NiKr wrote: » bloodprophet wrote: » Does there need to be a deeper meaning then "Because that is the way I like it"? Watched an interview with an author I like. He was talking about doing a book tour. After giving his talk a guy in the front row tried to challenge him. "Your book doesn't do it for me! I don't like it." to which he replied "That's why they make a thousand flavors of ice cream." But the whole point of "having a thousand flavors" is that they mostly come from the same company Yes, there's a few different sources, but from what I've seen, they're usually under some mega conglomerate that bankrolls them w/o any problems. That was the case with pretty much all big mmos of today. They were either riding the coattails of a long-standing franchise or came from a huuuuge studio, or even both. Ashes has none of that and doesn't have investors to prop it up in the case it fails at the start (i.e. NW), but that's obviously why we like it. So having just a few more flavors of icecream from this particular brand could mean the difference between life and death for them. Of course I hope that their current design will be more than enough, but I'm preparing myself for worse cause I've seen too many games fail before.
bloodprophet wrote: » Does there need to be a deeper meaning then "Because that is the way I like it"? Watched an interview with an author I like. He was talking about doing a book tour. After giving his talk a guy in the front row tried to challenge him. "Your book doesn't do it for me! I don't like it." to which he replied "That's why they make a thousand flavors of ice cream."
NiKr wrote: » Here's a good video that discusses why everyone who played older mmos love them so much, and imo this video supports the idea of limiting pvp to higher lvls.
bloodprophet wrote: » Is it wrong to choose to be different?
bloodprophet wrote: » That was kind of the point. There are a thousand other MMO's. Should this one be forced to conform to be like them or should they be different and take a chance at success or failure? I would submit the reason many of us are here is because we look at the ones that are out there and either tolerate what we see or choose not to engage it them as we see them not worth our time, effort and money. Is it wrong to choose to be different?
Dygz wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Here's a good video that discusses why everyone who played older mmos love them so much, and imo this video supports the idea of limiting pvp to higher lvls. We loved older MMORPGs so much because we could play on designated PvE-Only servers. Primary reason we loved older MMORPGs was the novelty of being able to jump into a virtual, Fantasy Tolkien-esque world 24/7 and basically play D&D with a bunch of other players. Rather than being forced to wait until everyone's school and work schedules synched so that we could finally play. Because what used to be every weekend in high school, became once a month or once every two months (if we were lucky) by the time we finished college. That was great when we could ever quest. But, it fairly quickly became that we could race through the content in a few weeks and then be stuck in endgame for years waiting for the next expansion. I mean, EQ and EQ2 has new expansions once a year, seems like, but the graphics are crappy and...I dunno why 20 years later people would still enjoy zoning and the ubiquitous invisible walls. Can't really make non-consensual PvP more appealing to people who despise non-consensual PvP. You can, perhaps, make it some what more tolerable.
bloodprophet wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » bloodprophet wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » bloodprophet wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » 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. Logging in is consenting to PvP. Ah, another person who is not familiar with consensual and non-consensual PvP terminology. As others have said logging into an FPS and getting mad because other people shot you is the player not understanding the nature of the game. No such thing as non-consentual PvP in an OWPvP game. The idea is a logical fallacy. By choosing to log in you are saying to everyone else that logged in you are ok with unplanned random PvP. This helps keep the world interesting and exciting. Now you are arguing against standard terminology which has been out there at least from the beginning of EvE online. Therefore, it is not a new thing or meant to offend anyone rather used to make difference between different owPvP rules. You can easily google this if you do not take my word of it. On top of that now this term non-consensual PvP has taken out of the context. We were originally talking about ingame PvP flagging rules which has nothing to do with logging in to the game. In open world game where no-one is forced to PvP and you need to flag to do so, has consensual PvP rules. These games can have arenas, battlegrounds or even caravans like in Ashes but the common thing is that players can choose if they want to participate or not to the PvP action.In open world games where players can be attacked by other players (typically in context of ganking) even if they do not want that at that moment has non-consesual PvP rules. Someone can be okay with that but this happens because the rules allows it.No, you consented to this based strictly on the games ruleset. Otherwise I agree with what you said. The games rules allow players to attack anyone at anytime. There maybe very harsh consequences for doing so or none at all. BUT the rules allow it. Just like in EVE you can attack a player in a high security sector at any time. Is it a good idea? Probably not but the rules still allow it. Thus, consensual and non-consensual PvP terms have used to make difference between certain rules and help with the defining. I don't think it will be anywhere near as bad as some people think it will be/hope. On dedicated servers where your reputation will matter. I think players that do gank lowbies often will earn a bad rap and be hunted by the local community to the point they change servers , change their ways or just quit making the community better as a whole. Nobody wants to play with people like that except themselves. I imagine a server community that will collectively and actively hunt these people down and gank them till they cry. Curb stomping a new player once in a while will happen but if players go out of their way to do it over and over that is the whole point of the corruption and bounty hunter systems.
Ferryman wrote: » bloodprophet wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » bloodprophet wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » 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. Logging in is consenting to PvP. Ah, another person who is not familiar with consensual and non-consensual PvP terminology. As others have said logging into an FPS and getting mad because other people shot you is the player not understanding the nature of the game. No such thing as non-consentual PvP in an OWPvP game. The idea is a logical fallacy. By choosing to log in you are saying to everyone else that logged in you are ok with unplanned random PvP. This helps keep the world interesting and exciting. Now you are arguing against standard terminology which has been out there at least from the beginning of EvE online. Therefore, it is not a new thing or meant to offend anyone rather used to make difference between different owPvP rules. You can easily google this if you do not take my word of it. On top of that now this term non-consensual PvP has taken out of the context. We were originally talking about ingame PvP flagging rules which has nothing to do with logging in to the game. In open world game where no-one is forced to PvP and you need to flag to do so, has consensual PvP rules. These games can have arenas, battlegrounds or even caravans like in Ashes but the common thing is that players can choose if they want to participate or not to the PvP action.In open world games where players can be attacked by other players (typically in context of ganking) even if they do not want that at that moment has non-consesual PvP rules. Someone can be okay with that but this happens because the rules allows it.No, you consented to this based strictly on the games ruleset. Otherwise I agree with what you said. The games rules allow players to attack anyone at anytime. There maybe very harsh consequences for doing so or none at all. BUT the rules allow it. Just like in EVE you can attack a player in a high security sector at any time. Is it a good idea? Probably not but the rules still allow it. Thus, consensual and non-consensual PvP terms have used to make difference between certain rules and help with the defining.
bloodprophet wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » bloodprophet wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » 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. Logging in is consenting to PvP. Ah, another person who is not familiar with consensual and non-consensual PvP terminology. As others have said logging into an FPS and getting mad because other people shot you is the player not understanding the nature of the game. No such thing as non-consentual PvP in an OWPvP game. The idea is a logical fallacy. By choosing to log in you are saying to everyone else that logged in you are ok with unplanned random PvP. This helps keep the world interesting and exciting.
Ferryman wrote: » bloodprophet wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » 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. Logging in is consenting to PvP. Ah, another person who is not familiar with consensual and non-consensual PvP terminology.
bloodprophet wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » 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. Logging in is consenting to PvP.
Ferryman wrote: » 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.
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.
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.
NiKr wrote: » bloodprophet wrote: » Is it wrong to choose to be different? If you're fine with failing, definitely no. Hope that doesn't happen and the potential of failure doesn't spook Steven/Intrepid from being what they want to be, but we'll have to see.
NiKr wrote: » but you've broadened your appeal far enough to sustain your shop for longer and now you have more chances for your shop's name to become so famous for having great nut brownies that people from other places come to you.
Okeydoke wrote: » NiKr wrote: » but you've broadened your appeal far enough to sustain your shop for longer and now you have more chances for your shop's name to become so famous for having great nut brownies that people from other places come to you. That is what I and many others already think Ashes is doing. Ashes is extremely moderate compared to hardcore mmos. Somehow even some of those more hardcore mmos survive and thrive. Somehow even some carebear pve mmos fail. It kinda just depends on if you make a good game or not.
Azherae wrote: » So you are at 'I hope they make a good game', and I am at 'What exactly is the definition of 'good' here?' Not my definition, not Dygz' definition. If anything, I would be targeting NiKr's definition, because NiKr is the person so far that has shown me the most 'understanding of PvP incentive structures' beyond the thing I personally believe creates the problem.
Azherae wrote: » You don't need to have a single reaction to any of my hypotheticals, you can just ignore the entire thing at all times.
Okeydoke wrote: » Azherae wrote: » You don't need to have a single reaction to any of my hypotheticals, you can just ignore the entire thing at all times. Not sure if you're asking me to self censor. I am far from being the most prolific poster here. I just say something when I have something to say.
NiKr wrote: » Azherae wrote: » So you are at 'I hope they make a good game', and I am at 'What exactly is the definition of 'good' here?' Not my definition, not Dygz' definition. If anything, I would be targeting NiKr's definition, because NiKr is the person so far that has shown me the most 'understanding of PvP incentive structures' beyond the thing I personally believe creates the problem. And even my definition is what's good in the context of what Ashes wants to be is layered with a ton of bias towards a pvp-centric mmo. And that kind of design allegedly died more than 10 years ago, so all that I'm trying to do with my suggestions/thought process is to find a way to merge that design with what potentially might attract people who've never experienced its "good" parts. And even those good parts are usually seen as something completely undesired by a lot of people I hope for the best for Ashes, while expecting some very rough times during the first few months of the game (that is if they stick with the current design, which I hope they do). And because of that expectations I'm trying to find anything that could decrease its probability of happening.
CROW3 wrote: » This thread... though I do like brownies (with or without nuts). I'll take three, @NiKr Two 'brass tacks' thoughts: 1. I think a pve version of Ashes is simply a non-starter (hence the HEAVY sarcasm of the OP) for obvious reasons 2. Given a PvX ow, the core governing mechanism is corruption. We know next to nothing about that system. We've never tested it and never seen it demoed. We also have no understanding of what the combat system is going to be. So while the conversations about the right blend of PvP are interesting justifications for more popcorn, we're ALL operating from a place of near-complete ignorance Just keep that in mind before some of you tear each others virtual heads off.
Okeydoke wrote: » Well then lol. Is there a section of the forum for people like me. Somewhere that locks with a key from the outside. I wasn't even replying to you today. I replied to Nikr.
