We need PVE servers here's why

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tWezxjwGE8&t=5471s

JamesSunderland wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

A Level 1 Adventurer can be a max level Crafter.

Yo Dygz, do you happen to have a wiki quote or a video time stamp related to this?
I Haven't found one yet.

Haha!
I'll see if I can scrounge a quote for you , sure.

"The advancement and progression of your profession that exosts within the Artisanship path does not correlate to that of your Adventuring class."
---Steven

Mag7spy

overenchant is dumb they need to go with a modern system, we will see what they do.

JamesSunderland

@SirChancelot @Dygz

Many thanks guys, seems like i've overlooked this one!

JamesSunderland wrote: »

Many thanks guys, seems like i've overlooked this one!

Taking that in to account (you now knowing that I knew this was the intent Intrepid has had for a long time), and taking it all the way back to the origin of our discussion where I said that having corruption be based on either combat or profession level would mean players couldn't level up crafting alts (which is the intent), and where you said my opinion was based on naivety, would you care to go back to that point and conclude that your response was actually the naive one?

JamesSunderland

Noaani wrote: »

JamesSunderland wrote: »

Many thanks guys, seems like i've overlooked this one!

Taking that in to account (you now knowing that I knew this was the intent Intrepid has had for a long time), and taking it all the way back to the origin of our discussion where I said that having corruption be based on either combat or profession level would mean players couldn't level up crafting alts (which is the intent), and where you said my opinion was based on naivety, would you care to go back to that point and conclude that your response was actually the naive one?

Your Naivity in that comment was in regards to bots Noaani, it didn't changed all:

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.

If you want to challenge that statement, it is still there.

The only thing that changed is that, now i know that i will for sure have an meta lv1 Master Crafter Alt chilling in my freehold + lv 1 alts to pk lv1 bots/alts gatherers and play around corruption by deleting them and remaking new ones.

JamesSunderland wrote: »

Your Naivity in that comment was in regards to bots Noaani, it didn't changed all:

Since my point was that killing these bots isn't a deterrent, I am unsure what naivety you are talking about here is. Fact is, in a game like Ashes, where zones and dungeons will be altered, it is almost impossible to build a bot to effectively get a player to a decent farming location. As such, most bots in games with this issue tend to just leave the character at the respawn point.

Bot designers kind of do this with the knowledge that most players that suspect a bot in a game will kill that bot after reporting it - and so leaving the bot in what amounts to an afk state is the safest thing for them to do.

Reporting a bot and leaving it doing it's thing (assuming the publisher of the game is able to get to the report in any reasonable amount of time) is the most likely way to see action taken on the account.

Killing the bot will mean it slows down it's production, but it will continue.

And as I also said in that post, making a change to allow players to kill said bot is not worth making alterations to the design and intent of the game. There are other ways of dealing with bots that do not impact players at all - ways that actually work.

Noaani wrote: »

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.

How does it drastically change the overall games design to make it so low class level/high artisan level characters can be killed and award corruption based on how high their artisan level is? Because what I see it simply prevents players from avoiding the PvP mechanic of the game and simultaneously deters bot gatherers/gold sellers.

Noaani wrote: »

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.

And what about going out into the world capable of gathering high level materials with extra protection from the corruption system? Less risk for more reward is what I see there <.<

Dolyem wrote: »

Because what I see it simply prevents players from avoiding the PvP mechanic of the game and simultaneously deters bot gatherers/gold sellers.

What??!!??

Dygz wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Because what I see it simply prevents players from avoiding the PvP mechanic of the game and simultaneously deters bot gatherers/gold sellers.

What??!!??

Creating a a level 1 class/ max level artisan character to gain greater protection from PVP via giving substantially more corruption upon death while still gaining the ability to acquire high tier materials.

That doesn't give you greater protection from PvP combat.
What you seem to mean is that it increases the risk for players killing that non-combatant who is Gathering high level resources and mats.
That is part of the Ashes risk v reward design.

I don't understand how that helps anyone avoid PvP combat since you still have to progress your Artisan levels while remaining a Level 1 Adventurer.

Most of the PvP combat for Ashes is intended to take place in Battlegorunds, where PvP flagging and death penalties are disabled.

Okeydoke

Dolyem wrote: »

Creating a a level 1 class/ max level artisan character to gain greater protection from PVP via giving substantially more corruption upon death while still gaining the ability to acquire high tier materials.

We'll have to see if it works out that way. If the meta actually becomes to make level 1 characters for resource acquisition, and gathering areas become battlegrounds of level 1 alts fighting over resources...I can't see Intrepid letting that stand.

I mean in a way it'd kinda balance out. One group would have a few level 1 gatherers and a few max level players. The opposing group would have the same. The outcome would be decided by which group's max level players win the fight. The winning group's level 1s would then attack the losing groups level 1s. Losing groups level 1s can't fight back because if they flag up, the max levels will kill them.

Not sure if I've really thought that out correctly but what a ridiculous sounding scenario lol

Dygz wrote: »

That doesn't give you greater protection from PvP combat.
What you seem to mean is that it increases the risk for players killing that non-combatant who is Gathering high level resources and mats.
That is part of the Ashes risk v reward design.

It does indeed give greater protection seeing as it is a much higher amount of corruption for killing that alt than it is for killing a max level character while still acquiring the same high tier resources, as you said before it provides a much greater deterrence to pvp. It decreases the risk using a low class level alt while not decreasing the reward of the level of gathering.

Okeydoke wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Creating a a level 1 class/ max level artisan character to gain greater protection from PVP via giving substantially more corruption upon death while still gaining the ability to acquire high tier materials.

We'll have to see if it works out that way. If the meta actually becomes to make level 1 characters for resource acquisition, and gathering areas become battlegrounds of level 1 alts fighting over resources...I can't see Intrepid letting that stand.

I mean in a way it'd kinda balance out. One group would have a few level 1 gatherers and a few max level players. The opposing group would have the same. The outcome would be decided by which group's max level players win the fight. The winning group's level 1s would then attack the losing groups level 1s. Losing groups level 1s can't fight back because if they flag up, the max levels will kill them.

Not sure if I've really thought that out correctly but what a ridiculous sounding scenario lol

The way of getting around that is as simple as having escorts that kill off the level 1's you use to attack the level 1 gatherers. They turn purple or red, boom theyre 1-shotted with no corruption penalty. In the end those gathering level 1's just dont attack and they are a corruption bomb basically. Either way, it definitely needs to be tested, and at the moment its going to be one of my main things i test during alpha 2.

Dolyem wrote: »

How does it drastically change the overall games design to make it so low class level/high artisan level characters can be killed and award corruption based on how high their artisan level is?

Without that in place, it is viable for players to create a character that is a crafter and nothing else.

With it, the above it not viable.

That is a drastic change in the game - at least to some players that enjoy crafting.

It doesn't allow people to avoid PvP mechanics. If I am level 1 in my combat class, you can attack me as *probably* anything up to level 5 in your combat class without suffering anything other than normal corruption penalties.

Ferryman

Dygz wrote: »

Ferryman wrote: »

If we forget this hypothetical PvE-server thing. Ashes will have non-consensual PvP regardless players like it or not. Only time will tell which direction the corruption rules will be adjusted but it is hard to say anything for that before proper testing. Yeah I agree that it will not necessarily be that bad but at the end it depends what level is acceptable from developers mind. I am personally easy to please here because I am okay with everything.

Yeah, I mean...
We're going to have a few people at the extremes:
Some people who believe Corruption is too harsh on PvPers.
Some people who believe Ashes should have a "PvE server."

I think most of this discussion is more about explaining what the concept of a "PvE server" even means for Ashes - because PvPers tend to think that means no PvP at all, when what advocates mostly want is to have the non-consensual PvP disabled while keeping the Battlegrounds PvP enabled.

The vast majority of us commenting in this topic know that the devs should not be wasting their time creating and managing a "PvE server" at this point in development (3 years behind the original release date).
We're content to test Alpha 2 before making a judgment call.

Yeah I agree with this. No matter where the corruption rules eventually settles it will end up to the tears. Upcoming tests will show where we are with the rules and what devs think about the situation.

"PvE-server" which keeps all PvP content but only changes non-consensual owPvP to consensual owPvP is totally doable. This of course needs proper evaluation where this change impacts and what kind tweaks and design changes are then needed.

This is something that devs does not need to plan atm but they can evaluate this option later IF the owPvP causes too much distribution within the playerbase.

Developers will also have data (killboards) which shows how much e.g. ganking really happens and they can evaluate the situation based on that. Thetefore, I am not that worried if some people will complain about too harsh rules or that they get ganked all the time. These can be just single post from frustrated persons who might been unlucky for example.

NishUK

@Noaani players enjoy crafting, probably every player enjoys crafting to some degree, doesn't mean they need to be on an alt dwarf working a town and economy for multiple hours and with "shoddy" systems (that you're leaning to) comes players with more time getting more IE play 8+hrs of main character gameplay and then log on their smith or whatever during quiet periods or afterward to make some sweet profit or potential gear.

For those recluses who thoroughly enjoy the smithy or perhaps animal carer life, I hope there is an avenue for that but as a proper character doing multiple tasks.
If we're roleplaying this, you can't be a strong smithy from just crafting experience alone, you gotta get fit, you gotta get wood, you gotta work with people to get resources, utilize pack horses for huge quantities of mats from A > Home Smith/shop whatever, upkeep and maintenance of establishment, having it be an actual playing experience that is a real struggle to have as an alt or in worst case a bot or in another worse case it being so simple you can watch a movie while doing it.

NishUK wrote: »

Noaani players enjoy crafting, probably every player enjoys crafting to some degree, doesn't mean they need to be on an alt dwarf working a town and economy for multiple hours and with "shoddy" systems (that you're leaning to)

I'm not "leaning to" anything.

I am talking about the game as it has been described to us.

If we're roleplaying this, you can't be a strong smithy from just crafting experience alone, you gotta get fit, you gotta get wood, you gotta work with people to get resources, utilize pack horses for huge quantities of mats from A > Home Smith/shop whatever, upkeep and maintenance of establishment, having it be an actual playing experience that is a real struggle to have as an alt or in worst case a bot or in another worse case it being so simple you can watch a movie while doing it.

I'm not sure what all of this has to do with anything.

Sure, if you're a smith of some sort, you need wood. You don't get that yourself, you get a woodcutter to get it (actually, you probably need charcoal, but details...). Sure, you need pack horses, but you get a horse breeder to breed them for you, and you probably also get a teamster to transport your goods.

If you are a smith, you want to get as many other people doing these tasks as you can, so that you can focus on the thing that you can do better than them - smithing.

Even if we ignore all of this, what is the difference between the player doing all of those ancillary tasks on that smith, or on a different character? The rewards of all effort go to the player, not the character - so why is this such an issue?

Okeydoke wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Creating a a level 1 class/ max level artisan character to gain greater protection from PVP via giving substantially more corruption upon death while still gaining the ability to acquire high tier materials.

We'll have to see if it works out that way. If the meta actually becomes to make level 1 characters for resource acquisition, and gathering areas become battlegrounds of level 1 alts fighting over resources...I can't see Intrepid letting that stand.

I mean in a way it'd kinda balance out. One group would have a few level 1 gatherers and a few max level players. The opposing group would have the same. The outcome would be decided by which group's max level players win the fight. The winning group's level 1s would then attack the losing groups level 1s. Losing groups level 1s can't fight back because if they flag up, the max levels will kill them.

Not sure if I've really thought that out correctly but what a ridiculous sounding scenario lol

Right. Because all the mobs there will only be Level 1, also.
smdh