PvX - is this really going to work?

Kaminaris wrote: »

I am getting a feeling that people dont really read my posts

So I am going to write simple list to feed your thought:

1. Everyone will try the game, PvE, PvP, PvX, Casual, Hardcore etc. type of players
2. Usual thought process is to play where friends are or to find yourself community/server that shares your interests
3. But you won't be seeking a place where the type of gameplay you prefer is not happening
4. It is in human nature to seek the path of least resistance
5. If the risk will far outweigh reward, you won't be participating or actively seek to avoid participation

I did read your post, it is just that you are worrying for a class of player who is not going to stick around anyway. There are plenty of people who never have or never will play a single MMO for more than 2-3 months at a time. They jump from title to title endlessly trying not to miss out on the magic of a newly launched MMO/xpack.

These players generally don't know what they want out of a game. The see themselves as X(PvP,PvP,Crafter,RPer,Ect) type of player. They might think they don't like certain types of gameplay because they have never tried to learn them or had a bad experience trying to learn them.

Ashes is not going to be that different to these types of players. They are going to get in the game. Work towards building up a node for a little while. Then at the first sign of loss they are just going to leave. It just is not for everyone. Which is fine.

Like I said, at worst PvX is not for everyone. What can happen is some people that are into PvX can get some "Crafter" or "PvE" only types to come out of their shells and see the bigger picture. That takes social interactions that are not under the devs control to happen.

Some people that are worried about Ashes post as if you expect the game to have a population of 8-12million or something. WOW barely had those numbers for a short time. Realistically 10 servers at 50k players is half a million players. I am sure that ashes will put up numbers between 0.5-2million at its peak. Ashes is just not trying to crush all competing MMOs. It seems to be trying to offer a niche playstyle to a sub market within a niche market (The MMO market).

So yes, PvX is not for everyone at its worst, and a well rounded player will get the most out of Ashes.
Worrying about what people who are casual or exclude whole areas of the game think is a waste of time.

bigepeen

Kaminaris wrote: »

But that literally disincentive gathering materials. And it really looks bad:
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_death

There's a good reason for why you lose a percentage of your gatherables on death: it's to reward those who take care to deposit their gatherables periodically, rather than hoard them for a long period of time. The latter is more efficient, but also more risky.

I agree that it seems harsh in general for player death. It's not nearly as harsh as full loot pvp, but it still makes you value your life, unlike other MMORPGs. I prefer consequences for player death, unlike other MMOs where you simply just respawn a second later like nothing happened. I know it's personal preference, but I find it more rewarding when you survive when you know that death has consequences.

Bricktop

Of course it'll work it's been done before.

Vhaeyne wrote: »

I did read your post, it is just that you are worrying for a class of player who is not going to stick around anyway.

And I am saying it is a wishful thinking. Judging from my experience from similar older mmo games not only they sticked around, they made majority of community.

Name a mmo that wasn't solely focused on PvP where community didn't split and made disparity in content participation.

Bricktop wrote: »

Of course it'll work it's been done before.

I haven't seen a game where it has "been done before", and I am talking about games that had engaging PvE as well, that is the big difference.

Kaminaris wrote: »

I haven't seen a game where it has "been done before", and I am talking about games that had engaging PvE as well, that is the big difference.

As a primarily PvE player, I can say that I haven't seen a PvX game with engaging PvE content either.

I don't expect Ashes to change this. I want it to, but I don't expect it.

Kaminaris wrote: »

And I am saying it is a wishful thinking. Judging from my experience from similar older mmo games not only they sticked around, they made majority of community.

Name a mmo that wasn't solely focused on PvP where community didn't split and made disparity in content participation.

Lineage 2,
ArcheAge,
Star Wars Galaxies,
Aion,
Tera.

Just a handful off the top of my head. Various reasons for failure, mostly a combination of adding too much "quality of life"/"catch up mechanics" and aggressive cash shops.

All of those games had cult followings and were loved by their community's. People left when they could not handle the constant changes that made the game something they did not like anymore.

If you don't think a MMO can live for long without a huge subscriber base we can look at these cult classics that are still releasing new content to this day.

FFXI,
EQ2,
DDO,
UO,
Lineage 1,
Rift,

Somehow over the years the fans of MMOs got this idea in their heads that having Millions of subs is the goal and required to be successful. All that is really required is a passionate Dev team, and a reasonable sized fanbase that can keep the game profitable. I think ashes could easily thrive for decades on just a hand full of servers per region. There may not be infinite money in the MMO market, but there is plenty of room for a game that is trying to provide what everyone else refuses to give us.

Vhaeyne wrote: »

Kaminaris wrote: »

And I am saying it is a wishful thinking. Judging from my experience from similar older mmo games not only they sticked around, they made majority of community.

Name a mmo that wasn't solely focused on PvP where community didn't split and made disparity in content participation.

Lineage 2,
ArcheAge,
Star Wars Galaxies,
Aion,
Tera.

Played all of this except SWG. Unfortunately none of them fit. Tera/Aion was split, Lineage 2 didn't really had strong pve side. Not to mention, at least for me, pvp was really dull and boring.

By the way nobody is talking about milion subs, this is completely irrelevant. So please dont derail thread.

Relevant is however how the content type will interact with each other and how it ends up in practice.

JamesSunderland

OP kinda makes it look like PvX is an entirely new never-tried-before concept for MMORPGs, and that pretty weird... PvE people and PvP people will have knowledge that the game is PvX and if they cannot deal with doing both the game simple isn't for them.

Kaminaris wrote: »

Played all of this except SWG. Unfortunately none of them fit. Tera/Aion was split, Lineage 2 didn't really had strong pve side. Not to mention, at least for me, pvp was really dull and boring.

I think that all fit. Tera you could make a case for, but I remember everyone was excited for a political system that never got realized. Aion had dredge and the abyss when I played which was PvX.

I can agree L2s combat is boring by todays standards, but fighting of over bosses is PvX.

Kaminaris wrote: »

By the way nobody is talking about milion subs, this is completely irrelevant. So please dont derail thread.

Not trying to derail the thread. You are skeptical that PvX will work. What is your definition of working?
I brought the sub counts into the thread a little prematurely maybe, but these arguments tend to distill down to. "Not enough players the game will fail... PvX did not work...". Which is just not true. Every game fails on a case by case basis.

Each game is different. That is Why as much as you might not have liked L2 or Aion when you played them. I know people who would kill to play those games again in the glory days.

Kaminaris wrote: »

Relevant is however how the content type will interact with each other and how it ends up in practice.

Like I said, a well rounded player will be able to enjoy the game to its fullest. This is kind of true in all games. The best you can hope for is for players who participate in everything to drag their friends into content they would normally ignore. Otherwise in practice, players who only want to focus on one thing will leave, looking for a game that focuses on that one thing. Which is fine, because Ashes can't be everything to everyone. No game can.

Noaani wrote: »

As a primarily PvE player, I can say that I haven't seen a PvX game with engaging PvE content either.

I don't expect Ashes to change this. I want it to, but I don't expect it.

If you don't like strawberry ice-cream. How can you ever expect to fully enjoy Neapolitan Ice-cream?
You just keep avoiding part of the dish every time it is served thinking someday it will be good.

Just order what you really want.

Vhaeyne wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

As a primarily PvE player, I can say that I haven't seen a PvX game with engaging PvE content either.

I don't expect Ashes to change this. I want it to, but I don't expect it.

If you don't like strawberry ice-cream. How can you ever expect to fully enjoy Neapolitan Ice-cream?
You just keep avoiding part of the dish every time it is served thinking someday it will be good.

Just order what you really want.

That isn't quite how I see it, though I'll run with the analogy.

I like chocolate ice cream. However, neapolitan is good because it has chocolate, but also has some other complementary flavors going on. These flavors are good in their own right, but also make the chocolate ice cream seem to taste even better.

The problem with neapolitan ice cream is that it is usually made with cheap versions of the three flavors, instead of really good versions of them.

If someone made neapolitan ice cream with a really rich chocolate ice cream, a creamy vanilla bean oce cream, and a strawberry ice cream made from fresh strawberries, that would be amazing, and I'd be all over that.

The problem is, while you can get all of those ice creams individually, when a company is making neapolitan ice cream, they tend to cheap out on all three flavors.

I get that if I am buying neapolitan ice cream, I am not getting just chocolate, I obviously wouldn't buy it if that wasnt the case. However, there is no reason they can't make the chocolate ice cream that is there as good as it can be made - and same goes for the other two flavors.

Noaani wrote: »

That isn't quite how I see it, though I'll run with the analogy.

I like chocolate ice cream. However, neapolitan is good because it has chocolate, but also has some other complementary flavors going on. These flavors are good in their own right, but also make the chocolate ice cream seem to taste even better.

The problem with neapolitan ice cream is that it is usually made with cheap versions of the three flavors, instead of really good versions of them.

If someone made neapolitan ice cream with a really rich chocolate ice cream, a creamy vanilla bean oce cream, and a strawberry ice cream made from fresh strawberries, that would be amazing, and I'd be all over that.

The problem is, while you can get all of those ice creams individually, when a company is making neapolitan ice cream, they tend to cheap out on all three flavors.

I get that if I am buying neapolitan ice cream, I am not getting just chocolate, I obviously wouldn't buy it if that wasnt the case. However, there is no reason they can't make the chocolate ice cream that is there as good as it can be made - and same goes for the other two flavors.

That is you, which explains why you are still here after a few years of knowing that Ashes is not a fully PvE game, when clearly you are at the very least a PvE leaning person. Which is great, it shows at least a willingness to try PvX. To me that would be the ideal scenario for anyone getting into a PvX game.

Some people do not want anything to do with PvP anything no matter the quality. They will be missing out on all that Ashes has to offer. The strawberries analogy holds true for this type of person because they don't care if it is the best possible strawberry ice cream. They are still going to eat around in it. In which case I say just order what you actually want, and get more out of your snack.

The idea that some players are all going to split the community and get more out of the game, by making an unofficial PvE focused server is silly to me. PvE focused players will learn to like what good PvP adds to the game, or just go to a game that suites their needs. There are more than enough games that split or focus on one type of content to try.

I keep bringing up Pantheon for PvE focused players or Crowfall for PvP focused players. I see Ashes as the middle ground. Also I did back all three, but I am betting that Ashes is where I spend most of my time because it has so many flavors to offer in one dish.

Vhaeyne wrote: »

The idea that some players are all going to split the community and get more out of the game, by making an unofficial PvE focused server is silly to me.

I agree, it smells just like duel weilding shields to me.

I was just explaining why I am still here, even though I am a PvE focused player (not that I shy away from PvP at all) - and why I think it is not unreasonable to want PvE content in Ashes that is on par with that found in PvE focused games - even if I don't expect that to be the case.

As to Crowfall/Pantheon...

I actually don't personally consider Crowfall to be an MMORPG. I know ArtCraft do, but to me, one of the key elements of what makes a game an MMORPG is a fully persistent world - and Crowfall doesn't have that.

Pantheon may end up being good, but if I were to bet money one way or the other, it would be that the game is eventually abandoned. I looked it over a few years ago and wasn't convinced about the company, so didn't bother spending too much time looking at the game.

If it releases an open beta, that is when I'll next look at it, as that is when I'll next be more convinced than not that it will actually release.

FuryBladeborne

Kaminaris wrote: »

...Relevant is however how the content type will interact with each other and how it ends up in practice.

PvE builds the world by developing nodes and opening new areas.
PvP destroys development opening the path for new and different development under different ownership.
Without PvE, the world remains a barren wilderness
Without PvP, the world will never change once built

PvE is the only way to bring money, materials, and resources into the world.
PvP allows for conflict over money, materials, and resources
Without PvE, there is no wealth
PvP provides additional reasons to have wealth such as, using wealth in defense of PvE wealth generating resources

The systems feed into one another. They are designed in such a way that the concept of a changing world and meaningful PvP through defending possessions no longer work if either PvE or PvP is removed.

FuryBladeborne wrote: »

Without PvE, the world remains a barren wilderness
Without PvP, the world will never change once built

And that is exactly how I feel it will end up on couple of servers.

For example lets assume we have 100 servers. According to pve/pvp participation rates
about 20 of those would be balanced
10 would be much more pvp focused
and 70 would be more pve focused (with 10-20 where pvp practically doesn't happen)

If this is what Interpid is aiming for and technically doesn't mean game "not working". Then ok.

But thinking that everyone will adapt and PvE players will quit (assuming PvE part is good) is kinda naive.

Kaminaris wrote: »

FuryBladeborne wrote: »

Without PvE, the world remains a barren wilderness
Without PvP, the world will never change once built

And that is exactly how I feel it will end up on couple of servers.

For example lets assume we have 100 servers. According to pve/pvp participation rates
about 20 of those would be balanced
10 would be much more pvp focused
and 70 would be more pve focused (with 10-20 where pvp practically doesn't happen)

If this is what Interpid is aiming for and technically doesn't mean game "not working". Then ok.

But thinking that everyone will adapt and PvE players will quit (assuming PvE part is good) is kinda naive.

We are more likely to see around 20 servers, not 100.

As I said though, if there is a server out there where there is little PvP, that is a great target server for a PvP guild to go to.

Because of that, there won't be servers with a lack of PvP like this.

it just won't happen, because players will self-regulate.

Noaani wrote: »

We are more likely to see around 20 servers, not 100.

As I said though, if there is a server out there where there is little PvP, that is a great target server for a PvP guild to go to.

Because of that, there won't be servers with a lack of PvP like this.

it just won't happen, because players will self-regulate.

1000% truth.

If a PvX/PVP guild is struggling on a highly competitive server it is a no brainer that a lot of them would just roll fresh toons on a server that is not as competitive.

Realistically the only server division I see is people looking for a server without Streamers on it. Streamers bring a whole host of problems that people in general will want to deal with or not. I can tell you, as much as I enjoy a good Asmongoloid video from time to time. What ever server he is playing on is a server I will not be playing on.

Noaani wrote: »

it just won't happen, because players will self-regulate.

Yeah they will self regulate but not in a way you think. You can't force social interactions thru gameplay decisions.

At first servers will be blank so it will be a shot in a dark. Now if pvp/pve players will struggle to find/make guilds they will try different servers. Because that is ultimately what is deciding factor (after friends of course).

To find a place with people of similar interests. There is a reason why for example, after merging small English speaking realms to big English (unofficially Polish) server, those people started bailing out.

Well, we will see how it goes. But im fairly confident servers in AoC won't balance themselves.