
You slow the advancement of a node via caravan raids - which is inherently consensual PvP combat. Hence, no Corruption mechanic there.
Open world PvP combat is not frustrating. Open world PvP combat is merely non-instanced PvP combat.
Being forced to participate in an activity by another player is frustrating. Just as slavery and **** are frustrating.
Loss of "intrigue" is infinitely more acceptable than the loss of autonomy of other players forcing me into gameplay I'm not in the mood for.
It should not be up to other players to determine against my will how much more game time I must invest in order to progress my character(s).
If the consequences for PvP combat in Ashes were similar to the consequences in Fallout 76, this probably would not be an issue.
Will there be PVP and PVE servers?
Yes.Confirmed by Bacon.