We need PVE servers here's why

No we dont need PVE servers, get baited.

This is a pvx game, pvp and pve are the core of this game, every system is designed with pvp/pve in mind.
You cant avoid pvp in this game.

Most people think they will be killed all the time by players. That wont happen there are system to prevent constant PK unlike vanilla wow.

Will you get killed in the Open World sometimes? Yes
Will you get ganked in open world dungeons and raids sometimes? Yes
Will you have the freedom to do whatever you want in game? BIG YES

There are risks and rewards in this game. If Frodo went to Mordor in a PVE server would that be fun?NO

This is not about being casual or hardcore, its about freedom. You can PVE only in this game, but expect to be forced into pvp sometimes. But dont come here and ask for PVE servers or a way to avoid pvp when pvp is a core system.

Alpha 2 is meant to test stuff, the PK system will be tested and balanced, so dont ask for reworks or to remove it without it being tested. This is a pvx game stop trying to make it a pve only game please.

Its like going to McDonalds and ask for Pizza because you dont like hamburgers, makes no sense.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Dygz

Mag7spy wrote: »

Ashes is dead if it goes P2W backlash would be insane.

According to George Black, people will play Ashes anyway because everyone wants a new MMORPG.

SirChancelot

Sengarden wrote: »

SirChancelot wrote: »

If they're doing 20 servers, they're doing 20 servers. Dedicating a few to a different group isn't going to make those servers drain resources from the others. Thinking so is just silly.

You’re forgetting the part where they’d need to spend months and months rebuilding the systems designed for a PvX environment for a new PvE environment. You’re forgetting the part where any future content has to be reiterated after completion in order to function in both a PvX and PvE environment.

World bosses would be ridiculously easy because there'd be no competition. Everyone online who shows up gets loot when the boss dies! And why wouldn’t it die if you allowed every player on the server to throw themselves at the boss at once? Yay! Prizes for everyone!
/sarcasm

This would lower the value of rare materials and create issues regarding how to liquidate boss loot evenly among hundreds of participants.

OW Dungeons would become massive zerg runs without any real challenge. So they'd have to make all the dungeons instanced, and then calibrate them in the knowledge that there'd never be any competition halfway through. But the zones are likely designed with competition in mind, so, issues there as well.

Sea content is basically half PvP, I imagine. Uncharted territory, no real borders, you're at the mercy of every ship you run across. You remove that sense of danger from a server, and what's left?

You said you’re okay with PvP around trade caravans, but “running caravans” isn’t a “PvP-activity”. It’s a core tenet of the game for how you make money and support the economy. So it’s not really something tons of people could just opt out of or only do very occasionally.

TL;DR: Virtually every system in AoC is designed around the potential for PvP interactions. Asking for PvE servers is asking Intrepid to make two different games. They haven't even finished making one yet. Let them at least finish the game they set off to make first before we talk about anything else.

I didn't say caravans are a PVP activity, I mentioned it because it would be a meaningless activity without PvP, hence it would still be a part of them... And as it drives the economy of the world it would still be required for them to exist. But players would know there is PvP potential when doing that.

Literally the only change to the game would be open world flagging and you could call that a PvE server. That's not months and months of work...

You mention dungeons becoming a zerg run as if that's already not a concern with the game. You have one guild with 4-5 eight man squads how will any 8 man party compete with that? PvE servers would just make it a per party dos race, whoever puts in the most damage wins most of the loot...

Sea content is a good point, but we don't really know a lot about it yet. My understanding is it's similar to caravans showing you to move goods, so again would be a PVP oriented activity.

SirChancelot

Shilee wrote: »

SirChancelot wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

SirChancelot wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

I do mind because it will cost money and I rather they focus on the game.

I could apply that terrible attitude to so many things in the game if I wanted to, but I'm a fan of letting people have fun and enjoy themselves. You should try it.

Im not a fan of fluff. Pass

Ok
So should they save money, not hire any writers, and not do any fluff for quests? I mean you're not gonna read it and just take the quest anyways, why should they waste the resources...

-____-

Weak argument against him because he is saying that your proposed idea will cost extra (due increased development time required to fix the broken systems and potentially additional servers required), your proposed "equivalent" idea is how they could cut costs, which will in turn reduce the quality of the overall experience for everyone. Simply put that's a false equivalence.

Its not the "what" I'm comparing, it's the attitude I am comparing . I don't care for X or I don't like X so there shouldn't be X... Not that X effects me or how I play at all. And I had to try and word it different since he didn't seem to be understanding of the fact that the servers are a fixed cost whether they are PvX, Pve, or rp...
So saying I don't care for "non combat pets", "quest story fluff", "emotes" and I don't intend to use them so the developers are just wasting time and resources on them is the same energy as "I don't like someone else playing on a PvE server that I'm not going to use, so they shouldn't waste time and energy on it"
Also, I didn't say they should change any systems so I don't see the noticable increase in development time, if anything you'd be applying a system to less of the game... But I'm not a programmer so I could be wrong.
And as justvine pointed if people want to play on said server they will be paying for the sub so they will fund themselves... It wouldn't effect your experience of the game at all.

SirChancelot

Norkore wrote: »

SirChancelot wrote: »

Liniker wrote: »

SirChancelot wrote: »

Am I there only one that doesn't think it matters if they do have PvE servers?

Honestly how would that effect the people on the PvP servers at all?

You would not be there for me to PK

I'm sorry you have to go find someone who actually PvPs instead?
Isn't that why everyone wants a PVP game? To actually have a challenge? If you just want to stomp bots just do PvE... 😆

I'm sorry but why don't you just go and play a game that already has PvE servers? play a game that already has one, problem solved.

I don't want that, and if it does exist I wouldn't play on them. I am just saying I don't care if it exists and other people want it, that's not going to effect my gameplay at all... So I was just trying to figure out why people are against them so much.

So far the only good answers are
"Because I want people to try PvX games"
"Because people may judge ashes based on a PvE servers which is not the image they are going for"
Every other response has just been empty fluff. 😉

Sengarden

SirChancelot wrote: »

I didn't say caravans are a PVP activity, I mentioned it because it would be a meaningless activity without PvP, hence it would still be a part of them... And as it drives the economy of the world it would still be required for them to exist. But players would know there is PvP potential when doing that.

Literally the only change to the game would be open world flagging and you could call that a PvE server. That's not months and months of work...

You mention dungeons becoming a zerg run as if that's already not a concern with the game. You have one guild with 4-5 eight man squads how will any 8 man party compete with that? PvE servers would just make it a per party dos race, whoever puts in the most damage wins most of the loot...

Sea content is a good point, but we don't really know a lot about it yet. My understanding is it's similar to caravans showing you to move goods, so again would be a PVP oriented activity.

My point in saying that caravans aren’t a “PvP activity” is to emphasize the point that PvE servers are supposed to offer a potentially PvP-free experience for anyone who wants to play the core game without PvP - correct? Well, caravans are a huge part of the game. So it’s not like in WoW where players on a PvE server who want to dip their toes into PvP can sign up for an instanced battleground. If your caravan gets tossed, you lose your stuff. A lot of stuff. I don’t know how many PvE type players would be okay with that. It’s basically the most direct, personally impactful type of PvP content in the game right now. So my point there is that having a PvE server with PvP caravans would be a bizarre combination of core content and server promise. Also, immersion wise, it would be pretty weird to only be allowed to kill someone when they’re driving a cart full of stuff...

This could potentially encourage a couple types of different behavior:
1. The people who do want a little PvP rush to every caravan possible to go beat the living hell out of people just to get it out of their system, perhaps even in greater quantities than you’d often find on PvP servers.
2. It’s a PvE server, so hardly anyone ever screws with anyone caravans, making the system relatively pointless and boring.

Without OW flagging and node-enemy PvP, this would drastically change the ways in which nodes territories are defended and maintained and the ways in which resources are divided between synchronous gatherers. That isn’t just a switch you can flip and expect everything to be the same. So you’d be at war with another node and only be allowed to PvP for a few hours during the allotted siege time? How are you supposed to keep your node private and defended before and after each siege? If that’s not the case, it would potentially be OW PvP if two+ nodes declare war, so then what’d be the point of calling it a PvE server?

I will say I’m not a fan of OW dungeons and I think that concept needs a lot of work in order to be successful, but there’s no denying that they’ll be designed around the potential for conflict right now. If you get two separate groups and one is stronger than the other, then the one will probably get rid of the weaker group in order to keep the run and the loot for themselves. In a PvE setting, the loot gets watered down between all the people who want to join in, with no way to control the number of people participating. Either that, or everyone gets the same loot as before, and the value gets watered down.

This same concept can be applied to world bosses, both on land and on the water.

The only potential solution to any of these problems would be adding new and adjusting existing NPC enemies, which would take a lot of time, and would probably still result in a different game outcome than the PvP server.

These systems are huge, and most importantly, holistically designed. You can’t just flip one switch and expect everything else to work the same.

Dygz

What???
Where is the quote where he says "caravans are not a PvP activity"??

I see:
SirChancelot: "Everyone keeps saying the game is designed for PvX and I get that. You can have the mandatory PVP associated with the things that would require it such as node sieges and the PVP zone around caravans, etc. Without having the full open world flagging. Corruption can still be a thing, it could come into play if someone goes on an NPC killing spree or something."

SirChancelot: I would like to point out that I did mention that PVP would still exist, but apply only where necessary for those friction points (caravans, Castle seiges, node wars, etc ).

Running the caravan is PvE.
Attacking and defending the caravan is PvP.
If no one attacks the caravan, it's just PvE.

There are a few types of Caravans:
Personal - which probably would be exempt from PvP
Mayoral - which would be subject to PvP
[Node] Quest - which would probably be subject to PvP

And, yeah, on a "PvE server", you are basically only battling other Nodes in the designated hours of a Siege.
Or during Caravan runs.

Ferryman

SirChancelot wrote: »

Ferryman wrote: »

SirChancelot wrote: »

Am I there only one that doesn't think it matters if they do have PvE servers?

Honestly how would that effect the people on the PvP servers at all?

I am not sure what you mean by PvE servers... No PvP at all or consensual PvP only? Anyway, it is hard to see that PvP aspect would be removed entirely even in these theoretical PvE servers because planned dynamic events such sieges and caravans. However, the world would work fine with consensual PvP which is more realistic wish. Anyhow, IF a such PvE server would be implemented then I would like to see a hardcore PvP server as well.

Actually, this is exactly what Fractured is working on atm. They will have three different planets, PvE, PvX and PvP to cater three different playstyles. However, these planets are not own servers and instead part of the same game world. It is interesting to follow how well that goes. Surprise surprise, it is the PvX planet which rules have changed several times and causes constant debate.

Consensual PvP only.
Everyone keeps saying the game is designed for PvX and I get that. You can have the mandatory PVP associated with the things that would require it such as node sieges and the PVP zone around caravans, etc. Without having the full open world flagging. Corruption can still be a thing, it could come into play if someone goes on an NPC killing spree or something.

If ashes launches and has 20 servers to choose from and 2-4 are for the people that don't care for PvP but want to play the game, then let them play there. Why should the other 80% of players care how that 20% portion wants to play?

In my opinion saying it shouldn't be there is similar to me saying non combat pets are dumb, and just a waste, and not how the game should be played.... 80% of the population doesn't walk around with them anyways, only 20% collect and enjoy them, but I don't want them to enjoy themselves over there...

And to the people saying stuff like
"You are selfish for not willing to offer a bit of fun to PvP-ers." and "You would not be there for me to PK". Those are the exact reasons some people want the PvE servers, to get away from players that act like that.

mcstackerson wrote: »

SirChancelot wrote: »

Am I there only one that doesn't think it matters if they do have PvE servers?

Honestly how would that effect the people on the PvP servers at all?

Only reason i argue against it is most people's experience with open pvp comes from games like wow where it servered no purpose and was more of a little things the devs allowed then part of the game. They will choose a server based off that experience in another game instead of understanding it's role in the game or how the system will change their overall experience.

The flagging system is an intended part of the game and i'd rather people experience before we make make servers that shift away from the games original design.

Now that argument I completely understand. People have a bad taste in their mouth and just want to stay away from it could be missing out. But still that is on them. And how does giving a player that choice effect you? It's not changing the PvX design.
Giving them a PvE server wouldn't change your experience on the true PvX server. So why care what they do?

I do not personally have a strong opinion against or behalf PvE servers but I think that devs could consider this option especially if it would reach an audience who would otherwise pass the game. It is totally doable if we are talking about PvE server which still consist all dynamic PvP events and consensual owPvP.

Most likely I would play on PvP server anyway because I like to do owPvP stuff now and then, however, I do not mind if different kind of servers exists if that means larger playerbase and it will be good for the company as well.

Anyhow, upcoming testing periods will show how much owPvP or ganking happens and how well the corruption rules are taken by the players. It will be a challenge because certain portion of players will not be happy with the results, goes it either way. Now IF the rules divides too much the playerbase and it looks like that a reasonable compromise is hard to find, then it is understandable if devs evaluates different server options.

Mag7spy

Dygz wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Ashes is dead if it goes P2W backlash would be insane.

According to George Black, people will play Ashes anyway because everyone wants a new MMORPG.

And why diablo immortal is going to die because of the pay to win. People will play then jump ship quickly after.

Mag7spy

The game is literarily designed for both PvE and PvP this isn't like world of Warcraft where tis designed for PvE but they added some PvP.

This is all i god damn hear

1. I should be able to transport all my stuff between nodes freely without risk
2. Since we are pve players and don't care about pvp they need to rework the node system so its more fun for us so we get new dungeons that open up or make all dungeons open to begin with.
3. I want to fight and beat all the content quickly without any risk of players
4. I don't trust the developers to balance the corruption system and don't even want to try i just want a pve server.

Then what I hear in the future
1. Some skills have have feel useless and I want them to be stronger it doesn't do enough for pve for me
2. More pve content when we zerged everything down they need to focus more on the pve servers since pvp has more stuff in it.
3. They should add some more stuff and concepts like WoW and Lost Ark we need instanced dungeons and really challenging bosses from now on content always is beat quickly
4. Waiting for these bosses to spawn takes for ever, they need to make spawn times faster we shouldnt have to wait so long for another boss im bored.
5. Ima jump on the new expansion of WoW, AOC doesn't have enough good content for me they don't listent o us pve players.
6. Dead pve servers.

Sengarden

Dygz wrote: »

What???
Where is the quote where he says "caravans are not a PvP activity"??

I see:
SirChancelot: "Everyone keeps saying the game is designed for PvX and I get that. You can have the mandatory PVP associated with the things that would require it such as node sieges and the PVP zone around caravans, etc. Without having the full open world flagging. Corruption can still be a thing, it could come into play if someone goes on an NPC killing spree or something."

SirChancelot: I would like to point out that I did mention that PVP would still exist, but apply only where necessary for those friction points (caravans, Castle seiges, node wars, etc ).

Running the caravan is PvE.
Attacking and defending the caravan is PvP.
If no one attacks the caravan, it's just PvE.

There are a few types of Caravans:
Personal - which probably would be exempt from PvP
Mayoral - which would be subject to PvP
[Node] Quest - which would probably be subject to PvP

And, yeah, on a "PvE server", you are basically only battling other Nodes in the designated hours of a Siege.
Or during Caravan runs.

I was not directly quoting them when I said that, just making an example. The quotes I used were to insinuate the conceptual nature of my statement. My point being that running caravans aren't some special activity you get to do that take you away from the rest of the world so people can get the PvP bug out of their system. It's tied into the game world, just like how the potential for PvP is tied into every other system in the game world.

I haven't seen anything stating that there's a single form of caravan that isn't subject to PvP. If this is the case, then the wiki is incorrect. Yes, theoretically, if you timed a caravan right in a relatively safe area at a relatively safe time, you could get by completely unscathed. However, you don't get to call it PvE content just because nobody attacks you. If I join a capture the flag battleground in world of warcraft and just happen to get the flag and make it back without getting hit by anyone, that doesn't make it PvE content. If anything, running a caravan and not getting attacked is the negative space of PvP content. The calm before the storm. Because you know that at any point before you get to your destination, it can still happen. The threat, the risk, the anticipation, is still there. That thrill and rush is because it's always a PvP system, attackers or no attackers. Sometimes in PvP content you get lucky, or you strategize well enough that you make it through unscathed. But it's still PvP content.

---

So in that case, you're basically saying that on a PvE server, while I'm at war with a node, I can go run around their node, their neighboring nodes, their cities, hang around their citizens, and basically listen/watch everything they do without getting attacked as long as it's before the siege? Because that sounds like it would cause some pretty major strategic issues. Forcing players to whisper or only use group chats. Constantly looking over your shoulder for the people you're at war with, not because they'll attack you, but because they'll... literally just stand there and spy on you in broad daylight? Sounds like a weird system, doesn't it?

---

All of this is still ignoring the point that literally every system in this game functions in a holistic way. Every system in this game has been and will continue to be designed with the effects of PvX in mind. To suggest intrepid make a PvE server is asking them to make a very different game. Not just flipping a switch. Redesigning every system in the game in some way or another. The systems in this MMO are not little islands of content. They work together, flow together, and impact each other when one of them is changed.

SirChancelot

Mag7spy wrote: »

The game is literarily designed for both PvE and PvP this isn't like world of Warcraft where tis designed for PvE but they added some PvP.

This is all i god damn hear

1. I should be able to transport all my stuff between nodes freely without risk
2. Since we are pve players and don't care about pvp they need to rework the node system so its more fun for us so we get new dungeons that open up or make all dungeons open to begin with.
3. I want to fight and beat all the content quickly without any risk of players
4. I don't trust the developers to balance the corruption system and don't even want to try i just want a pve server.

I didn't say any of that, nor do I agree with any of it... I actually haven't read anyone say that, can you share a quote?

Ferryman

Oh well.. Basic forum behaviour. People "hears" what they want to and then they over exaggerate on top of that.

George_Black

SirChancelot wrote: »

Shilee wrote: »

SirChancelot wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

SirChancelot wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

I do mind because it will cost money and I rather they focus on the game.

I could apply that terrible attitude to so many things in the game if I wanted to, but I'm a fan of letting people have fun and enjoy themselves. You should try it.

Im not a fan of fluff. Pass

Ok
So should they save money, not hire any writers, and not do any fluff for quests? I mean you're not gonna read it and just take the quest anyways, why should they waste the resources...

-____-

Weak argument against him because he is saying that your proposed idea will cost extra (due increased development time required to fix the broken systems and potentially additional servers required), your proposed "equivalent" idea is how they could cut costs, which will in turn reduce the quality of the overall experience for everyone. Simply put that's a false equivalence.

Its not the "what" I'm comparing, it's the attitude I am comparing . I don't care for X or I don't like X so there shouldn't be X... Not that X effects me or how I play at all. And I had to try and word it different since he didn't seem to be understanding of the fact that the servers are a fixed cost whether they are PvX, Pve, or rp...
So saying I don't care for "non combat pets", "quest story fluff", "emotes" and I don't intend to use them so the developers are just wasting time and resources on them is the same energy as "I don't like someone else playing on a PvE server that I'm not going to use, so they shouldn't waste time and energy on it"
Also, I didn't say they should change any systems so I don't see the noticable increase in development time, if anything you'd be applying a system to less of the game... But I'm not a programmer so I could be wrong.
And as justvine pointed if people want to play on said server they will be paying for the sub so they will fund themselves... It wouldn't effect your experience of the game at all.

Ofc you dont like the attitude. And since I disagree with you, instead of staying on facts, you make up your own interpretation of what I said, in order to discredit.
I will say it once more: I will pass on your offer of empty words like "let others enjoy what they want". I will pass in your empty fluff words. Why your words are empty? Because you pretend to allow players to play as they like, even though you are talking about someone elses production and not your own work and money.

George_Black

Post launch I would rather see expansions instead of devs making PvE servers.

unknown

This content has been removed.

JustVine

Hailee wrote: »

I wish all the pve only cry babies would just go ahead and die,

in ashes

on a pvx server

playing the game the way it's meant to be enjoyed.

I assume you 'totally' mean that 'metaphorically' and not literally since you actually care about the forum's rules.

Either way this is totally uncalled for language in my opinion, no matter how much you disagree with someones tastes or opinions.

Mag7spy

We don't need PvE servers, here is why.

The game is being designed around being the best PvX experience.

George_Black

JustVine wrote: »

Hailee wrote: »

I wish all the pve only cry babies would just go ahead and die,

in ashes

on a pvx server

playing the game the way it's meant to be enjoyed.

I assume you 'totally' mean that 'metaphorically' and not literally since you actually care about the forum's rules.

Either way this is totally uncalled for language in my opinion, no matter how much you disagree with someones tastes or opinions.

Clueless... looking for the worst in people automatically, through a prism, to the point that you are blind and cant read.

JustVine

George_Black wrote: »

JustVine wrote: »

Hailee wrote: »

I wish all the pve only cry babies would just go ahead and die,

in ashes

on a pvx server

playing the game the way it's meant to be enjoyed.

I assume you 'totally' mean that 'metaphorically' and not literally since you actually care about the forum's rules.

Either way this is totally uncalled for language in my opinion, no matter how much you disagree with someones tastes or opinions.

Clueless... looking for the worst in people automatically, through a prism, to the point that you are blind and cant read.

Oh? Would you care to explain to me what it meant then?

George_Black

JustVine wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

JustVine wrote: »

Hailee wrote: »

I wish all the pve only cry babies would just go ahead and die,

in ashes

on a pvx server

playing the game the way it's meant to be enjoyed.

I assume you 'totally' mean that 'metaphorically' and not literally since you actually care about the forum's rules.

Either way this is totally uncalled for language in my opinion, no matter how much you disagree with someones tastes or opinions.

Clueless... looking for the worst in people automatically, through a prism, to the point that you are blind and cant read.

Oh? Would you care to explain to me what it meant then?

No.

Child Item