Maybe I'm oversimplifying here, but I think people just don't want to be stuck.
At a base level, this is 100% accurate.
There is obviously nuance and detail that go with this, but this statement it basically it.
If you play a game with a specific goal (owning a castle, perhaps), and you can see that you are not in a position to achieve that goal, you are essentially stuck.
If you are just trying to gear up, but people with far better gear than you keep killing you in every location in which there is an avenue for you to get better gear, you are essentially stuck.
This even works in PvE, if your goal is to raid top end content, but you are unable to find enough likeminded raiders with similar time slots free, you are essentially stuck.
While it is fine for people to say "just go do something else", what these people seem to forget is that these people will. The something else they will do is find a game that allows them to meet the goal they have in mind - because to most players, gaming is about the feeling they get when they participate in the aspects of the game they enjoy.
It is not about playing a specific game and then trying to find something they enjoy.
People are more likely to stick to the aspect of games they enjoy and move games to find that aspect to participate in than they are to stick to one game and change the aspects of the game they participate in.
Yeah that's probably true. I think what he's saying is that there's going to be a near 50/50 split in pvp and pve content. And I knew that.
You can attack anyone, anywhere in the world. Other than instances and freeholds. That alone is going to make the game feel way more pvp oriented than even some past and current pvp focused mmo's. And there's way more than just that. So we'll see. When the game comes out, I'd be curious to see who's more satisfied. An even split would be great but I don't see that as very likely.
Ashes is not a pvp focused game. And it's not a pve focused game. It's a "comprehensive pvx" game. I think I'll still hold to my opinion on that though. The game sounds great no matter the focus category.
While I am not going to use this as proof that my earlier assertion was right (it isn't enough in itself), I have been saying for a very long time that the reason we hear more about the PvP aspects of Ashes is because that is what Steven likes best about the game.
Since he is a gamer more than a PR person, he talks about what he wants to talk about, rather than trying to spread out talking about every aspect of the game.
Since he loves PvP, he talks more about PvP.
Since he talks more about PvP, we hear more about PvP.
Since we hear more about PvP, we assume the game is more about PvP.
This is why - even though I have never once thought the game was as PvP focused as something like L2 or Archeage - I don't blame others for thinking that it is. I can fully understand why people would think it with how the game is talked about.
Sometimes though, you have to cut through the obvious, and look at the reasons why things are as they seem.
I would agree with you if we had confirmation of any system that did not involve PvP in some way. Even crafting requires mats that will be fought over. Every system in the game leads people into an environment that involves PvP. I think that is why we hear so much about PvP. All roads lead to PvP. I don't think it is so much that Steven is biased to PvP, but more that there is not much more to talk about.
I agree and PvP in ashes seems to be so intrinsic and to effect so many other systems that it becomes really hard to not see the game as more PvP focused...
Please keep raider io out of this game.
Doing dungeons can be fun but if u add a scoreboard and a timer it becomes less of an RPG.
If you want a scoreboard go play CoD.
Ashes is not a pvp focused game. And it's not a pve focused game. It's a "comprehensive pvx" game. I think I'll still hold to my opinion on that though. The game sounds great no matter the focus category.
While I am not going to use this as proof that my earlier assertion was right (it isn't enough in itself), I have been saying for a very long time that the reason we hear more about the PvP aspects of Ashes is because that is what Steven likes best about the game.
Since he is a gamer more than a PR person, he talks about what he wants to talk about, rather than trying to spread out talking about every aspect of the game.
Since he loves PvP, he talks more about PvP.
Since he talks more about PvP, we hear more about PvP.
Since we hear more about PvP, we assume the game is more about PvP.
This is why - even though I have never once thought the game was as PvP focused as something like L2 or Archeage - I don't blame others for thinking that it is. I can fully understand why people would think it with how the game is talked about.
Sometimes though, you have to cut through the obvious, and look at the reasons why things are as they seem.
I would agree with you if we had confirmation of any system that did not involve PvP in some way. Even crafting requires mats that will be fought over. Every system in the game leads people into an environment that involves PvP. I think that is why we hear so much about PvP. All roads lead to PvP. I don't think it is so much that Steven is biased to PvP, but more that there is not much more to talk about.
I'm sure you remember when Steven said they are going to use instancing on raid content if they feel it is needed.
That was a fairly major statement, but it was literally no more than a few seconds, and then they moved on to the next thing.
That was a discussion about a thing that doesn't lead to PvP - it specifically takes PvP out of that specific situation. These are the kinds of statements we get when Steven is not talking about PvP - and then when he is he can go on for hours.
If 20% of the content is to be instanced, that means 20% of the game is devoid of PvP.
The PvP in the open world will make up the difference to bring that to an even split, I have no doubts. But we have heard almost nothing at all about that 20%.
Yeah that's probably true. I think what he's saying is that there's going to be a near 50/50 split in pvp and pve content. And I knew that.
You can attack anyone, anywhere in the world. Other than instances and freeholds. That alone is going to make the game feel way more pvp oriented than even some past and current pvp focused mmo's. And there's way more than just that. So we'll see. When the game comes out, I'd be curious to see who's more satisfied. An even split would be great but I don't see that as very likely.
If you look at the game as a whole, I do.
The entire open world is PvP enabled, so that means you are in "PvP mode" when you are in the open world.
However, that will balance out with that 20% of content being instanced - where you have no need to even think about PvP.
To me, the questions isn't "can these two things be balanced in as a 50/50 split", but rather, "can they make it so that both are viable alternatives to most players".
If that 20% of instanced content is all tutorials, then that isn't going to be a good thing. On the other hand, if that 20% of instanced content is all of the top end raid bosses in the game, that isn't going to be a good thing.
There needs to be some of all content types at all levels instanced, but the majority of all content types at all levels left in the open world.
Basically, Intrepid need to look at bosses (the only content that matters) as being in groups of five. If a developer is making content for level 20 players, make a group of five bosses. If they are making content for level capped players with top end gear, make a group of five bosses.
Then, for each group of five bosses, put one in an instance.
With that, Intrepid have a shot at having a game that people will continue to play, even if they are losing more PvP than they are winning.
Ashes is not a pvp focused game. And it's not a pve focused game. It's a "comprehensive pvx" game. I think I'll still hold to my opinion on that though. The game sounds great no matter the focus category.
While I am not going to use this as proof that my earlier assertion was right (it isn't enough in itself), I have been saying for a very long time that the reason we hear more about the PvP aspects of Ashes is because that is what Steven likes best about the game.
Since he is a gamer more than a PR person, he talks about what he wants to talk about, rather than trying to spread out talking about every aspect of the game.
Since he loves PvP, he talks more about PvP.
Since he talks more about PvP, we hear more about PvP.
Since we hear more about PvP, we assume the game is more about PvP.
This is why - even though I have never once thought the game was as PvP focused as something like L2 or Archeage - I don't blame others for thinking that it is. I can fully understand why people would think it with how the game is talked about.
Sometimes though, you have to cut through the obvious, and look at the reasons why things are as they seem.
I would agree with you if we had confirmation of any system that did not involve PvP in some way. Even crafting requires mats that will be fought over. Every system in the game leads people into an environment that involves PvP. I think that is why we hear so much about PvP. All roads lead to PvP. I don't think it is so much that Steven is biased to PvP, but more that there is not much more to talk about.
If 20% of the content is to be instanced, that means 20% of the game is devoid of PvP.
The PvP in the open world will make up the difference to bring that to an even split, I have no doubts. But we have heard almost nothing at all about that 20%.
Not 20% of the content tho, 20% of the dungeons, it doesn't take in consideration non-dungeon open world content, also its hard to say if this 20% will be completely devoided of pvp because we don't know yet if the entrance of instanced dungeons will be peace zones or not and even so ganking people leaving those instances can be a thing.
The entire open world is PvP enabled, so that means you are in "PvP mode" when you are in the open world.
However, that will balance out with that 20% of content being instanced - where you have no need to even think about PvP.
To me, the questions isn't "can these two things be balanced in as a 50/50 split", but rather, "can they make it so that both are viable alternatives to most players".
If that 20% of instanced content is all tutorials, then that isn't going to be a good thing. On the other hand, if that 20% of instanced content is all of the top end raid bosses in the game, that isn't going to be a good thing.
There needs to be some of all content types at all levels instanced, but the majority of all content types at all levels left in the open world.
Basically, Intrepid need to look at bosses (the only content that matters) as being in groups of five. If a developer is making content for level 20 players, make a group of five bosses. If they are making content for level capped players with top end gear, make a group of five bosses.
Then, for each group of five bosses, put one in an instance.
With that, Intrepid have a shot at having a game that people will continue to play, even if they are losing more PvP than they are winning.
As long as that number doesn't start going much past 20%, I pretty much agree with the rest of your points in this post.
Edit: Wait, found something I don't agree with lol. I don't agree that there needs to be some of all content types at all levels instanced.
Ashes is not a pvp focused game. And it's not a pve focused game. It's a "comprehensive pvx" game. I think I'll still hold to my opinion on that though. The game sounds great no matter the focus category.
While I am not going to use this as proof that my earlier assertion was right (it isn't enough in itself), I have been saying for a very long time that the reason we hear more about the PvP aspects of Ashes is because that is what Steven likes best about the game.
Since he is a gamer more than a PR person, he talks about what he wants to talk about, rather than trying to spread out talking about every aspect of the game.
Since he loves PvP, he talks more about PvP.
Since he talks more about PvP, we hear more about PvP.
Since we hear more about PvP, we assume the game is more about PvP.
This is why - even though I have never once thought the game was as PvP focused as something like L2 or Archeage - I don't blame others for thinking that it is. I can fully understand why people would think it with how the game is talked about.
Sometimes though, you have to cut through the obvious, and look at the reasons why things are as they seem.
I would agree with you if we had confirmation of any system that did not involve PvP in some way. Even crafting requires mats that will be fought over. Every system in the game leads people into an environment that involves PvP. I think that is why we hear so much about PvP. All roads lead to PvP. I don't think it is so much that Steven is biased to PvP, but more that there is not much more to talk about.
If 20% of the content is to be instanced, that means 20% of the game is devoid of PvP.
The PvP in the open world will make up the difference to bring that to an even split, I have no doubts. But we have heard almost nothing at all about that 20%.
Not 20% of the content tho, 20% of the dungeons, it doesn't take in consideration non-dungeon open world content, also its hard to say if this 20% will be completely devoided of pvp because we don't know yet if the entrance of instanced dungeons will be peace zones or not and even so ganking people leaving those instances can be a thing.
I fully expect the entrance to instances to be PvP enabled. To me, that is a part of making up for the fact that the instance has no PvP.
The entire open world is PvP enabled, so that means you are in "PvP mode" when you are in the open world.
However, that will balance out with that 20% of content being instanced - where you have no need to even think about PvP.
To me, the questions isn't "can these two things be balanced in as a 50/50 split", but rather, "can they make it so that both are viable alternatives to most players".
If that 20% of instanced content is all tutorials, then that isn't going to be a good thing. On the other hand, if that 20% of instanced content is all of the top end raid bosses in the game, that isn't going to be a good thing.
There needs to be some of all content types at all levels instanced, but the majority of all content types at all levels left in the open world.
Basically, Intrepid need to look at bosses (the only content that matters) as being in groups of five. If a developer is making content for level 20 players, make a group of five bosses. If they are making content for level capped players with top end gear, make a group of five bosses.
Then, for each group of five bosses, put one in an instance.
With that, Intrepid have a shot at having a game that people will continue to play, even if they are losing more PvP than they are winning.
As long as that number doesn't start going much past 20%, I pretty much agree with the rest of your points in this post.
Edit: Wait, found something I don't agree with lol. I don't agree that there needs to be some of all content types at all levels instanced.
I would expect that 20% to hold true at release, but we should all expect Intrepid to move it as they see fit after launch - which ever way they see it may need to move.
I'm curious, what content type/level combinations do you not see a need to have instanced?
I could agree with you if you are talking about level 20 raids or some such (the game should still have that content, however it can be left as open world content), but that is about it that I can see.
That was a fairly major statement, but it was literally no more than a few seconds, and then they moved on to the next thing.
That was a discussion about a thing that doesn't lead to PvP - it specifically takes PvP out of that specific situation. These are the kinds of statements we get when Steven is not talking about PvP - and then when he is he can go on for hours.
If 20% of the content is to be instanced, that means 20% of the game is devoid of PvP.
The PvP in the open world will make up the difference to bring that to an even split, I have no doubts. But we have heard almost nothing at all about that 20%.
Again, the whole 20% thing feels like a thrown out there number. He also was talking about how it was to be used for story content that would not work in the open world. My take away is that the number could be much lower than 20%, and be limited to simple quests that don't even require a party for the religion system of something. We just don't know enough yet.
The theory that simple story content is the only thing that will be instanced is just as valid as the theory that some raids content could be instanced. I just put my money on the simple story content being the only thing instanced because it is more inline with the rest of the game.
I wish we they would give us better answers on this topic, but I am not sure that they know the answers themselves yet.
I'm sure you remember when Steven said they are going to use instancing on raid content if they feel it is needed.
"IF"
That "if" was in regards to specific encounters.
While they are designing an encounter, if they feel it needs to be instanced, they will instance it. The reasons for this may be to keep the numbers at a set amount, or to prevent interference by others. Steven did suggest that they may well take raid content up to that 20% instanced line.
That 20% has been talked about twice, based on your post, I am unsure if you are only aware of the first time (talking about story content and such), and are unaware of the second (specifically in regards to raid content).
And while I agree it would be great to get answers on this, I don't expect them to get any real PvE content developed until they have the combat system sorted. You can't get too in depth with PvE content until you know how involved players are going to be in that combat system, so anything they make now will likely need to be adjusted in the future.
As such, it is easier for them to not talk specifics about PvE - and I am fine with that.
However, they could talk more about their intentions with it, even if keeping things non-specific.
I'm curious, what content type/level combinations do you not see a need to have instanced?
I'm not sure what you mean when you say some of all content types need to be instanced. If you're talking about certain raid bosses and arenas then ok. But if you're talking about content like fishing, no. An instance where people can go fish or something? Or general questing/leveling process content? No I don't agree.
While they are designing an encounter, if they feel it needs to be instanced, they will instance it. The reasons for this may be to keep the numbers at a set amount, or to prevent interference by others. Steven did suggest that they may well take raid content up to that 20% instanced line.
That 20% has been talked about twice, based on your post, I am unsure if you are only aware of the first time (talking about story content and such), and are unaware of the second (specifically in regards to raid content).
And while I agree it would be great to get answers on this, I don't expect them to get any real PvE content developed until they have the combat system sorted. You can't get too in depth with PvE content until you know how involved players are going to be in that combat system, so anything they make now will likely need to be adjusted in the future.
As such, it is easier for them to not talk specifics about PvE - and I am fine with that.
However, they could talk more about their intentions with it, even if keeping things non-specific.
I am in fact unaware of any time he has ever stated that raids might be instanced.
"Instanced dungeons will also be present and will cater for solo and group questlines" – Jeffrey Bard
"We're probably going to do instancing only in certain dungeons and in arenas. You probably won't see instancing too much anywhere else. What you see is gonna be what you get." – Jeffrey Bard
I know the wiki is not perfect, but I would imagine they would have any quotes that you were speaking of. It is literally game changing. If you provide me a link to the quote. I will bug the wiki scribes myself to update it if I have to.
If course I would love to take the time to hear that information in its full context, assuming it exists.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
0
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
If I am interpreting the discussion correctly, then the basis of much of the discussion is really hinging on providing safe and challenging pve experience by instancing and what proportion of content might be acceptable gated behind instancing.
If my understanding is right, then sure, instancing would likely provide that safe environment and perhaps allow for more tailored challenging pve, but surely instancing is not the only way?
If I am interpreting the discussion correctly, then the basis of much of the discussion is really hinging on providing safe and challenging pve experience by instancing and what proportion of content might be acceptable gated behind instancing.
If my understanding is right, then sure, instancing would likely provide that safe environment and perhaps allow for more tailored challenging pve, but surely instancing is not the only way?
Correct, a large portion of the general conversation is that.
I dont believe that the open world will be plagued by pvp in the long terms of the game. However, in the beginning of the game tensions will be high and it will likely be a pain to get certain things done. Unless bosses have multiple spawns in multiple places, but that is just silly. (to diffuse the tensions)
I'm curious, what content type/level combinations do you not see a need to have instanced?
I'm not sure what you mean when you say some of all content types need to be instanced. If you're talking about certain raid bosses and arenas then ok. But if you're talking about content like fishing, no. An instance where people can go fish or something? Or general questing/leveling process content? No I don't agree.
Content types (in relation to instance vs open world) are solo, group and raid.
Content types (in relation to instance vs open world) are solo, group and raid.
All three of those are covered by instances for tutorials, unique mechanic/narrative quest events, arenas, and up to 20% of group/raid bosses. I agree with that. More than that and I'd probably start to disagree.
I will be ok with instanced dungeons raids if you have a limit per day or week, and instead of dropping gear/weapons, drop crafting materials, baby mounts to tame, or skin, house cosmetics things like that...
Being limited time per week keep people playing in open world
The word raid is so misleading in context of AoC that obviously if you come from games like WoW it might be a hard concept to grasp. But Raids and World Bosses are most definitely not going to be part of the MAIN gear treadmill in the game. They are going to drop items that only 0,1% of the player base might be able to see, and that’s freaking awesome.
To be fair raiding and bosses won’t be content for you unless you are willing to join a competitive guild anyway. Yes neglecting casuals might lead up a smaller player base which is the reason why I want to hear them say if they are okay with game being niche. If you are a casual player joining AoC, just don’t view raids or world bosses content at all. Just focus on the rest of the game and you will be doing fine.
I just signed up to add my 2 cents (rounded down, they ultimately mean nothing- I know).
I’m not a pvper. I need to put that out first.
I tried, and with wow in particular, gave up my first attempt playing on a pvp server.
I quit Aion after discovering that it had open pvp (it was not a fun discovery for me).
I rarely dip my toe into pvp in any game that I play, and when I do, it has to be optional for me.
Maybe I’m a lone voice howling into the night with this, but I won’t play this game (which looks great, with some interesting class ideas) if it’s driven by pvp.
I just signed up to add my 2 cents (rounded down, they ultimately mean nothing- I know).
I’m not a pvper. I need to put that out first.
I tried, and with wow in particular, gave up my first attempt playing on a pvp server.
I quit Aion after discovering that it had open pvp (it was not a fun discovery for me).
I rarely dip my toe into pvp in any game that I play, and when I do, it has to be optional for me.
Maybe I’m a lone voice howling into the night with this, but I won’t play this game (which looks great, with some interesting class ideas) if it’s driven by pvp.
That's fine. This game isn't trying to directly compete with WoW/FFXIV's PvE model. The game won't be for everyone, which is true for every game.
A lot of people are excited for this game because it places a heavy emphasis on open world emergent gameplay, rather than linear gameplay against simple AI.
Maybe I’m a lone voice howling into the night with this, but I won’t play this game (which looks great, with some interesting class ideas) if it’s driven by pvp.
It will be a PVP driven game but I wouldn't dismiss it entirely. You will notice that if you join a good guild in this type of game the activities and members are more support centered than they would be in a game like WoW where players have a different focus.
People will travel from place to place in groups or organize big outings for hunting or gathering - and even PVP that might be unwelcome solo can wind up being a blast with a group of friends.
The only problem is when people join a game knowing full well what it is and then try to change it into something it is not.
I just signed up to add my 2 cents (rounded down, they ultimately mean nothing- I know).
I’m not a pvper. I need to put that out first.
I tried, and with wow in particular, gave up my first attempt playing on a pvp server.
I quit Aion after discovering that it had open pvp (it was not a fun discovery for me).
I rarely dip my toe into pvp in any game that I play, and when I do, it has to be optional for me.
Maybe I’m a lone voice howling into the night with this, but I won’t play this game (which looks great, with some interesting class ideas) if it’s driven by pvp.
As probably the loudest pvp voice in this thread, I'll say some things. The elephant in the room is that yes, in about 80% of content pvp is enabled with no opt out. But it's not freewheeling/no consequences pvp. There will be systems in place to discourage outright griefing/camping/harassment.
And the CEO, Steven, has said multiple times in several videos and interviews that he wants systems like that in place. Not half measures, not systems that toxic pvp players can abuse and exploit and get around. He want's systems that actually discourage and even penalize toxic behavior. And I and other fair minded pvp players intend to hold him to that, at the same time holding him to his word of a mostly open world and open pvp.
On top of those systems, players will have their own ways to deal with unwanted pvp. There will definitely be guilds, nodes, and organizations of players that are able to carve out sections of the map for themselves and keep them relatively peaceful. There will be players in the game that are able to keep themselves out of 90% of unwanted pvp if they align themselves with other like minded players. I'm just making up numbers here, but they're plausible numbers. You will at times get unwanted pvp though, there's no way to guarantee you won't.
But the box price of the game is free. Monthly subscription is 15 dollars. So for 15 dollars, you can spend a month getting way more content than you would in a 60 dollar box price game, and if it doesn't work out and you want to quit, it's only 15 dollars lost.
I just signed up to add my 2 cents (rounded down, they ultimately mean nothing- I know).
I’m not a pvper. I need to put that out first.
I tried, and with wow in particular, gave up my first attempt playing on a pvp server.
I quit Aion after discovering that it had open pvp (it was not a fun discovery for me).
I rarely dip my toe into pvp in any game that I play, and when I do, it has to be optional for me.
Maybe I’m a lone voice howling into the night with this, but I won’t play this game (which looks great, with some interesting class ideas) if it’s driven by pvp.
@Ithryn You really shouldn't worry too much you aren't going to die anywhere near as much as you may think you will I assure you. When somebody PKed somebody in Lineage 2 there was a 99% chance that guild leaders were PMing each other and politics came into play (On my server anyway), war declarations could be sent, lots of stuff happened sometimes from just 1 PK. Consequences can be varied and wide reaching for overly ambitious and overly aggressive guilds and groups and even individuals. In Ashes of Creation mayors of the node can declare individuals as "enemy of the state" and suddenly a well known griefer is kill on sight to thousands of citizens with no consequences for them.
If you join up with a group of people who will focus on maintaining friendly relations with large portions of the server and the node(s) they reside in you won't come under attack often. I know of several guilds who are already recruiting who want to focus on a more diplomatic and easy going approach, feel free to PM me and I will recommend you one. The guild you join could theoretically avoid guild wars, avoid fighting as many guilds as they could, join in with a huge alliance, there's truly a lot of possibilities if your group can play politics well. Sometimes you may have to PvP with your guild to secure a world boss or a prime grinding spot against your enemies but that's really part of the draw of the game. Your individual skill level in PvP isn't as important when you have 300 guildies and 900 alliance members who have your back.
5
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
@bricktop I`m pretty much in agreement with everything you just said.
But I really hope a zero is dropped from max guild and max alliance size or may end up being a zerg fest.
Comments
There is obviously nuance and detail that go with this, but this statement it basically it.
If you play a game with a specific goal (owning a castle, perhaps), and you can see that you are not in a position to achieve that goal, you are essentially stuck.
If you are just trying to gear up, but people with far better gear than you keep killing you in every location in which there is an avenue for you to get better gear, you are essentially stuck.
This even works in PvE, if your goal is to raid top end content, but you are unable to find enough likeminded raiders with similar time slots free, you are essentially stuck.
While it is fine for people to say "just go do something else", what these people seem to forget is that these people will. The something else they will do is find a game that allows them to meet the goal they have in mind - because to most players, gaming is about the feeling they get when they participate in the aspects of the game they enjoy.
It is not about playing a specific game and then trying to find something they enjoy.
People are more likely to stick to the aspect of games they enjoy and move games to find that aspect to participate in than they are to stick to one game and change the aspects of the game they participate in.
You can attack anyone, anywhere in the world. Other than instances and freeholds. That alone is going to make the game feel way more pvp oriented than even some past and current pvp focused mmo's. And there's way more than just that. So we'll see. When the game comes out, I'd be curious to see who's more satisfied. An even split would be great but I don't see that as very likely.
I agree and PvP in ashes seems to be so intrinsic and to effect so many other systems that it becomes really hard to not see the game as more PvP focused...
Aren't we all sinners?
Doing dungeons can be fun but if u add a scoreboard and a timer it becomes less of an RPG.
If you want a scoreboard go play CoD.
I'm sure you remember when Steven said they are going to use instancing on raid content if they feel it is needed.
That was a fairly major statement, but it was literally no more than a few seconds, and then they moved on to the next thing.
That was a discussion about a thing that doesn't lead to PvP - it specifically takes PvP out of that specific situation. These are the kinds of statements we get when Steven is not talking about PvP - and then when he is he can go on for hours.
If 20% of the content is to be instanced, that means 20% of the game is devoid of PvP.
The PvP in the open world will make up the difference to bring that to an even split, I have no doubts. But we have heard almost nothing at all about that 20%.
If you look at the game as a whole, I do.
The entire open world is PvP enabled, so that means you are in "PvP mode" when you are in the open world.
However, that will balance out with that 20% of content being instanced - where you have no need to even think about PvP.
To me, the questions isn't "can these two things be balanced in as a 50/50 split", but rather, "can they make it so that both are viable alternatives to most players".
If that 20% of instanced content is all tutorials, then that isn't going to be a good thing. On the other hand, if that 20% of instanced content is all of the top end raid bosses in the game, that isn't going to be a good thing.
There needs to be some of all content types at all levels instanced, but the majority of all content types at all levels left in the open world.
Basically, Intrepid need to look at bosses (the only content that matters) as being in groups of five. If a developer is making content for level 20 players, make a group of five bosses. If they are making content for level capped players with top end gear, make a group of five bosses.
Then, for each group of five bosses, put one in an instance.
With that, Intrepid have a shot at having a game that people will continue to play, even if they are losing more PvP than they are winning.
Not 20% of the content tho, 20% of the dungeons, it doesn't take in consideration non-dungeon open world content, also its hard to say if this 20% will be completely devoided of pvp because we don't know yet if the entrance of instanced dungeons will be peace zones or not and even so ganking people leaving those instances can be a thing.
Aren't we all sinners?
As long as that number doesn't start going much past 20%, I pretty much agree with the rest of your points in this post.
Edit: Wait, found something I don't agree with lol. I don't agree that there needs to be some of all content types at all levels instanced.
I fully expect the entrance to instances to be PvP enabled. To me, that is a part of making up for the fact that the instance has no PvP.
I would expect that 20% to hold true at release, but we should all expect Intrepid to move it as they see fit after launch - which ever way they see it may need to move.
I'm curious, what content type/level combinations do you not see a need to have instanced?
I could agree with you if you are talking about level 20 raids or some such (the game should still have that content, however it can be left as open world content), but that is about it that I can see.
"IF"
Again, the whole 20% thing feels like a thrown out there number. He also was talking about how it was to be used for story content that would not work in the open world. My take away is that the number could be much lower than 20%, and be limited to simple quests that don't even require a party for the religion system of something. We just don't know enough yet.
The theory that simple story content is the only thing that will be instanced is just as valid as the theory that some raids content could be instanced. I just put my money on the simple story content being the only thing instanced because it is more inline with the rest of the game.
I wish we they would give us better answers on this topic, but I am not sure that they know the answers themselves yet.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
While they are designing an encounter, if they feel it needs to be instanced, they will instance it. The reasons for this may be to keep the numbers at a set amount, or to prevent interference by others. Steven did suggest that they may well take raid content up to that 20% instanced line.
That 20% has been talked about twice, based on your post, I am unsure if you are only aware of the first time (talking about story content and such), and are unaware of the second (specifically in regards to raid content).
And while I agree it would be great to get answers on this, I don't expect them to get any real PvE content developed until they have the combat system sorted. You can't get too in depth with PvE content until you know how involved players are going to be in that combat system, so anything they make now will likely need to be adjusted in the future.
As such, it is easier for them to not talk specifics about PvE - and I am fine with that.
However, they could talk more about their intentions with it, even if keeping things non-specific.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say some of all content types need to be instanced. If you're talking about certain raid bosses and arenas then ok. But if you're talking about content like fishing, no. An instance where people can go fish or something? Or general questing/leveling process content? No I don't agree.
I am in fact unaware of any time he has ever stated that raids might be instanced.
"Instanced dungeons will also be present and will cater for solo and group questlines" – Jeffrey Bard
"We're probably going to do instancing only in certain dungeons and in arenas. You probably won't see instancing too much anywhere else. What you see is gonna be what you get." – Jeffrey Bard
I know the wiki is not perfect, but I would imagine they would have any quotes that you were speaking of. It is literally game changing. If you provide me a link to the quote. I will bug the wiki scribes myself to update it if I have to.
If course I would love to take the time to hear that information in its full context, assuming it exists.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
If my understanding is right, then sure, instancing would likely provide that safe environment and perhaps allow for more tailored challenging pve, but surely instancing is not the only way?
Correct, a large portion of the general conversation is that.
I dont believe that the open world will be plagued by pvp in the long terms of the game. However, in the beginning of the game tensions will be high and it will likely be a pain to get certain things done. Unless bosses have multiple spawns in multiple places, but that is just silly. (to diffuse the tensions)
Curious side note; If not instances then what?
As you know, finding a quote from Intrepid that isn't on the wiki can take hours - if not days. If I have the time, I'll try and find it for you.
Content types (in relation to instance vs open world) are solo, group and raid.
All three of those are covered by instances for tutorials, unique mechanic/narrative quest events, arenas, and up to 20% of group/raid bosses. I agree with that. More than that and I'd probably start to disagree.
Being limited time per week keep people playing in open world
To be fair raiding and bosses won’t be content for you unless you are willing to join a competitive guild anyway. Yes neglecting casuals might lead up a smaller player base which is the reason why I want to hear them say if they are okay with game being niche. If you are a casual player joining AoC, just don’t view raids or world bosses content at all. Just focus on the rest of the game and you will be doing fine.
▲theNILV▲
I’m not a pvper. I need to put that out first.
I tried, and with wow in particular, gave up my first attempt playing on a pvp server.
I quit Aion after discovering that it had open pvp (it was not a fun discovery for me).
I rarely dip my toe into pvp in any game that I play, and when I do, it has to be optional for me.
Maybe I’m a lone voice howling into the night with this, but I won’t play this game (which looks great, with some interesting class ideas) if it’s driven by pvp.
That's fine. This game isn't trying to directly compete with WoW/FFXIV's PvE model. The game won't be for everyone, which is true for every game.
A lot of people are excited for this game because it places a heavy emphasis on open world emergent gameplay, rather than linear gameplay against simple AI.
It will be a PVP driven game but I wouldn't dismiss it entirely. You will notice that if you join a good guild in this type of game the activities and members are more support centered than they would be in a game like WoW where players have a different focus.
People will travel from place to place in groups or organize big outings for hunting or gathering - and even PVP that might be unwelcome solo can wind up being a blast with a group of friends.
The only problem is when people join a game knowing full well what it is and then try to change it into something it is not.
As probably the loudest pvp voice in this thread, I'll say some things. The elephant in the room is that yes, in about 80% of content pvp is enabled with no opt out. But it's not freewheeling/no consequences pvp. There will be systems in place to discourage outright griefing/camping/harassment.
And the CEO, Steven, has said multiple times in several videos and interviews that he wants systems like that in place. Not half measures, not systems that toxic pvp players can abuse and exploit and get around. He want's systems that actually discourage and even penalize toxic behavior. And I and other fair minded pvp players intend to hold him to that, at the same time holding him to his word of a mostly open world and open pvp.
On top of those systems, players will have their own ways to deal with unwanted pvp. There will definitely be guilds, nodes, and organizations of players that are able to carve out sections of the map for themselves and keep them relatively peaceful. There will be players in the game that are able to keep themselves out of 90% of unwanted pvp if they align themselves with other like minded players. I'm just making up numbers here, but they're plausible numbers. You will at times get unwanted pvp though, there's no way to guarantee you won't.
But the box price of the game is free. Monthly subscription is 15 dollars. So for 15 dollars, you can spend a month getting way more content than you would in a 60 dollar box price game, and if it doesn't work out and you want to quit, it's only 15 dollars lost.
@Ithryn You really shouldn't worry too much you aren't going to die anywhere near as much as you may think you will I assure you. When somebody PKed somebody in Lineage 2 there was a 99% chance that guild leaders were PMing each other and politics came into play (On my server anyway), war declarations could be sent, lots of stuff happened sometimes from just 1 PK. Consequences can be varied and wide reaching for overly ambitious and overly aggressive guilds and groups and even individuals. In Ashes of Creation mayors of the node can declare individuals as "enemy of the state" and suddenly a well known griefer is kill on sight to thousands of citizens with no consequences for them.
If you join up with a group of people who will focus on maintaining friendly relations with large portions of the server and the node(s) they reside in you won't come under attack often. I know of several guilds who are already recruiting who want to focus on a more diplomatic and easy going approach, feel free to PM me and I will recommend you one. The guild you join could theoretically avoid guild wars, avoid fighting as many guilds as they could, join in with a huge alliance, there's truly a lot of possibilities if your group can play politics well. Sometimes you may have to PvP with your guild to secure a world boss or a prime grinding spot against your enemies but that's really part of the draw of the game. Your individual skill level in PvP isn't as important when you have 300 guildies and 900 alliance members who have your back.
But I really hope a zero is dropped from max guild and max alliance size or may end up being a zerg fest.
Yeah I agree, that's a whole other giant thread of it's own though.