We need PVE servers here's why

No we dont need PVE servers, get baited.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

ashesplayer123

SirChancelot 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. 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.

Azherae

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.

ashesplayer123

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.

Azherae

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.

Ferryman

Norkore wrote: »

SirChancelot 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.

Mag7spy

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

Ludullu

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.

Azherae

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.

Ludullu

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?

ashesplayer123

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.

ashesplayer123

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...

Azherae

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.

Ferryman

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.

Okeydoke

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.

ashesplayer123

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.

ashesplayer123

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.

Sengarden

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.

Dygz

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.

Ludullu

The only thing I understood from the last several comments is that most of yall a hungry. Go eat something!

Okeydoke

Azherae wrote: »

So they ask.

What if the brownies without nuts are sold next door. To the left and the right. Across the street. The next street over. Is it really about that at that point? Or is it just conformity that needs to be achieved comrade. Even after being told no multiple times.

Child Item