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

1235717

Comments

  • CROW3CROW3 Member
    🤦‍♂️
    AoC+Dwarf+750v3.png
  • FerrymanFerryman Member
    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 20
    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.
  • FerrymanFerryman Member
    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?
  • OtrOtr Member
    Dygz wrote: »
    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.
    If a PvE player is stressed and requests changes then is PvP.
  • 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.
  • NorkoreNorkore Member
    edited June 21

    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.

    I've been reading your comments and I still don't understand the point you're trying to make here. The fact that you're playing a PvX game makes open world PvP consensual by default, because you agree to the rules by playing a game with set and public rules. These rules are not hidden from you, you are very well aware what you're getting into. This game has it's set vision and direction, Steven talked about these multiple times. Why are you here if you don't like what the game offers? You are not the target audience, and that's okay. Just as I'm not the target audience for FF14, yet you don't see me complaining on their forums about catgirls and the themepark gameplay, I just look for things that suits me more, such as Ashes of Creation.

    As per https://ashesofcreation.wiki/PvX

    "Ashes of Creation is a PvX game. Players will naturally encounter both PvP and PvE elements.[2][3][4] It is unlikely that a player could purely focus on just PvP or just PvE.[4]

    There is a balance between PvP and PvE in Ashes of Creation.[4]
    All stats relate to a player's combat effectiveness in PvX.[5]
    There won't be separate PvE and PvP servers but some servers may be more PvP focused than others.[3][6]
    There will not be different PvP and PvE gear types.[7]
    Progression in the game might require PvE elements.[4]

    We're very clear with our objective and philosophy on the game and we understand that they may not appeal to everybody. But you know it is an important reciprocal relationship between the content that's related to PvE and the content that's related to PvP and they feed off of each other. They're catalysts for change: Their progression, their development. It's things that people can value when they see something earned and they see something lost. That elicits an emotional response from the player: That they've invested time in to either succeed or fail; and PvP allows for that element to be introduced into gameplay. And we're very clear that is our objective: That risk versus reward relationship, that achievement-based mentality. Not everybody's going to be a winner and that's okay.[8] – Steven Sharif"

    Now let me clarify it for you, because your narcissism is still showing: "We're very clear with our objective and philosophy on the game and we understand that they may not appeal to everybody."
    "Not everybody's going to be a winner and that's okay."


    If you don't like the game don't follow it, fairly simple. Yes, this is going to be a PvX game, take it or leave it.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Norkore wrote: »
    If you don't like the game don't follow it, fairly simple. Yes, this is going to be a PvX game, take it or leave it.

    Sometimes speaking with your words changes people's opinions and you don't have to get to the more drastic point of speaking with your wallet and watching something fail.

    Not at all saying that's what would happen here. Just reminding you that not everyone goes 'I'll just not buy it', regardless of how justified 'ordering a pizza at a Subway' is.

    Sometimes the result is that Subway starts serving pizza.
    Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
    
  • NorkoreNorkore Member
    edited June 21
    Azherae wrote: »
    Norkore wrote: »
    If you don't like the game don't follow it, fairly simple. Yes, this is going to be a PvX game, take it or leave it.

    Sometimes speaking with your words changes people's opinions and you don't have to get to the more drastic point of speaking with your wallet and watching something fail.

    Not at all saying that's what would happen here. Just reminding you that not everyone goes 'I'll just not buy it', regardless of how justified 'ordering a pizza at a Subway' is.

    Sometimes the result is that Subway starts serving pizza.

    Yes it happens when a company wants to become that massive megacorp, and the only thing that matters to them is more money. Subway is not a game studio, their products don't have to have soul, they are not connected to their consumers the same way crowdfunded game studios are. And yes, there are game studios that are just as greedy, that's why I specified "crowdfunded game studios", because there is no publisher monitoring their every move and demanding them to be faster or whatever. So even though I understand the analogy you're making here it doesn't make much sense in the context of what's Steven stance on the MMO market and game studios in general.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Norkore wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    Norkore wrote: »
    If you don't like the game don't follow it, fairly simple. Yes, this is going to be a PvX game, take it or leave it.

    Sometimes speaking with your words changes people's opinions and you don't have to get to the more drastic point of speaking with your wallet and watching something fail.

    Not at all saying that's what would happen here. Just reminding you that not everyone goes 'I'll just not buy it', regardless of how justified 'ordering a pizza at a Subway' is.

    Sometimes the result is that Subway starts serving pizza.

    Yes it happens when a company wants to become that massive megacorp, and the only thing that matters to them is more money. Subway is not a game studio, their products don't have to have soul, they are not connected to their base the same way crowdfunded game studios are. And yes, there are game studios that are just as greedy, that's why I specified "crowdfunded game studios", because there is no publisher monitoring their every move and demanding them to be faster or whatever. So even though I understand the analogy you're making here it doesn't make much sense in the context of what's Steven stance is on the MMO market and game studios in general.

    I'm sure there will come a point where Ashes will see a huge dropoff in interest even from diehard fans. The reason is because there are at least seven still-undefined aspects of their design that are polarizing.

    Basically, we're still at the stage where people have seen so little of the overall development that they hear 'we are open to feedback' and think 'well maybe they'll realize that X is a mistake if I tell them so'. Even for something as relatively extreme as 'Add PvE servers', some people won't think of it as extreme.

    If Steven had strong immutable stances on those undefined aspects, we would probably get more specific answers on things. So that's the parallel. To most people, this isn't 'A Subway', but it also is 'just a corner sandwich shop with a billboard up and a few pics of its signature sandwiches, many of which are contradictory'. Or should I say 'oddly inclusive'.

    The greatest restaurant (imo of course) near where I live has 'Pizza' in its name but sells shawarma wraps and rice bowls for some reason. It's great. I bet I could ask them to try their hand at some food I haven't thought of yet (because they serve pretty much everything I like anyway).

    But they also have nuts in their brownies lately for some reason... and I often eat with someone who has a nut allergy and can't risk it. So I could ask them to stop getting brownies with nuts in them, or I could stop buying their food for safety.

    Nuts in brownies are a very polarizing topic. Perhaps they add soul.
    Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
    
  • FerrymanFerryman Member
    Norkore wrote: »

    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.

    I've been reading your comments and I still don't understand the point you're trying to make here. The fact that you're playing a PvX game makes open world PvP consensual by default, because you agree to the rules by playing a game with set and public rules.

    Consensual and non-consensual are standard terminology and just playing the game does not change non-consensual to consensual. If a player cannot choose when he/she wants to fight in PvP (for example get ganked) that is always non-consensual PvP. He would not touch to any consensual PvP part of the game, sieges, caravans, other battlegrounds, and those can stay as are. However, he would like to change open world PvP rules from non-consensual PvP to consensual PvP which would mean in practice that non-combatant green players cannot be attacked anymore. Open world PvP would happen only between those players who are flagged to combatant. Perhaps PvE-server as a term is here a little bit misleading because most of the PvP would be still involded in this theoretical server.
    Do you need a ride to the Underworld?
  • Mag7spyMag7spy Member
    Honestly hate the wallet argument, it goes both ways to all sides. The only important element is making the game fun, making sure casual players have fun as well as casual- average player are like 80% of player base
  • NiKrNiKr Member
    Ferryman wrote: »
    However, he would like to change open world PvP rules from non-consensual PvP to consensual PvP which would mean in practice that non-combatant green players cannot be attacked anymore. Open world PvP would happen only between those players who are flagged to combatant. Perhaps PvE-server as a term is here a little bit misleading because most of the PvP would be still involded in this theoretical server.
    Which would turn the game into NW and we all saw how that looked like.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    NiKr wrote: »
    Ferryman wrote: »
    However, he would like to change open world PvP rules from non-consensual PvP to consensual PvP which would mean in practice that non-combatant green players cannot be attacked anymore. Open world PvP would happen only between those players who are flagged to combatant. Perhaps PvE-server as a term is here a little bit misleading because most of the PvP would be still involded in this theoretical server.
    Which would turn the game into NW and we all saw how that looked like.

    Did we though? Cause New World sucked for so many other reasons we can't be sure of that.
    Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
    
  • NiKrNiKr Member
    Azherae wrote: »
    Did we though? Cause New World sucked for so many other reasons we can't be sure of that.
    The only thing I'm sure of is that we didn't see how it would've been in its original state. Well, alpha testers saw it and apparently cried so much that they changed it? Do we have any NW early testers that can provide an example of how it worked back then? Or was the difference in the overall design so huge that they're incomparable?
  • NorkoreNorkore Member
    edited June 21
    Ferryman wrote: »
    Consensual and non-consensual are standard terminology and just playing the game does not change non-consensual to consensual. If a player cannot choose when he/she wants to fight in PvP (for example get ganked) that is always non-consensual PvP. He would not touch to any consensual PvP part of the game, sieges, caravans, other battlegrounds, and those can stay as are. However, he would like to change open world PvP rules from non-consensual PvP to consensual PvP which would mean in practice that non-combatant green players cannot be attacked anymore. Open world PvP would happen only between those players who are flagged to combatant. Perhaps PvE-server as a term is here a little bit misleading because most of the PvP would be still involded in this theoretical server.

    You don't have to try to perform these sort of mental gymnastics to explain his point of view. I am perfectly aware what he is asking for, and I still disagree.

    There is open world PvP, which means you are okay with fighting in the open. End of story. This argument is like saying dying in Call of duty Multiplayer is non consensual because I am doing a pacifist challenge, and it's unfair how people shoot me. There are guns in the game, and you're playing against other people. This is the game with it's rules, and you knowingly entered that space. It doesn't matter if at some points you REALLY don't want to die (because let's say you're carrying some rare materials, and trust me nobody wants to die and lose items, but this sort of emotional investment is the point of the system), open world PvP still allows people to attack you. I could copy Steven's stance and the PvX article again on why this is important for the game's design but I'm not going to, you can scroll up and read it.

    Arguing about this makes absolutely zero sense. The guy who want this to be different clearly just wishes for a more forgiving environment. Go and play a game with such a setting, there are boatloads of them.

  • NorkoreNorkore Member
    edited June 21
    NiKr wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    Did we though? Cause New World sucked for so many other reasons we can't be sure of that.
    The only thing I'm sure of is that we didn't see how it would've been in its original state. Well, alpha testers saw it and apparently cried so much that they changed it? Do we have any NW early testers that can provide an example of how it worked back then? Or was the difference in the overall design so huge that they're incomparable?

    I am an early tester of NW, I can give you a fair description of how the game worked back then.

    NW's alpha version was by far the best iteration of the game due to the following reasons:

    - The game was way more on the sandbox side (people could build their own homes for example, amazon planned to have these massive cities and communities built by players)

    - Light and heavy attacks used to inflict a "stagger" effect, which basically worked just like the souls games (dark souls) or other swordplay (chivalry, mordhau) and fighting games (tekken, mortal kombat). Just in case you're not familiar with them I will try to explain: If you successfully hit someone with an attack the stagger effect gave you frame advantage, which means your recovery was faster than the enemy's weapon swing, however your attack recovery was slower than the enemies block/dodge animation. Basically what this means if you started attacking someone, but they were mashing attack, and you hit first, you won. If your enemy had a working brain, they would instead block or dodge after they get hit once, to reset the fight's flow.

    -there was also stamina management system, and sprinting was not automatic.

    -open world PvP was always on

    -open world PvP was also full loot (I disagreed with this during the development of the game. I like AoC's system better)

    -there was no criminal system as far as I know (which is dumb if you ask me, this is needed)

    -I can't think of a single instanced content back then, it was all open world

    -the main idea for endgame content was generating conflict between players (both political and combat), which would have worked really well with the whole sandbox setting. There was no themepark, the game was just a big playground for the players


    By changing their game drastically the only thing amazon achieved was not only they alienated a lot of their more hardcore users (who would have stick around, casual players don't stick around they just want their 2 months of content then they move on to the next new thing), but by changing directions they also had no PvE content either to serve the more relaxed players.
    I would say New World would've done much better if they never steered away from their original vision and would have gone with monetization model that's similar to AoC's. The main reason NW is on life support is due to not sticking to their vision and capitalizing on their playerbase (by changing the monetization system).

    Amazon wanted NW to be for everyone, whereas Steven knows this is impossible, so he's been pre-emptively saying that AOC is not for everyone. And that's okay...
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Norkore wrote: »
    Ferryman wrote: »
    Consensual and non-consensual are standard terminology and just playing the game does not change non-consensual to consensual. If a player cannot choose when he/she wants to fight in PvP (for example get ganked) that is always non-consensual PvP. He would not touch to any consensual PvP part of the game, sieges, caravans, other battlegrounds, and those can stay as are. However, he would like to change open world PvP rules from non-consensual PvP to consensual PvP which would mean in practice that non-combatant green players cannot be attacked anymore. Open world PvP would happen only between those players who are flagged to combatant. Perhaps PvE-server as a term is here a little bit misleading because most of the PvP would be still involded in this theoretical server.

    You don't have to try to perform these sort of mental gymnastics to explain his point of view. I am perfectly aware what he is asking for, and I still disagree.

    There is open world PvP, which means you are okay with fighting in the open. End of story. This argument is like saying dying in Call of duty Multiplayer is non consensual because I am doing a pacifist challenge, and it's unfair how people shoot me. There are guns in the game, and you're playing against other people. This is the game with it's rules, and you knowingly entered that space. It doesn't matter if at some points you REALLY don't want to die (because let's say you're carrying some rare materials, and trust me nobody wants to die and lose items, but this sort of emotional investment is the point of the system), open world PvP still allows people to attack you. I could copy Steven's stance and the PvX article again on why this is important for the game's design but I'm not going to, you can scroll up and read it.

    Arguing about this makes absolutely zero sense. The guy who want this to be different clearly just wishes for a more forgiving environment. Go and play a game with such a setting, there are boatloads of them.

    You didn't get it, and you've gone beyond just 'disagreeing'.

    So I'll finish the analogy. Assume that the brownies contain both nuts, and some other less 'dangerous' crunchy textured addition.

    "Why are there nuts in your brownies, I don't like/can't eat those."
    "It's part of the texture, we don't consider them to be as good without them."
    "Can you make a version without nuts?"
    "Sorry, the texture's required or they don't even bake properly."
    "But they already have 'other crunchy thing' anyway, I just want it without the nuts."

    You can disagree on whether or not the brownies need the nuts, but for a lot of people, brownies are fine without nuts, and if the point is the texture, and they'll eat it with the other texture (the multiple other PvP), to them, you're just refusing to remove the nuts on principle.

    So they ask.
    Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
    
  • FerrymanFerryman Member
    NiKr wrote: »
    Ferryman wrote: »
    However, he would like to change open world PvP rules from non-consensual PvP to consensual PvP which would mean in practice that non-combatant green players cannot be attacked anymore. Open world PvP would happen only between those players who are flagged to combatant. Perhaps PvE-server as a term is here a little bit misleading because most of the PvP would be still involded in this theoretical server.
    Which would turn the game into NW and we all saw how that looked like.

    But New World has so many different kind of problems so it is not just about the flagging part. Additionally, it does not mean that if Amazon Studios are uncapable to get their product working that others could not tackle it.
    Do you need a ride to the Underworld?
  • OkeydokeOkeydoke Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Norkore wrote: »
    You don't have to try to perform these sort of mental gymnastics to explain his point of view. I am perfectly aware what he is asking for, and I still disagree.

    Literally took the words from my mouth. I read his post and was going to reply talking about the mental gymnastics he was doing. Exactly what it is, mental gymnastics to try to push an agenda.

    I was going to use an Apex Legends example of getting third partied right after finishing a fight, not being healed up or ready for this new fight etc. I do not consent to this fight. Except I did, when I turned on the frickin game and played it.

  • NorkoreNorkore Member
    edited June 21
    Azherae wrote: »
    Norkore wrote: »
    Ferryman wrote: »
    Consensual and non-consensual are standard terminology and just playing the game does not change non-consensual to consensual. If a player cannot choose when he/she wants to fight in PvP (for example get ganked) that is always non-consensual PvP. He would not touch to any consensual PvP part of the game, sieges, caravans, other battlegrounds, and those can stay as are. However, he would like to change open world PvP rules from non-consensual PvP to consensual PvP which would mean in practice that non-combatant green players cannot be attacked anymore. Open world PvP would happen only between those players who are flagged to combatant. Perhaps PvE-server as a term is here a little bit misleading because most of the PvP would be still involded in this theoretical server.

    You don't have to try to perform these sort of mental gymnastics to explain his point of view. I am perfectly aware what he is asking for, and I still disagree.

    There is open world PvP, which means you are okay with fighting in the open. End of story. This argument is like saying dying in Call of duty Multiplayer is non consensual because I am doing a pacifist challenge, and it's unfair how people shoot me. There are guns in the game, and you're playing against other people. This is the game with it's rules, and you knowingly entered that space. It doesn't matter if at some points you REALLY don't want to die (because let's say you're carrying some rare materials, and trust me nobody wants to die and lose items, but this sort of emotional investment is the point of the system), open world PvP still allows people to attack you. I could copy Steven's stance and the PvX article again on why this is important for the game's design but I'm not going to, you can scroll up and read it.

    Arguing about this makes absolutely zero sense. The guy who want this to be different clearly just wishes for a more forgiving environment. Go and play a game with such a setting, there are boatloads of them.

    You didn't get it, and you've gone beyond just 'disagreeing'.

    So I'll finish the analogy. Assume that the brownies contain both nuts, and some other less 'dangerous' crunchy textured addition.

    "Why are there nuts in your brownies, I don't like/can't eat those."
    "It's part of the texture, we don't consider them to be as good without them."
    "Can you make a version without nuts?"
    "Sorry, the texture's required or they don't even bake properly."
    "But they already have 'other crunchy thing' anyway, I just want it without the nuts."

    You can disagree on whether or not the brownies need the nuts, but for a lot of people, brownies are fine without nuts, and if the point is the texture, and they'll eat it with the other texture (the multiple other PvP), to them, you're just refusing to remove the nuts on principle.

    So they ask.


    https://ashesofcreation.wiki/PvX

    We're very clear with our objective and philosophy on the game and we understand that they may not appeal to everybody. But you know it is an important reciprocal relationship between the content that's related to PvE and the content that's related to PvP and they feed off of each other. They're catalysts for change: Their progression, their development. It's things that people can value when they see something earned and they see something lost. That elicits an emotional response from the player: That they've invested time in to either succeed or fail; and PvP allows for that element to be introduced into gameplay. And we're very clear that is our objective: That risk versus reward relationship, that achievement-based mentality. Not everybody's going to be a winner and that's okay. – Steven Sharif

    I don't know what to tell you. You don't have to be a part of everything, you don't have to be invited to every party. Sometimes you just gotta look for a different space that's more suited for you, which is basically what I've been saying the whole time. Good luck finding the game which provides what you're looking for. I already found it.
  • NorkoreNorkore Member
    Okeydoke wrote: »
    Norkore wrote: »
    You don't have to try to perform these sort of mental gymnastics to explain his point of view. I am perfectly aware what he is asking for, and I still disagree.

    Literally took the words from my mouth. I read his post and was going to reply talking about the mental gymnastics he was doing. Exactly what it is, mental gymnastics to try to push an agenda.

    I was going to use an Apex Legends example of getting third partied right after finishing a fight, not being healed up or ready for this new fight etc. I do not consent to this fight. Except I did, when I turned on the frickin game and played it.

    Apex is also a great example. If you don't like the fundamentals of the game, play something else.
  • Azherae wrote: »
    Norkore wrote: »
    If you don't like the game don't follow it, fairly simple. Yes, this is going to be a PvX game, take it or leave it.

    Sometimes speaking with your words changes people's opinions and you don't have to get to the more drastic point of speaking with your wallet and watching something fail.

    Not at all saying that's what would happen here. Just reminding you that not everyone goes 'I'll just not buy it', regardless of how justified 'ordering a pizza at a Subway' is.

    Sometimes the result is that Subway starts serving pizza.

    I totally agree with you here on having a discourse about it, discussion is healthy, but here's how I take that analogy in this particular case.

    I don't think it's quite as apples to oranges as 'ordering a pizza at a subway', but perhaps closer to ordering a reuben when the only sandwich you've ever seen the employees make is the half-finished BLT they're still putting together on the counter right in front of you. You have no idea what other ingredients they have behind the counter - some of what they'd need for a reuben they might have already, some of it they probably don't. It's not on the menu, and they've never advertised a reuben at this restaurant before. In fact, they've explicitly said in the past that you won't be able to buy a sandwich from their restaurant that won't have bacon on it. They haven't even finished making their first BLT yet, but they've got over 20,000 people who've already paid and have been waiting over five years for this BLT. In fact, they're in line right behind you.

    Are you gonna order a reuben and make the 20,000+ people who've paid and been waiting for their BLT wait even longer so that the restaurant staff can reassess their ingredients, go to the store and pick up whatever they don't have, confirm they know how to build a good reuben, and put that on the menu too before finishing their first BLT? Maybe it would be a better idea to just let them finish the BLT, see how well the BLT is selling, see how many BLT-curious people who normally only eat reubens come back saying how much they like their BLT, and decide from there whether they want to invest in making a good reuben.

    Perhaps if the team's initial market research returned data suggesting they'd sell more copies of the game (and they knew they'd enjoy the product more themselves) if they made PvP optional, that would've been the game that was backed on Kickstarter, and people would've been prepared to wait for both the 'reuben' and the 'BLT'. But that's not what happened, and that's not what people have been waiting for. I think asking for major system changes like these when the original concept of the system isn't even finished or fully prototyped yet is getting a bit ahead of oneself.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited June 21
    Sengarden wrote: »
    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.
    They are not ALL quite dependent on each other.
    I pretty much out lined the ones that are dependent on each other.

    Sengarden wrote: »
    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.
    Right. So...
    I was an Associate Producer at Activision for 10 years. Starting out in QA.
    My primary task was evaluating changes to the dev task schedule, then adjusting the projected release schedule and reporting that to the Executive Producer. Typically, telling him, "The Producer still says they are going to hit this date, but they can't hit that date if they make these changes so...expect the release date to be pushed back at least a week or two." And I would typically triple-check my assessment with the QA Lead to be sure my prediction was correct. If the devs make x change it's going to add y time in QA.
    So, I'm quite aware how a change can affect release schedules.
    I could be wrong, but you would have to provide some meaningful evidence that I'm wrong.

    OWPvP does not significantly affect the changes to the world like battlegrounds PvP changes the world.
    The lack of OWPvP does not detrimentally affect Node growth.
    You can try to give an example of how it would, but just stating that you think it would is not convincing.

    I don't understand how OWPvP being disabled can affect the relative ability of a Node to withstand OWPvP. That's not really possible when OWPvP is disabled.
    OWPvP makes it likely that Nodes will be stronger, because it's easier for players to to successfully gather and maintain resources and transport them individually to their destinations.
    The danger with OWPvP is that it becomes too difficult to successfully Siege fortified Nodes.

    Just saying that something gives you an impression, again, is not at all convincing.
    "I have a feeling there are snakes here."
    "What? Why?"
    "Because we're in a forest and snakes are part of a forest ecosystem."
    "Is there evididence of snakes around here?"
    "Well, I'm not a snake expert so, I can't give you specifics. I jst have an impression that snakes are here."
    You don't have to say, "Well, I see a snake right over there."
    But, you should at least be able to say, "Well, here is some shed snake skin." Or...
    "Well, that hole over there looks like the type that leads to a snake nest."
    Something more than just an "impression".


    Sengarden wrote: »
    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.
    Some systems are dependant on each other - OWPvP, Corruption, Bounty Hunting.
    Most systems do not rely on OWPvP significantly enough that's it's going to be a major problem if OWPvP is turned off.
    It would be a major problem if Sieges and Caravan battlegrounds were disabled because those forms of PvP combat drive the world to change over time.

    Sengarden wrote: »
    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
    I don't know that we have a disagreement about that.
    The best time to test that would be during A2. When the regular servers are being tested.
    And, again, it's moot because at this point, any time testing a "PvE server" is a waste of dev time, the team cannot afford.

    Sengarden wrote: »
    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.
    No. Not really.

    Sengarden wrote: »
    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.
    I mean... your speculation kinda feels like you lack much experience in QA and with game dev teams, but...
    It sounds great to you in your head, sure.
Sign In or Register to comment.