Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!

We need PVE servers here's why

1246717

Comments

  • Wait are there really no pve servers??? thats moronic.
    Nothing worse than trying to level and enjoy the world and being ganked by cowards.
    99% of the time whoever attacks first wins, they have time to prepare and can wait until youre in combat with an NPC, its cowardly and skilless, probably why ive never done it.
    If i dont ever gank..why would i want to be in a server where im getting ganked.
    Its not about being good, i used to solo teams in wotlk arenas, arenas and dueling take skill, ganking does not.

    PVE servers are going to become your top priority now or thousands of players will be driven away.
    Ive been loosely following this game for years and i didnt know this, most gamers arent on forums, they arent keeping up to date, when they find this out the drop off will be massive, trust me.
  • Dygz wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    Why would people that want to be a on pve server want to do pvp content, literarily makes no sense.
    Because the issue is nonconsensual PvP.
    And battegrounds are scheduled and consensual.
    With battlegrounds, you do not lose "all" your stuff. And death penalties are disabled.

    I think you really don't understand the PvP in this game or pvp in general since you are a pve player, this game isn't shadowbane :/

    Game is designed for it, there are plenty of other mmorpgs that are designed as PvE. Something not designed for only PvE only causes more issues in the end. As I've started before people demand more and more pve elements which that is not how the game is.

    Why are you saying you lose all your stuff? Do you understand how the pvp is being designed in the game? IS that your only reason why they need PvE servers?

    100% would be a red flag if PvE servers are thrown into the game I'd be worried about the core experience of the game. The PvE servers would have to work way different then pvp servers to be a proper game for them. Id rather development just be focused on the game that is ashes of creation.

    I feel like a broken record at this point with the few people that are trying to push PvE servers and saying they can have some of the "pvp stuff" because that is the first step for them starting to demand other things.

    Example
    1. More solo content
    2. More systems to support solo players
    3. Instanced dungeons
    4. If they feel dungeons are not up to par with games like WoW and Lost ark then will want more difficult ones created.
    5. Combat balanced for PvX is another thing they might want adjusted since some skills might not be the best from a only PvE perspective.
    6. Removal of caravan pvp so they don't lose all their transports.
    7. Changes to the node system as they have no desire to pvp or lose anything because of it.
    8. Dungeon que systems
    9. Faster travel systems

  • Grimseethe wrote: »
    Wait are there really no pve servers??? thats moronic.
    Nothing worse than trying to level and enjoy the world and being ganked by cowards.
    99% of the time whoever attacks first wins, they have time to prepare and can wait until youre in combat with an NPC, its cowardly and skilless, probably why ive never done it.
    If i dont ever gank..why would i want to be in a server where im getting ganked.
    Its not about being good, i used to solo teams in wotlk arenas, arenas and dueling take skill, ganking does not.

    PVE servers are going to become your top priority now or thousands of players will be driven away.
    Ive been loosely following this game for years and i didnt know this, most gamers arent on forums, they arent keeping up to date, when they find this out the drop off will be massive, trust me.

    Game is not designed for everyone, no game is it was pretty clear what type of game this was if you have been keeping up with any kind of information. A ton of players wouldn't be interested if it wasn't PvX.

    Anyone saying I won't try this game because it doesn't have PvE while it is designed as a PvX game most likely wouldn't stay long either way and be subbed to the game. You are coming in bad faith with exaggerated idea of thinking the game is a gank fest. Understand the game, how the PvP works and make a judgment after playing it to see how the systems are in place so that doesn't happens that has been said again and again.

    This is exactly why PvE carebears are a issue "PVE servers are going to become your top priority now" their top priority is making a PvX game lmao.

    End of the day there are very few mmorpgs coming out and this is the only one not going to be pay 2 win. A shit ton of people will be picking up and trying the game when it eventually releases. But if you really think PvE servers are the priority (from being high on copium) I hear lost ark has a lot of pve content.
  • Mag7spy wrote: »
    Grimseethe wrote: »
    Wait are there really no pve servers??? thats moronic.
    Nothing worse than trying to level and enjoy the world and being ganked by cowards.
    99% of the time whoever attacks first wins, they have time to prepare and can wait until youre in combat with an NPC, its cowardly and skilless, probably why ive never done it.
    If i dont ever gank..why would i want to be in a server where im getting ganked.
    Its not about being good, i used to solo teams in wotlk arenas, arenas and dueling take skill, ganking does not.

    PVE servers are going to become your top priority now or thousands of players will be driven away.
    Ive been loosely following this game for years and i didnt know this, most gamers arent on forums, they arent keeping up to date, when they find this out the drop off will be massive, trust me.

    Game is not designed for everyone, no game is it was pretty clear what type of game this was if you have been keeping up with any kind of information. A ton of players wouldn't be interested if it wasn't PvX.

    Anyone saying I won't try this game because it doesn't have PvE while it is designed as a PvX game most likely wouldn't stay long either way and be subbed to the game. You are coming in bad faith with exaggerated idea of thinking the game is a gank fest. Understand the game, how the PvP works and make a judgment after playing it to see how the systems are in place so that doesn't happens that has been said again and again.

    This is exactly why PvE carebears are a issue "PVE servers are going to become your top priority now" their top priority is making a PvX game lmao.

    End of the day there are very few mmorpgs coming out and this is the only one not going to be pay 2 win. A shit ton of people will be picking up and trying the game when it eventually releases. But if you really think PvE servers are the priority (from being high on copium) I hear lost ark has a lot of pve content.

    No such thing as pve carebears, please pve my entire 23 years i was the best Dk pvper in wow arenas, soloing teams daily.
    No PVE is a mistake, i wont hear otherwise, ganking takes no skill and people hate being ganked.
    Game doesnt need to be deisnged for everyone, just need pve servers.
    Hundreds of thousands will drop out in first month, due to want pve servers, write it down.
  • Otr wrote: »
    Grimseethe wrote: »
    Wait are there really no pve servers??? thats moronic.
    Nothing worse than trying to level and enjoy the world and being ganked by cowards.
    Players who will kill PvE players will get corruption:
    https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Corruption
    What do you think about this system?
    Will it work?
    Do you see any loopholes?
    If it will work, then most PvE players will feel fine in the game.

    It just make world pvp pointless, no one is going to do something if it makes them weaker and takes away QOL.
    The novelty will wear off so fast.
  • CROW3CROW3 Member
    Grimseethe wrote: »
    Game doesnt need to be deisnged for everyone, just need pve servers.
    Hundreds of thousands will drop out in first month, due to want pve servers, write it down.

    You’re not the first to have this opinion. Yet, PvX is exactly the game Steven is intending to build. The absence of PvE servers isn’t an oversight, it’s a goal.

    You are free to conjecture that it will fail. A number of us think otherwise.

    AoC+Dwarf+750v3.png
  • Grimseethe wrote: »
    Otr wrote: »
    Grimseethe wrote: »
    Wait are there really no pve servers??? thats moronic.
    Nothing worse than trying to level and enjoy the world and being ganked by cowards.
    Players who will kill PvE players will get corruption:
    https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Corruption
    What do you think about this system?
    Will it work?
    Do you see any loopholes?
    If it will work, then most PvE players will feel fine in the game.

    It just make world pvp pointless, no one is going to do something if it makes them weaker and takes away QOL.
    The novelty will wear off so fast.

    I understand as a pve player its hard to understand but its something that just makes the game a lot more fun. While controlling and making sure players don't get out of control. Besides guild decs people won't just attack everyone which means you will be mostly safe and fine 70%-90% of the time. now if you try to piss people off and escalate situations that is your own risk you are playing with if someone ends up killing you.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited June 2022
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    I think you really don't understand the PvP in this game or pvp in general since you are a pve player, this game isn't shadowbane :/
    LMAO
    I am a PvP-sometimes player.
    The PvP I prefer is objective-based PvP.
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    Game is designed for it, there are plenty of other mmorpgs that are designed as PvE. Something not designed for only PvE only causes more issues in the end. As I've started before people demand more and more pve elements which that is not how the game is.
    LMAO
    I know how the game is designed.
    I also know what people are asking for when they ask for a "PvE server" with PvP flagging turned off...while still allowing battlegrounds.
    And I understand why they ask for it.

    Alpha 2 will allow us to evaluate how successful Corruption is at deterring non-consensual PvP.

    I would love to see one server with non-battlegrounds PvP turned off - even if it's just to prove to PvE-only folk that it would suck.
    But... it's already taken IS twice as long to release the game as they originally planned, so it's not worth the distraction to run that experiment.

    Explaining to you what the concept is does not mean that I support the devs wasting time to implement the concept.
  • Otr wrote: »
    Hailee wrote: »
    Otr wrote: »
    They might get upset, hunt you down and kill you with a special finisher animation to punish you, when you are corrupt :tongue:
    Don't underestimate their rage.
    Those bounty hunters are crazy berserkers.

    That's exactly how I want the game to be. To have conflict, risk, changes and multiple good and bad interactions driven by player action.

    Sounds like a good time.
    Reading the wiki
    https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_death
    I see
    A non-combatant (green player) who dies suffers normal penalties
    A combatant (purple player) who dies suffers these same penalties, but at half the rate of a non-combatant
    So there is an incentive to fight back instead of just letting the other player become corrupt.
    I am very curious how things will work out.
    Probably if the PvE player will let himself die, the other loots him but will also curse a little and run away. Bounty hunters will not see the lightly cursed players, which is OK.

    Will be an interesting game :smile:
    No matter how this is balanced, PvE players will not be happy.

    I agree purely pve players won't be happy to to get ganked once in awhile. Thankfully most the people that will be playing will be PvX as that is what the game is advertised, designed for, etc.

    Same statement can be made for a hardcore pvp player feeling the penalties are too harsh and they only get to loot a potion of the persons gear. Or if you pvp too much your gear drops from being too corrupted .
  • Guys I started this thread as a joke, because I recently joined the ashes discord and saw lots of people complaining about pvp/pve servers.

    This is not a pvp or pve game its a pvx game.

    You cant remove pvp or pve without having to make major changes in how the systems work.

    I am sure gamers that only play pvp or only pve will have a great time playing ashes.

    Just chill wait for alpha 2 and then give your feedback to the devs.

  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Yep. We know.
    Sometimes topics run some distance away from the OP.
  • Otr wrote: »
    Hailee wrote: »
    Otr wrote: »
    They might get upset, hunt you down and kill you with a special finisher animation to punish you, when you are corrupt :tongue:
    Don't underestimate their rage.
    Those bounty hunters are crazy berserkers.

    That's exactly how I want the game to be. To have conflict, risk, changes and multiple good and bad interactions driven by player action.

    Sounds like a good time.
    Reading the wiki
    https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_death
    I see
    A non-combatant (green player) who dies suffers normal penalties
    A combatant (purple player) who dies suffers these same penalties, but at half the rate of a non-combatant
    So there is an incentive to fight back instead of just letting the other player become corrupt.
    I am very curious how things will work out.
    Probably if the PvE player will let himself die, the other loots him but will also curse a little and run away. Bounty hunters will not see the lightly cursed players, which is OK.

    Will be an interesting game :smile:
    No matter how this is balanced, PvE players will not be happy.

    I can see few tactics here. If you have gathered (or looted) valueable and/or a good amount of resources you could try to escape gankers first. However, if the situation starts to look bad and you are most likely going to die you can start to fight back (became a combatant) and that way mitigate loot drop. If you do not carry anything you can just let the ganker(s) kill you, they will not get anything but corruption. Or if you are confident that you have a chance to win the ganker then why not fight back from the beginning.
    Do you need a ride to the Underworld?
  • Norkore wrote: »
    Holy shit I almost got giga baited.

    ???
  • I got baited
  • Dygz wrote: »
    Yes. They exist.
    Pizza without sauce is more popular.

    ?
  • MarcetMarcet Member
    Dygz wrote: »
    Yep. We know.
    Sometimes topics run some distance away from the OP.

    Give it 2 more pages and we'll be talking about changing the "Tank" name.
  • Marcet wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    Yep. We know.
    Sometimes topics run some distance away from the OP.

    Give it 2 more pages and we'll be talking about changing the "Tank" name.

    Which by the way should be changed. :D
    Do you need a ride to the Underworld?
  • MarcetMarcet Member
    Ferryman wrote: »
    Marcet wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    Yep. We know.
    Sometimes topics run some distance away from the OP.

    Give it 2 more pages and we'll be talking about changing the "Tank" name.

    Which by the way should be changed. :D

    You're goddamn right it should.
  • CROW3CROW3 Member
    🤦‍♂️
    AoC+Dwarf+750v3.png
  • Marcet wrote: »
    Ferryman wrote: »
    Marcet wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    Yep. We know.
    Sometimes topics run some distance away from the OP.

    Give it 2 more pages and we'll be talking about changing the "Tank" name.

    Which by the way should be changed. :D

    You're goddamn right it should.

    And now we have to wait someone who disagree from bottom of his/her heart and here we go.
    Do you need a ride to the Underworld?
  • MarcetMarcet Member
    Ferryman wrote: »
    Marcet wrote: »
    Ferryman wrote: »
    Marcet wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    Yep. We know.
    Sometimes topics run some distance away from the OP.

    Give it 2 more pages and we'll be talking about changing the "Tank" name.

    Which by the way should be changed. :D

    You're goddamn right it should.

    And now we have to wait someone who disagree from bottom of his/her heart and here we go.

    Dygz is too old and wise to engage in lost battles, but Noaani could still take the bait... What can I say, we have too strong of an argument.
  • Dygz wrote: »
    Um. Caravan runs are an activity people can do to satisfy their PvP itch for the day.
    If they can find a Mayoral or [Node] Quest caravan.
    Of course, satisfying a PvP itch for the day depends on how casual or hardcore the individual is with regard to PvP combat.

    I don't know that anyone outright called it PvE content.
    Again, what SirChancelot said several times is that even on a "PvE server", PvP would still occur for battlegrounds, like caravan runs.

    We tend to generalize caravan runs as a type of PvP battlegrounds. Especially Mayoral and [Node] Quest caravans.
    But, if no players attack the caravan - and no PvP combat occurs - that's PvE.
    Dygz wrote: »
    Running the caravan is PvE.
    Attacking and defending the caravan is PvP.
    If no one attacks the caravan, it's just PvE.

    You keep mentioning the different types of caravans, but as I said in my last post, I don't believe it's been mentioned anywhere that there are any types of caravans not subject to PvP interaction. So I don't understand why the caravan type matters. It's either your own stuff you're defending, or stuff from your node that you're trying to benefit from with the rest of your community. So either way its your investment and resources which you're defending from attackers.

    I mean... You said in the second quote I added from your previous post that caravans are conditionally PvE, but you also did again just now. That's what I'm arguing with. I sincerely disagree that if you don't get attacked on your caravan run that it's suddenly PvE content.

    Say I gave you a sword and a highly valuable package, and told you that if you and my two buddies could make it to the post office on foot with the package intact that I'd give you $5k, but that literally anyone outside our neighborhood could drive up, take you out, and steal the package. Think you'd be a bit anxious on the way over there? Think you'd start to sweat a bit thinking about what might happen, constantly looking over your shoulder for unfamiliar faces? Think the threat of combat would get your adrenaline running? Regardless of whether anyone actually came to attack you?

    That's my point. The threat of PvP, the thought that it could occur at any moment, is what creates the risk, the anticipation, the excitement, the rewarding payoff. The threat of PvP is the core of that content, whether anyone attacks you or not. It's what makes it a fun system. Whether anyone attacks you or not, it is a PvP activity. You say that if no one attacks you, it's PvE, but that's not true. If, under those conditions, you absolutely have to say it's not PvP, then it's not "v" anything. It's not content at all. It's just walking. No NPCs are gonna look and say "Oh, no one's attacked them yet! Let's gang up on them!" You're not fighting the environment at all.

    Literally speaking, yes, caravans can scratch a PvP itch, but you're completely missing my point. What I'm saying is, they're not only that. They aren't a detached island of content you can zip in and out of like an instanced battleground to have some PvP fun and come back home. They're integrated with every other part of the game, which leads me back to my main point, which you've so far failed to acknowledge or comment on, that every system in this game is interconnected and designed with the all the elements of each other in mind. That includes OW PvP, the corruption system, the bounty hunter system, the gathering systems, the node war systems, the siege systems, the guild war systems, the dungeon systems, the world boss systems, the naval systems, the trade caravan systems, etc.

    You cannot just flip a switch like some are suggesting and expect everything else to operate the same way without seriously affecting the game experience in a negative way. It would require a lot of reworking in every single game system, with a ton of testing and reiterating, in order to maintain the balance and equilibrium without OW PvP, and that means more and more time spent on a system that ultimately would result in a very different gameplay experience from top to bottom, not just a different server.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited June 2022
    Sengarden wrote: »
    I sincerely disagree that if you don't get attacked on your caravan run that it's suddenly PvE content.
    For Personal Caravans, it's not PvP content if players don't attack you.
    You can disagree all you like. It's a free world.


    Sengarden wrote: »
    Say I gave you a sword and a highly valuable package, and told you that if you and my two buddies could make it to the post office on foot with the package intact that I'd give you $5k, but that literally anyone outside our neighborhood could drive up, take you out, and steal the package. Think you'd be a bit anxious on the way over there? Think you'd start to sweat a bit thinking about what might happen, constantly looking over your shoulder for unfamiliar faces? Think the threat of combat would get your adrenaline running? Regardless of whether anyone actually came to attack you?
    Anxiety is irrelevant.
    But, no... if I choose to accept the mission, I'm not going to sweat it.
    I'd certainly be stealthing per normal in a world that includes OWPVP.
    By your definition, Ashes has no PvE activities.


    Sengarden wrote: »
    That's my point. The threat of PvP, the thought that it could occur at any moment, is what creates the risk, the anticipation, the excitement, the rewarding payoff. The threat of PvP is the core of that content, whether anyone attacks you or not. It's what makes it a fun system. Whether anyone attacks you or not, it is a PvP activity. You say that if no one attacks you, it's PvE, but that's not true. If, under those conditions, you absolutely have to say it's not PvP, then it's not "v" anything. It's not content at all. It's just walking. No NPCs are gonna look and say "Oh, no one's attacked them yet! Let's gang up on them!" You're not fighting the environment at all.
    LMFAO
    So... you think that the THREAT of murder is murder???
    Ashes has open world PvP. If I'm out picking flowers, there is threat of PvP.
    I'd be more likely to keep looking over my shoulder while picking flowers than I would be driving a Personal Caravan.


    Sengarden wrote: »
    Literally speaking, yes, caravans can scratch a PvP itch, but you're completely missing my point. What I'm saying is, they're not only that.
    I don't think I'm missing that point. I'm saying it's irrelevant for the context of the discussion.


    Sengarden wrote: »
    They aren't a detached island of content you can zip in and out of like an instanced battleground to have some PvP fun and come back home. They're integrated with every other part of the game, which leads me back to my main point, which you've so far failed to acknowledge or comment on, that every system in this game is interconnected and designed with the all the elements of each other in mind. That includes OW PvP, the corruption system, the bounty hunter system, the gathering systems, the node war systems, the siege systems, the guild war systems, the dungeon systems, the world boss systems, the naval systems, the trade caravan systems, etc.
    I don't really understand what you're trying to say, here.
    Obviously if PvP-flagging is turned off outside of battlegrounds, no one will gain Corruption and there won't be anything for Bounty Hunters to hunt. Which is perfectly fine for a "PvE Server".
    How is that going to affect gathering systems?
    How does that affect Node Sieges?
    It might negate Guild Wars, but that is probably fine for a "PvE Servers".
    How does it affect world boss systems?
    How does it affect Naval systems?
    It doesn't affect Mayoral and [Node] Quest Caravans.


    Sengarden wrote: »
    You cannot just flip a switch like some are suggesting and expect everything else to operate the same way without seriously affecting the game experience in a negative way. It would require a lot of reworking in every single game system, with a ton of testing and reiterating, in order to maintain the balance and equilibrium without OW PvP, and that means more and more time spent on a system that ultimately would result in a very different gameplay experience from top to bottom, not just a different server.
    You pretty much can just disable the OWPvP flagging and leave the battlegrounds active. It would require some testing.
    I've said several times - too much work given that the devs are already taking twice as long as they originally anticipated.
    But, it would not take months of reworking to set-up one server for people to test gameplay with OWPvP disabled while leaving battlegrounds PvP enabled.
  • Marcet wrote: »
    Ferryman wrote: »
    Marcet wrote: »
    Ferryman wrote: »
    Marcet wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    Yep. We know.
    Sometimes topics run some distance away from the OP.

    Give it 2 more pages and we'll be talking about changing the "Tank" name.

    Which by the way should be changed. :D

    You're goddamn right it should.

    And now we have to wait someone who disagree from bottom of his/her heart and here we go.

    Dygz is too old and wise to engage in lost battles, but Noaani could still take the bait... What can I say, we have too strong of an argument.

    Oh well.. classes will be a hot topic a little bit later after IS releases some extra information. Till then..
    Do you need a ride to the Underworld?
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    LMAO
  • VaknarVaknar Moderator, Member, Staff
    Keyozen wrote: »
    No we dont need PVE servers, get baited.
    ...
    There are risks and rewards in this game. If Frodo went to Mordor in a PVE server would that be fun?NO
    ...
    Its like going to McDonalds and ask for Pizza because you dont like hamburgers, makes no sense.

    Well, you certainly bring some compelling and thought-provoking arguments to this topic 😂

    I totally hear you. Although, I thought what @Dygz said -
    Dygz wrote: »
    If it didn't detract from development time, I would love to see one "PvE Server" just to see what it looks like.
    Even just to prove to people that it won't work.
    - Is also a very interesting thought. I also wonder what a PvE server would look like in the game and what decisions our design team would do to make something like that work, but remain in the ethos of Ashes of Creation!
    community_management.gif
  • Dygz wrote: »
    Anxiety is irrelevant.
    But, no... if I choose to accept the mission, I'm not going to sweat it.
    I'd certainly be stealthing per normal in a world that includes OWPVP.
    By your definition, Ashes has no PvE activities.

    So... you think that the THREAT of murder is murder???
    Ashes has open world PvP. If I'm out picking flowers, there is threat of PvP.
    I'd be more likely to keep looking over my shoulder while picking flowers than I would be driving a Personal Caravan.

    You can't stealth a caravan. That was my point. And I doubt many would handle such a task so fearlessly. Heroics aside, my point is that during an activity in which PvP can occur, the times between being actively attacked are the negative space of that activity. Are you familiar with the concept of negative space in visual art? It references the parts of the media left untouched. These untouched, seemingly absent spaces are not random - they are left behind in a strategic way, such that they complement the parts of the canvas that contain added or subtracted material. The negative and positive space play off of each other, like yin and yang, but at the end of the day, the negative space in a drawing isn't "not a drawing". The entire work is the drawing! The spaces left untouched were considered and designed in a way to support the strokes of positive space in a meaningful way.

    Likewise, in an activity which contains PvP, the periods of time during which you're not actively fighting someone are designed in such a way to support the overall experience of the active fights. The times when you're not fighting someone are in service to, very much a part of, the PvP experience. They should be designed that way. And that one activity is just a single element of the greater artwork. They are all connected and influence each other in deliberate ways, because that's what creates a cohesive experience.

    Dygz wrote: »
    Obviously if PvP-flagging is turned off outside of battlegrounds, no one will gain Corruption and there won't be anything for Bounty Hunters to hunt. Which is perfectly fine for a "PvE Server".
    How is that going to affect gathering systems?
    How does that affect Node Sieges?
    It might negate Guild Wars, but that is probably fine for a "PvE Servers".
    How does it affect world boss systems?
    How does it affect Naval systems?
    It doesn't affect Mayoral and [Node] Quest Caravans.

    I'm not a developer on the team, so I couldn't begin to give you specifics. I don't need to know the specifics to assume that some problems would arise. For a quick example, imagine I coded a computer program where dozens of complex, separate, but complimentary modules relied on each other's calculations and data to do their own calculations and data assignment. What would happen if I changed one module and didn't care what happened to anything else? The whole system would be broken. I'd have to go in and make edits to every other module. If it was a very complicated system (like an MMO) I'd have no idea how many edits I'd need and how many reiterations I'd have to go through before it worked again.

    Dygz wrote: »
    You pretty much can just disable the OWPvP flagging and leave the battlegrounds active. It would require some testing.
    I've said several times - too much work given that the devs are already taking twice as long as they originally anticipated.
    But, it would not take months of reworking to set-up one server for people to test gameplay with OWPvP disabled while leaving battlegrounds PvP enabled.

    I think it would require a great deal of testing. And then more redesigning. And then more testing... You get the idea. We're on the same page though in the end, because that's all I'm saying as well.

    You're correct that it would not take months to set up a test server, but how much time would it take to collect and organize the data the testers returned, and then follow through start to finish with repeated rounds of a multi-stage reiteration process for nearly every system in the game until a desired outcome was achieved? You could probably pull it off, eventually, but there's the potential for it to be such a different experience by the end that it may be an understatement to simply call it a different server.

    That being said, I'll concede that I'd be curious to see what it would look like... Just not right now.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Sengarden wrote: »
    You can't stealth a caravan. That was my point. And I doubt many would handle such a task so fearlessly.
    Pretty sure you can "stealth" a Personal Caravan.
    Mayoral and [Node] Quest Caravans stick to roads. Players don't drive them.
    Personal Caravans are driven by players. Players don't have to stick to roads.
    So, you can choose a low population time and take a sureptitious route to your destination. Among other strategies..


    Sengarden wrote: »
    During an activity in which PvP can occur, the times between being actively attacked are the negative space of that activity. Are you familiar with the concept of negative space in visual art? It references the parts of the media left untouched. These untouched, seemingly absent spaces are not random - they are left behind in a strategic way, such that they complement the parts of the canvas that contain added or subtracted material. The negative and positive space play off of each other, like yin and yang, but at the end of the day, the negative space in a drawing isn't "not a drawing". The entire work is the drawing! The spaces left untouched were considered and designed in a way to support the strokes of positive space in a meaningful way.
    Again, that is all meaningless because Ashes has open world PvP. Which means I can be attacked by another player while Gathering flowers. There is always a threat of PvP in Ashes, except when you're at a Freehold that restricts PvP.
    The "negative space" threat of PvP is no different for Caravan runs than it is for Gathering. The primary difference between a Caravan run and Gathering is that Caravans have a battlegrounds zone that allows people to have death penalties removed for choosing to attack or defend the Caravan. While Gathering includes death penalties.


    Sengarden wrote: »
    Likewise, in an activity which contains PvP, the periods of time during which you're not actively fighting someone are designed in such a way to support the overall experience of the active fights. The times when you're not fighting someone are in service to, very much a part of, the PvP experience. They should be designed that way. And that one activity is just a single element of the greater artwork. They are all connected and influence each other in deliberate ways, because that's what creates a cohesive experience.
    No. It might be in service to the PvE experience rather than the PvP experience.
    Especially if open world PvP is disabled.
    Ashes is a PvX game. So, the time I'm not actively engaging in PvP combat could be in service to future PvP or could be in service to PvE... depending on my goals at any particular moment.


    Sengarden wrote: »
    I'm not a developer on the team, so I couldn't begin to give you specifics. I don't need to know the specifics to assume that some problems would arise.
    You don't need to be a developer to give "specifics".
    You should be able to answer some of those questions to support your conjecture.
    Yes. "Some problems" will likely arise, which is why it would be tested.
    That's not the same thing as it taking months of time.
    Not that that matters because whatever time it would take to test is too much since the devs are already 2x past their original release date.
    If thy were ahead of schedule, it might be OK to provide one server to test the game with open world PvP turned off - again, even if that's just to prove to people that it would suck.


    Sengarden wrote: »
    For a quick example, imagine I coded a computer program where dozens of complex, separate, but complimentary modules relied on each other's calculations and data to do their own calculations and data assignment. What would happen if I changed one module and didn't care what happened to anything else? The whole system would be broken. I'd have to go in and make edits to every other module. If it was a very complicated system (like an MMO) I'd have no idea how many edits I'd need and how many reiterations I'd have to go through before it worked again.
    Of course, you are just making stuff up in your head with no real support for how turning open world PvP off would negatively affect other systems.
    All you say is, "I think it would." And expect that to be convincing.
    But, it's not convincing.

    Sengarden wrote: »
    I think it would require a great deal of testing. And then more redesigning. And then more testing... You get the idea. We're on the same page though in the end, because that's all I'm saying as well.
    You think it would, but you have nothing to back it up.
    We disagree on how much time it would take. And just saying you think it will take a bunch of time is unconvincing.
    Not that it matters much because any amount of time is too much time at this point.


    Sengarden wrote: »
    You're correct that it would not take months to set up a test server, but how much time would it take to collect and organize the data the testers returned, and then follow through start to finish with repeated rounds of a multi-stage reiteration process for nearly every system in the game until a desired outcome was achieved? You could probably pull it off, eventually, but there's the potential for it to be such a different experience by the end that it may be an understatement to simply call it a different server.

    That being said, I'll concede that I'd be curious to see what it would look like... Just not right now.
    Best to test it at the same time as Alpha 2.
    But, really only if we're significantly ahead of schedule.
    We're currently significantly behind schedule, so... that has to be a no. True.
  • @Dygz

    The primary thing we seem to disagree on is how entangled all of the game systems are. I'm under the impression they're all quite dependent on each other functioning in their designated way in order for the overall system to function as designed.

    Typically, a massively complex system like the one Intrepid is working on in which OWPvP has the ability to affect gathering patterns, thereby affecting gathered resource concentration among various regional economies, thereby affecting market patterns and crafted item availability in various regional economies, thereby affecting the accumulated wealth of various nodes, thereby affecting relative node growth and strength, thereby affecting the relative capability of a node's community to survive OWPvP encounters during dungeons and world boss battles, thereby affecting the relative time a node's community takes to accumulate legendaries and other high quality resources/gear, etc, requires at least a bit of that holistic design sense. They all play off of each other, simply in the way they've been designed. I can't give you specifics, because none of us have the majority of the details on exactly how each system interacts with the others in tangible ways, but the way they've been discussed and presented, to me, gives the impression that they do. That's my impression. And with that impression, the idea that removing a chunk of that system would cause cascading effects throughout the system, which would take a considerable amount of time to redesign around the missing piece, is a bit of a no-brainer. Given, that is, that you see the system in the way I do.

    Perhaps you feel that the individual system designs aren't so dependent on each other in order to each function as intended, and perhaps you're correct. It's hard to say for sure either way at this point until we see them all (hopefully!) working together as intended in A2/B1.

    Our disagreement in the time required to take a look at a "PvE" server with no OWPvP (even though it would still require players engaging in a core economic system of the game to participate in PvP) seems to come down to the time required for testing out a server vs the time required to actually develop a viable product. Testing a server with a module taken out is relatively easy, I agree with you.

    After that test however, Intrepid would need to get the new server to a properly functioning state with the currently existing systems, as well as design the rest of the unfinished systems with that server's unique intricacies in mind over the rest of the dev cycle. As for whether that additional dev time would add up to an additional six weeks or an additional six+ months, it's hard to say for sure, and neither of us can say with greater certainty that it would be one or the other.

    That speculation all comes down to, again, how entangled you believe all the game systems are. So I'll leave it at an agreement to disagree on that front. We can both agree, however, that now is not the right time to be considering it, given the circumstances.
Sign In or Register to comment.