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

Okeydoke

I was going to recommend dms. But no I think you should have the discussion here if you want to. I don't mind kind of yielding some if you think I'm not a productive part of the conversation. I dunno, this is just weird to me, not even sure what I did. But like...in other words, noted. I won't go out of my way or anything to cause you problems in your discussion.

Ludullu

CROW3 wrote: »

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.

I have a slight problem with this line of thinking, mainly based on my infamous bias for L2

The only difference between L2's karma system and AoC's corruption system is the resources that drop on death. Yes, there's also the stat dampening for Red players, but that's a change for such extreme cases that we can disregard that for now.

We've yet to see exactly how much stuff we drop on death, so it's difficult to say how much desire there'll be in people to kill another player for their resources (and that's even considering that you'd know which resources that target even has).

From what I've seen from pvp-dislikers and alleged casuals, their main problem is that they'll get attacked out of nowhere for no apparent reason while they're just chilling and doing their thing. From all my experience in L2, that would happen maaaaybe once a week and that's only if you came across some PK-lover who's just going around harassing people (any pvpers hate them too and love to hunt them asap).

Now what should be added to that experience is that L2 had several "people funnels" that always pushed players of a similar lvl together to create that good ol' soft friction that Steven likes to mention. And the higher your lvl was, the fewer funnels there'd be (but they'd be all-encompassing), so at top lvls your usual day in L2 would be spent in maybe 2-3 locations and that IF you wanted to farm different things that day. Within that funnel you'd have even more "sub-funnels" based on the lvl of mobs and their drops. So within those limited high lvl locations you'd have a limited amount of rooms to farm.

And in the context of all of that, most (if not all) people completely understood the concept of "I gotta fight for my right to party farm". If someone attacked you while you were farming those rooms - that wasn't "out of nowhere" and it wasn't "for no reason". You knew exactly why they did so and you usually were prepared for it (held the camera pointed at the entrance to your dungeon room). And you'd usually do the same to the person who was farming that room before you.

This was the social contract of the game and the flagging system supported it. While you were farming, you'd see a dude stand at the entrance to your room (if camera angles allowed, he'd probably be standing just outside around the corner looking in). He'd watch you farm the mobs to see how strong you are. If you were strong, there'd be a chance he'll just move along to check out other room. If you were slow and weak, he might just start pulling mobs himself and start killing them way faster than you, non-verbally telling you "this is my room now because I can farm it better". In the case of the latter, you might try attacking him to show him that your pvp is stronger than your pve (I've seen such cases before). If you do in fact win in pvp, there's a chance that he comes back to fight you again, if the fight was really tight and equal (especially if you attacked him while he was fighting mobs). Run-back time could range from just seconds to a minute or two, depending on how deep you were in the dungeon (L2 had a TP system), which allowed you to prepare for his return and maybe have a better rotation for the fight (he would have it too). If you won again, quite a lot of people would just change rooms at this point because in their eyes you earned your farm of that room.

And due to how dungeons were designed, the run-back (or just getting deeper into the dungeon) would have you pass other lower lvled rooms with people farming them, which usually would dissuade people from PKing, because they knew that there were people (even if they were low lvl) who'd immediately run to kill you for some potential juicy lot. That was the case because a shout in chat would usually cover the whole dungeon's area (sometimes even more), so just yellng "hey peeps, there's a PK in such and such room - go kill 'em, they're low on hp" would usually not only provide a swift revenge, but would even have a chance of someone resurrecting you after they've dealt with the PKer (done so myself a ton of times).

Now all of that is just an example of how the social side of the flagging system worked. Unless we literally drop 50% of our resources on death in Ashes, I highly doubt the contract would be too different from the one in L2, so I truly believe that people are way too scared of the system that they've never experienced before.

Now the main exception to this line of thinking is L2's guild wars and what I believe AoC's equivalent of them to be - node wars. My example from L2 mainly worked for party gameplay, because most dungeons in L2 required you to be in a party (or at least with a full stack of support chars). Anything soloable was the land of the casuals that rarely had pvp, outside of low lvl guild war squabbles. And those squabbles were the main hardcore part of the whole pvp system.

Being in a guild that was at war could be very taxing and difficult for the unprepared. Most locations would have at least a few players from the warring guild (especially if you were at war with a big guild or against several guilds), who'd have complete ffa PKing rights against you. You afked for one minute to get some tea? You might come back to a dead character with the chat log reading "so and so dealt 10 hits of this much damage to you"(with that player being from a warring guild). You were peacefully farming a lower lvled room in some dungeon? The high lvl warring dudes would kill you on their way deeper into the dungeon just cause you were at war with them.

I'm assuming this is the experience of most WoW players or really any other faction-based mmo players, because that's usually the case in faction-based mmos, where people have full PKing rights for their enemies. Now what made L2 better than all those faction-based shitholes is that you could leave your guild at any time. Most reasonable GLs would be fine with you leaving for a while to get stronger, and quite a lot of them would just have a second guild for all the players who wanted to still stay in touch, but didn't want to suffer the war difficulties.

Now, AoC's guild wars will be way more goal-based in the design, as opposed to a just "we're at war until someone exits it like a pussy or until we have a bigger enemy to kill together"-type of deal from L2. And iirc Ashes guild wars will be more of an evening event than endless slaughter of your enemies. But Node Wars, from what I've read, seem like the exact copy of L2's guild wars. The mayor declares war on another node and both sides' citizens have a ffa fight through the duration of the war.

The main problem I see with that system is that changing a Node is not as easy as changing a guild in L2 was, so most casuals who live in a Node at war would probably have a bad time. And I think that this feature will have to be tested even more than the Corruption system to truly know what a casual's day in the game would look like and how scary would any prospect of pvp be for them.

TL;DR we've seen this flagging system function just fine before, so I really don't think it's as spooky as some people make it out to be.

Ludullu

Also, as an addendum, if we do in fact have "50% of resources lost on death" - the game will be way more hardcore than even the owpvp would imply, especially considering that Steven wants pve to be at least somewhat challenging and not just a walk in a park.

Noaani

JamesSunderland wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

If "bots" put in enough time to get a low level character in this area, I would wager you are not dealing with actual bots. The reason I didn't bother mentioning anything in regards to that is because "if" they are indeed bots, the appropriate means of dealing with them is for Intrepid to take action on the account.

The notion of changing an aspect of the game like this so that players can "deal with bots" is laughable. Killing a bot isn't dealing with them, and if anything, it makes it harder for Intrepid to take action on their account. I mean, if you report a bot, and then kill it, when Intrepid get around to looking at it, they have a character that is likely just sitting at the respawn point doing nothing - they are for all intents and purposes just some random AFK player.

I'm sorry but, no matter how i look at this comment, i see straight up naivity or simple lack of knowledge about bots and scripts potential.

So, the issue here is that you didn't attempt to just read the words I said.

Believing ANY company managing a MMORPG(especially one of this escale that plans to have around 8k to 10K players per server) can effectively and consistently deal with "the bot issue" as a whole through "direct actions to their account" alone without making any direct in-game bot deterrents is ludicrous.

You'll note, if you go back to the post you are referring to, that I didn't say they shouldn't have any in game bot deterrents at all - I said they shouldn't have any like the proposed one (ie, one that drastically alters game design).

The proposed "bot deterrent" basically makes crafting alts impossible in the game, and so simply should not happen - it is not a reasonable trade off between the effect it would have on bots (minimal) vs the impact it will have on players (massive, for some players).

Take this new information in hand, go back and read the post in question, and see if it makes a bit more sense. Just take note to only read the actual words written.

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

PvP is fine.

Honestly if you hate PvP, a PvX game isn't for you

So, yeah. Reading is your friend.

Mag7spy

I feel its over exaggerated from lack of pvp, and trying to create a big enough shock to warrant their point PvErs wont play. Then try to make you feel bad by saying your game will die or won't be successful.

I really hate the there is no between, really could be cool if everyone of all sides could just try the system then judge when we know hw it works and how it feels. I've said it before the system is more skewed towards casual and pve players and its fine, i can still guild dec.

Like even if you pk someone and get their loot and 20 other people see you, they are going to flag up. And if you kill them your corruption only gets worse. If im a casual or pver I'm glad the system on a design stand point feels as powerful as possible to making it hell for a pvper.

There are only more valid points you could look at the system and question certain things rather then going straight to pve servers or this game dies.

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

PvP is fine.

Honestly if you hate PvP, a PvX game isn't for you

So, yeah. Reading is your friend.

Why are you saying reading is your friend? Are you trying to insult?

edit*
You realize I read what you said right?

Ludullu

Mag7spy wrote: »

Like even if you pk someone and get their loot and 20 other people see you, they are going to flag up. And if you kill them your corruption only gets worse. If im a casual or pver I'm glad the system on a design stand point feels as powerful as possible to making it hell for a pvper.

From what I've heard the issue is not the absence of punishment for the criminal, but the loss of resources/time itself on the side of the casual getting killed. They don't care that they might not get kileld by the same person later on because they already got killed by them just now.

Mag7spy

I get that but the stronger the effect, the less it will happen naturally as a system is designed. Being attacked two times a week might even be a streched with a PvE player. They would be more concerned with owpvp guild wars if anything, think that is more a real discussion to be had on being attacked. Over the random person that attack's them in the world while they are chilling and goes red with all the negatives.

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Like even if you pk someone and get their loot and 20 other people see you, they are going to flag up. And if you kill them your corruption only gets worse. If im a casual or pver I'm glad the system on a design stand point feels as powerful as possible to making it hell for a pvper.

From what I've heard the issue is not the absence of punishment for the criminal, but the loss of resources/time itself on the side of the casual getting killed. They don't care that they might not get kileld by the same person later on because they already got killed by them just now.

This is somewhat closer to the truth, but is still missing a key factor - one that I have been arguing about for years.

Imagine you are a primarily PvE player. You're fine with some PvP, and even enjoy it on occasion. However, PvE is what you primarily want to do in a game.

Now imagine there is a game that launches that requires some PvP. This is fine, and won't turn you away from the game in itself. However, the game also has below average PvE - which is the best description of PvE in Ashes as we understand it so far.

All of a sudden, you have no interest in that game.

In order for Ashes to attract this player, the games PvE needs to be better than any other games that player would consider playing. THe quality of that PvE needs to counteract the loss that player will see due to PvP, and still be the best game for that player.

This is what is needed to bring in primarily PvE players. It has literally nothing to do with convincing them the PvP systems are fine - it is all about convincing them they have a game to play.

The problem here as well is that "farming spots" are not content to these people, this is an L2 family of games thing, and is actually a sad excuse for content to anyone not from those games. Open world dungeons are content, however, if they are large enough to support the groups that will be in there. Open world bosses are PvP content to these people.

So, taking all of that in to account, and what we know of PvE players, this isn't a game to even look at right now - and this has nothing at all to do with the corruption system.

That doesn't mean PvE servers are the answer. That is a hard no.

JamesSunderland

Noaani wrote: »

The proposed "bot deterrent" basically makes crafting alts impossible in the game, and so simply should not happen - it is not a reasonable trade off between the effect it would have on bots (minimal) vs the impact it will have on players (massive, for some players).

Take this new information in hand, go back and read the post in question, and see if it makes a bit more sense. Just take note to only read the actual words written.

Wait, so you also believe it to be an Alt Advantage Deterrent? That's amazing! Its even better than i expected!
Making Bots lifes and the lifes of people wanting to mess around the systems with advantageous low level alts feels like a dream.

Thank you for the information Noaani, it makes me even more confident in the bot deterrent ideas i discussed with Dolyem in this thread and more aversed by the bot and alt beneficiary ideas.

Noaani

JamesSunderland wrote: »

Wait, so you also believe it to be an Alt Advantage Deterrent? That's amazing! Its even better than i expected!
Making Bots lifes and the lifes of people wanting to mess around the systems with advantageous low level alts feels like a dream.

Are you saying you think people having a crafting alt is a bad thing?

This is a unique take on things, if that is what you think.

In literally every other game I have played, alt advantage refers to when the game has daily or weekly tasks that reward the character more than the time spent would dictate, where running it on multiple characters generates additional rewards for you. Archeages holiday events are a prime example of this.

I have never seen it applied to someone leveling up a crafting alt. That is just an odd usage for the term, and one I can't say I agree with at all.

JamesSunderland

Noaani wrote: »

JamesSunderland wrote: »

Wait, so you also believe it to be an Alt Advantage Deterrent? That's amazing! Its even better than i expected!
Making Bots lifes and the lifes of people wanting to mess around the systems with advantageous low level alts feels like a dream.

Are you saying you think people having a crafting alt is a bad thing?

This is a unique take on things, if that is what you think.

In literally every other game I have played, alt advantage refers to when the game has daily or weekly tasks that reward the character more than the time spent would dictate. Archeages holiday events are a prime example of this.

I have never seen it applied to someone leveling up a crafting alt. That is just an odd usage for the term, and one I can't say I agree with at all.

Yes, i believe any advantage you can provide to your main character through alts is a bad thing, the bigger the possible advantage, the worst, very low amounts can be acceptable even if not ideal.

No matter what game, alt advantage refers exactly to what the words says, advantage provided by alts.

AA had many other sources of alt advantage, may it be alts advantage through Songcraft buffing on mount back advantage,the alt acting as a extra pack slot, as a coinpurse money generator or other proficiency focus due to the extra labor and much more.

Noaani

JamesSunderland wrote: »

Yes, i believe any advantage you can provide to your main character through alts is a bad thing

This just sounds like the PvP player standard of "using consumables is cheating".

If developers didn't want players using alts, they wouldn't let you make alts. You are welcome to have any other wrong opinion on the matter that you want - just be aware that any other opinion is indeed wrong.

Your Archeage examples are all referring to having a second account, not having an alt.

JamesSunderland

Noaani wrote: »

JamesSunderland wrote: »

Yes, i believe any advantage you can provide to your main character through alts is a bad thing

This just sounds like the PvP player standard of "using consumables is cheating".

If developers didn't want players using alts, they wouldn't let you make alts. You are welcome to have any other wrong opinion on the matter that you want - just be aware that any other opinion is indeed wrong.

Your Archeage examples are all referring to having a second account, not having an alt.

It depends, are we talking P2W consumables or consumables that exclusively requires an alt to be acquired?

Devs wants cash pal, why would they stop you from giving them even more cash by having an alt?

Come on Noaani, i know you can do better than that, you understand that a character in a second account is also considered an alt? right?

Noaani

JamesSunderland wrote: »

It depends, are we talking P2W consumables or consumables that exclusively requires an alt to be acquired?

In literally every PvP MMO I have played, it has been any consumable.

Devs wants cash pal, why would they stop you from giving them even more cash by having an alt?

But... we don't give them more cash for having an alt. Our subscription fee allows us to create multiple characters.

Come on Noaani, i know you can do better than that, you understand that a character in a second account is also considered an alt? right?

Indeed, but surely you remember, this is not what we are talking about.

The proposed system with making it so that profession level OR combat level dictates corruption would mean players can't use the multiple character slots their subscription fee allocates them to create crafting alts - an MMORPG staple for actual decades.

Mag7spy

I don't see anything wrong with alts for craft, just need to make it equal work to get up there and make the good items. Create reasons why its better to interact with others over trying to do every crafting skill set yourself on alts.

JamesSunderland

Noaani wrote: »

In literally every PvP MMO I have played, it has been any consumable.

Well atleast for me as a more PvP focused player, i never considered consumables "cheating" or "unfair" unless they were literally P2W.

But... we don't give them more cash for having an alt. Our subscription fee allows us to create multiple characters.

Yes, we don't give them more cash for same acc Alts(other than some game that sell character slots),
and usually same account alts provides way less advantage than second account alts can provide.
Second alt accounts providing more advantage and also costing another subscription fee can become indirect P2W.

The proposed system with making it so that profession level OR combat level dictates corruption would mean players can't use the multiple character slots their subscription fee allocates them to create crafting alts - an MMORPG staple for actual decades.

Oh, they can still use "the multiple character slots their subscription fee allocates them to create crafting alts"
its just going to have a RISK associated with that advantage(REWARD)

JamesSunderland

Mag7spy wrote: »

I don't see anything wrong with alts for craft, just need to make it equal work to get up there and make the good items. Create reasons why its better to interact with others over trying to do every crafting skill set yourself on alts.

Yep, i agree with you mag, if the crafter alt takes the same effort to "get up there" and not just staying level 1 in a freehold raising its crafting level at no risk.

Noaani

JamesSunderland wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

In literally every PvP MMO I have played, it has been any consumable.

Well atleast for me as a more PvP focused player, i never considered consumables "cheating" or "unfair" unless they were literally P2W.

What I have noticed is that many PvP players tend to just yell out to everyone that anything they can't be bothered with is somehow cheating, or is something that should be discouraged.

For some, it is using consumables. They can't be bothered buying them from other players, or making their own, so anyone that does use consumables is cheating.

For others, it is using a crafting alt.

Yes, we don't give them more cash for same acc Alts(other than some game that sell character slots),
and usually same account alts provides way less advantage than second account alts can provide.
Second alt accounts providing more advantage and also costing another subscription fee can become indirect P2W.

Not the topic we are talking about here.

Oh, they can still use "the multiple character slots their subscription fee allocates them to create crafting alts"
its just going to have a RISK associated with that advantage(REWARD)

There is already risk.

What this would do - if Intrepid were dumb enough to do it (they are not) - is remove the risk from attacking these characters, but leaving in the reward.

Child Item