Before I get too Excited, PVP\PVE by Choice?

My question is, will pvp\pve be separated? Or will this be a forced pvp game?

From some of the videos I have been watching, it looks like you will have to pvp to maintain your housing. Is this the case or will there also be pve housing that is just where you go for some buildcraft?

Is the game open world pvp too, or can you choose to do some immersive questing or relaxing gathering without being ganked? Sometimes I like the intensity of pvp but I am a much bigger fan of immersive content.

Before the hardcore types get too judgy, I like the idea of a massive world with content to suit a large population so that the MMO-world feels beyond immense. Im not sure why developers have decided to cater to one small aspect of a game when this only leads to creating a game that seems small and finite, in both what a player can do in the game and how long the game can hold players' attention spans.

I have never had long queues for WvW, Arenas, or Battlegrounds so I never understand why developers are willing to lose such a large amount of revenue from players who do not want pvp, or only want to pvp on their terms.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Sengarden

@Orobahn
I think the best thing about the PvX systems they have going so far is that if you’re primarily a PvE player and don’t want to engage in one-on-one PvP, or just want to be generally safer in the open world... just get involved in the community. Join a guild. Talk to people. Make friends. Go out and do things together for safety in numbers.

Too many people play MMOs expecting a single player RPG with co-op lobbies for more PvE content. You’re not actually changing the world with your community, you’re just playing an interactive movie that’s being spoonfed to you. While there are games that do this well and are quite popular, this is a game with a strong foundation of community involvement and community consequences. You will join a segment of that community and live in a dynamic world together on shared terms. It will be unlike any MMO experience you’ve had before, I can guarantee it.

Dygz

Nope. Just don't fight back and give your PKers Corruption.
Has nothing to do with how many other people are involved in PvP combat - with you or against you.
It's about not wanting to participate in PvP at all when PvP is the last thing you want to be doing in the game at that time.

And, yeah, in Ashes, even when you are adventuring or harvesting completely solo, you are still contributing to changing the world and the community of Verra.

Vaccine

Dygz wrote: »

Nope. Just don't fight back and give your PKers Corruption.
Has nothing to do with how many other people are involved in PvP combat - with you or against you.
It's about not wanting to participate in PvP at all when PvP is the last thing you want to be doing in the game at that time.

And, yeah, in Ashes, even when you are adventuring or harvesting completely solo, you are still contributing to changing the world and the community of Verra.

I'm still reading about the PvP rules myself. How does it work if you DO fight back, do they not go up in corruption? I would assume the ACT of attacking someone gains you corruption, not per se if they fight back or not.

Sengarden

Dygz wrote: »

Nope. Just don't fight back and give your PKers Corruption.
Has nothing to do with how many other people are involved in PvP combat - with you or against you.
It's about not wanting to participate in PvP at all when PvP is the last thing you want to be doing in the game at that time.

And, yeah, in Ashes, even when you are adventuring or harvesting completely solo, you are still contributing to changing the world and the community of Verra.

I mean... You're definitely an easier target if you're just by yourself. If being killed from time to time is inevitable, and an event OP seems to want to avoid as often as possible, they might as well make it happen less often by making themselves a less attractive target, yes? I'm not so much suggesting they get involved in group PvP as an alternative to solo PvP, merely suggesting that an organized group is less likely to attract rogue murderers than one person out in the world alone.

I think I see where you're coming from though, in that by joining a large group instead of being alone, you're also theoretically "signing up" for group PvP at some point, which is a whole other can of worms apart from being ganked in the woods, and can potentially be more of a delay than just being ganked and walking back to your spot. But the loss of goods is manageable if you and a group of people put some effort into being attacked less often and choosing to be stronger together than you each are alone.

Either way, yes, corruption will limit the amount of unsolicited open world PvP going on at any point in time, and your impact on the world will still carry weight whether you choose to pursue PvE-centric activities alone or with others.

Dygz

Vaccine wrote: »

I'm still reading about the PvP rules myself. How does it work if you DO fight back, do they not go up in corruption? I would assume the ACT of attacking someone gains you corruption, not per se if they fight back or not.

Corruption is gained when a player character kills a Non-Combatant (someone who does not fight back).
A person who is attacked can choose to fight back and flag as a Combatant. No Corruption is accrued when a Combatant is killed.
So, no...attacking someone is fair play. Killing a Non-Combatant is severely penalized.

Asgerr

Dygz wrote: »

Nope. Just don't fight back and give your PKers Corruption.
Has nothing to do with how many other people are involved in PvP combat - with you or against you.
It's about not wanting to participate in PvP at all when PvP is the last thing you want to be doing in the game at that time.

And, yeah, in Ashes, even when you are adventuring or harvesting completely solo, you are still contributing to changing the world and the community of Verra.

That will depend on what you're carrying on you.

If you fight back you reduce the amount of lost materials and other death penalties by half. So, whilst you could "screw" them and give them corruption, you will also have to gauge whether you're OK with dropping a percentage of your stuff, or if you'd rather reduce that.

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_death

A non-combatant (green player) who dies suffers normal penalties, which include:

Experience debt (negative experience).
Skill and stat dampening.
Lower health and mana.
Lower gear proficiency.
Reduction in drop rates from monsters.
Durability loss.

A combatant (purple player) who dies suffers these same penalties, but at half the rate of a non-combatant.

Dygz

Sengarden wrote: »

I mean... You're definitely an easier target if you're just by yourself. If being killed from time to time is inevitable, and an event OP seems to want to avoid as often as possible, they might as well make it happen less often by making themselves a less attractive target, yes? I'm not so much suggesting they get involved in group PvP as an alternative to solo PvP, merely suggesting that an organized group is less likely to attract rogue murderers than one person out in the world alone.

I'm not really sure how you're measuring the ease of targeting, there.
In an MMORPG, it's very likely I'm going to be killed from time to time - in a variety of ways.
The OP wants to avoid being forced into PvP combat as much as possible.
In Ashes, Corruption is the primary deterrent for unwanted PvP combat...ganking.
Who gets killed is not necessarily even a relevant factor. PvPers assume that the concern is jut about being killed in PvP. They don't seem to be able to fathom that some people just don't want to have anything to do with PvP combat when they aren't in the mood for PvP combat. Doesn't matter who wins or loses.

Remaining a Non-Combatant increases the risk for the attacker - and greatly the death penalties for the attacker if the attacker kills the Non-Combatant. You make yourself a less attractive target by remaining a Non-Combatant. That also makes that PvP encounter end as quickly as possible.

Sengarden wrote: »

I think I see where you're coming from though, in that by joining a large group instead of being alone, you're also theoretically "signing up" for group PvP at some point, which is a whole other can of worms apart from being ganked in the woods, and can potentially be more of a delay than just being ganked and walking back to your spot. But the loss of goods is manageable if you and a group of people put some effort into being attacked less often and choosing to be stronger together than you each are alone.

I think it just doesn't matter much whether I'm with a group.
Could be there is a rogue PKer roaming about hunting soloers.
Could be there is a group of PKers roaming about hunting groups.
Whether I get ganked solo or while in a group - my best option to avoid being forced into unwanted PvP combat is to remain as a Non-Combatant.
Corruption and the respawn mechanics are the primary features that minimize the loss of goods.
And, in an RPG, Strength is not the only attribute available for us to rely on to avoid being attacked.

Sengarden wrote: »

Either way, yes, corruption will limit the amount of unsolicited open world PvP going on at any point in time, and your impact on the world will still carry weight whether you choose to pursue PvE-centric activities alone or with others.

SirChancelot

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

But did the weak people drop 25-50% of their stuff?

Imo weak people won't have valuable resources. We'll see how it works out in Ashes though, maybe I'm wrong on that assumption.

With how crafting oriented ashes is going to be won't the lower levels still be worth something if you steal a chunk of mats?

Azherae

SirChancelot wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

But did the weak people drop 25-50% of their stuff?

Imo weak people won't have valuable resources. We'll see how it works out in Ashes though, maybe I'm wrong on that assumption.

With how crafting oriented ashes is going to be won't the lower levels still be with someone if you steal a chunk of mats?

I also disagree with this perspective @NiKr, because it's lowkey saying something very negative for the game, I think.

It is pretty hard to find a logical path that doesn't end up at:

"People who are lower level or weaker in PvP skills will have less of an impact on the game individually."

It's the only way I can see 'not having valuable resources' to be true, even with resource tiers. And since, for example, you never really know if that person on a shore is a high level Fisherperson , your incentive, particularly if you have an aquatic mount, is to hit-and-run them.

Coastal fishing is going to be extremely interesting because of this, from both the attacker and defender sides... or alternately 'people who aren't great at PvP/high enough level won't really get to fish much'. That's fine, risk vs reward, and fishing communities are among the easiest to protect, rather than attack, but... yeah.

Sengarden

Dygz wrote: »

And, in an RPG, Strength is not the only attribute available for us to rely on to avoid being attacked.

I think one particular element of Ashes that will help to prevent "ganking" from being as frustrating as it can be in other games is that (if I'm not mistaken) "stealth" in this game isn't full invisibility like it tends to be in other MMOs. Whenever I'd play on a PvP server in WoW, for instance, I never minded when someone would come up and try to get at me. If they caught me not looking around in a potentially dangerous area, shame on me. But nothing ever made the experience of getting sapped and having half my health taken away in 2 seconds by a completely invisible rogue any less mind-numbingly frustrating.

Ludullu

SirChancelot wrote: »

With how crafting oriented ashes is going to be won't the lower levels still be worth something if you steal a chunk of mats?

Azherae wrote: »

I also disagree with this perspective NiKr, because it's lowkey saying something very negative for the game, I think.
It is pretty hard to find a logical path that doesn't end up at:

"People who are lower level or weaker in PvP skills will have less of an impact on the game individually."

It's the only way I can see 'not having valuable resources' to be true, even with resource tiers. And since, for example, you never really know if that person on a shore is a high level Fisherperson , your incentive, particularly if you have an aquatic mount, is to hit-and-run them.

Coastal fishing is going to be extremely interesting because of this, from both the attacker and defender sides... or alternately 'people who aren't great at PvP/high enough level won't really get to fish much'. That's fine, risk vs reward, and fishing communities are among the easiest to protect, rather than attack, but... yeah.

Ok, I see your points. I should've worded it more correctly around my own pov on pvping. I will not be pvping around locations where low lvl adventurers would be present.

And even if I did, some small fraction of their resources will be nothing for me, because I'll have time to just farm those resources myself on an alt. And that is why, to me, their death would be of low value. Risking losing my gear over some 10 wood or some shit like that is nothing, when I could just go to my alt and get the same amount of wood in a few minutes.

And if that low lvl player was farming some deep high lvl location - they're most likely protected by high lvl players, so I wouldn't even try attacking them if I was alone.

Azherae

NiKr wrote: »

SirChancelot wrote: »

With how crafting oriented ashes is going to be won't the lower levels still be worth something if you steal a chunk of mats?

Azherae wrote: »

I also disagree with this perspective NiKr, because it's lowkey saying something very negative for the game, I think.
It is pretty hard to find a logical path that doesn't end up at:

"People who are lower level or weaker in PvP skills will have less of an impact on the game individually."

It's the only way I can see 'not having valuable resources' to be true, even with resource tiers. And since, for example, you never really know if that person on a shore is a high level Fisherperson , your incentive, particularly if you have an aquatic mount, is to hit-and-run them.

Coastal fishing is going to be extremely interesting because of this, from both the attacker and defender sides... or alternately 'people who aren't great at PvP/high enough level won't really get to fish much'. That's fine, risk vs reward, and fishing communities are among the easiest to protect, rather than attack, but... yeah.

Ok, I see your points. I should've worded it more correctly around my own pov on pvping. I will not be pvping around locations where low lvl adventurers would be present.

And even if I did, some small fraction of their resources will be nothing for me, because I'll have time to just farm those resources myself on an alt. And that is why, to me, their death would be of low value. Risking losing my gear over some 10 wood or some shit like that is nothing, when I could just go to my alt and get the same amount of wood in a few minutes.

And if that low lvl player was farming some deep high lvl location - they're most likely protected by high lvl players, so I wouldn't even try attacking them if I was alone.

Well, bear in mind that the 'you can drop gear at any level of Corruption' was only clarified/added recently, and while it does definitely change the dynamic, Node centric behavior is different.

You often note that you don't have the same perspective on PvP and econ behaviour as I do and I should share it, so...

Taking other people's stuff, particularly people who rely on the income for that stuff, is far more effective 'Economic PvP' than gathering your own stuff. The effects on the market are multiplied very quickly, you have not just taken control of some supply, you have reduced supply entirely.

At the end of the day, Gatherer A wants or needs to make money (they still lose durability and such when the attacker kills them if said attacker succeeds afaik), if you take their money, they must find a new way to make money, siphon money from someone else, or do the same activity again and take the risk again.

Material Advantage. This is a chess game to me, not a race. Making the chosen opponent lose is technically much more valuable than winning, because whereas the Corrupted player incurs losses, everyone else in their 'supported market' potentially makes gains.

tl;dr kill unsanctioned fisherfolk near your coastal node! Support your local fishers!

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

tl;dr kill unsanctioned fisherfolk near your coastal node! Support your local fishers!

I'm planning on being a mayor of a divine node (cause I got time to do quests) and will just "enemy of the state" such bastards.

Outside of that, pvp for me is usually purely fighting. In L2 that pure fighting mainly happened around farming spots just because you spent the most time there, so most pvp could be seen as a "fighting for you spot" action, and it definitely was that sometimes, but to me it was just "I'm farming. Someone came to farm and decided to fight me for it. I fight back."

So the economy part of pvping in Ashes won't matter to me that much. Though I guess I should clarify further. OWPVP won't be economical. I will obviously attack caravans/node enemies/other nodes mainly because that's an economical attack. But all the other random pvp encounters will mainly be just "fight for fight's sake".

Though all of this, for me, is in my biased context of "I spend 10+h a day in one location farming mobs". Intrepid allege that this won't be a thing in Ashes, so there's a chance that most of my pvp will be economical just because I'll be fighting wars and caravans.

Bluemax717

Orobahn wrote: »

My question is, will pvp\pve be separated? Or will this be a forced pvp game?

From some of the videos I have been watching, it looks like you will have to pvp to maintain your housing. Is this the case or will there also be pve housing that is just where you go for some buildcraft?

Is the game open world pvp too, or can you choose to do some immersive questing or relaxing gathering without being ganked? Sometimes I like the intensity of pvp but I am a much bigger fan of immersive content

As It stands now, it is open world PVP. Aka forced PVP. There are several aspects of game design not explained fully nor do we know how PVP will tie in with some of those systems. We just have to wait and see how attacking free player housing, in city areas, safe zones (if any) and numerous other mechanics will be at final release.

Also the systems we see at launch will change over time. It will depend on what the game designers deem acceptable and if they care how many people quit the game over those PVP mechanics. You have to consider the people vocalizing on this form are usually parrots of their favorite streamer or content creator right now. Ever notice how everyone is magically a 15 year veteran of nothing but "hardcore" dead MMO games? That's the feedback you are going to receive right now given the current state of development and how groups of people are receiving their information right now. Regardless of peoples feelings, MMO players have changed over the years. This game will change over time to reflect those changes or it will ultimately be a very very very small MMO.

So when it comes to pre-ordering or whatever you are trying to decide, you must realize what the current game designer has stated his ideology to be for this game. You have to accept they may never sway away from those principals. They might be 100% perfectly fine with a sub 200k player base. Or they might give and take on some of their ideology to retain millions of players.

Nobody has all the answers you are looking for right now.

Azherae

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

tl;dr kill unsanctioned fisherfolk near your coastal node! Support your local fishers!

I'm planning on being a mayor of a divine node (cause I got time to do quests) and will just "enemy of the state" such bastards.

Outside of that, pvp for me is usually purely fighting. In L2 that pure fighting mainly happened around farming spots just because you spent the most time there, so most pvp could be seen as a "fighting for you spot" action, and it definitely was that sometimes, but to me it was just "I'm farming. Someone came to farm and decided to fight me for it. I fight back."

So the economy part of pvping in Ashes won't matter to me that much. Though I guess I should clarify further. OWPVP won't be economical. I will obviously attack caravans/node enemies/other nodes mainly because that's an economical attack. But all the other random pvp encounters will mainly be just "fight for fight's sake".

Though all of this, for me, is in my biased context of "I spend 10+h a day in one location farming mobs". Intrepid allege that this won't be a thing in Ashes, so there's a chance that most of my pvp will be economical just because I'll be fighting wars and caravans.

I think this may be the biggest difference between L2 and Ashes, from research I did a while back when theorycrafting a playstyle.

'Drop up to half your gathered resources and certificates on death' is a BIG incentive for me. In a game without this, where the player suffers something else or is slightly inconvenienced, I would play more like you because the 'benefit to PvP' would be the fight itself or 'getting to keep the farm', and there would be no calculation to do.

"Territory Control" on the scale added by economically driven OWPvP is a different beast.

"A New Incentive Has Appeared!"

SirChancelot

Azherae wrote: »

SirChancelot wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

But did the weak people drop 25-50% of their stuff?

Imo weak people won't have valuable resources. We'll see how it works out in Ashes though, maybe I'm wrong on that assumption.

With how crafting oriented ashes is going to be won't the lower levels still be with someone if you steal a chunk of mats?

I also disagree with this perspective @NiKr, because it's lowkey saying something very negative for the game, I think.

It is pretty hard to find a logical path that doesn't end up at:

"People who are lower level or weaker in PvP skills will have less of an impact on the game individually."

It's the only way I can see 'not having valuable resources' to be true, even with resource tiers. And since, for example, you never really know if that person on a shore is a high level Fisherperson , your incentive, particularly if you have an aquatic mount, is to hit-and-run them.

Coastal fishing is going to be extremely interesting because of this, from both the attacker and defender sides... or alternately 'people who aren't great at PvP/high enough level won't really get to fish much'. That's fine, risk vs reward, and fishing communities are among the easiest to protect, rather than attack, but... yeah.

Fishing is an interesting point, but it could be broken up.
I could picture something like this
Low level fishing in lakes and rivers
Mid level in coastal areas
High level being deep sea needing a boat

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

'Drop up to half your gathered resources and certificates on death' is a BIG incentive for me. In a game without this, where the player suffers something else or is slightly inconvenienced, I would play more like you because the 'benefit to PvP' would be the fight itself or 'getting to keep the farm', and there would be no calculation to do.

Do we have any concrete word on the "up to half" part? I think I've always heard "a fraction". If it is truly up to half their inventory of gatherables, my pov might change, but so far I've been operating on a "no more than 20%, if even that". Cause as I see it, if people can drop 50% of their shit from a gank - Ashes in a much more dangerous place than I thought.

Warth

SirChancelot wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

But did the weak people drop 25-50% of their stuff?

Imo weak people won't have valuable resources. We'll see how it works out in Ashes though, maybe I'm wrong on that assumption.

With how crafting oriented ashes is going to be won't the lower levels still be worth something if you steal a chunk of mats?

I don't know any MMO where low levels hold things that are valued so highly that you would risk losing your gear, 100% of the mats you hold, several hours of making up negative exp or several hours of getting rid of the corruption.

Do you @SirChancelot ?

From an economic standpoint, i do not see any reason for a high level player to gank a normal low level player since the high level player can usually do something else that awards 10x the mats with 1/5 of the hassle attached to it.

Azherae

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

'Drop up to half your gathered resources and certificates on death' is a BIG incentive for me. In a game without this, where the player suffers something else or is slightly inconvenienced, I would play more like you because the 'benefit to PvP' would be the fight itself or 'getting to keep the farm', and there would be no calculation to do.

Do we have any concrete word on the "up to half" part? I think I've always heard "a fraction". If it is truly up to half their inventory of gatherables, my pov might change, but so far I've been operating on a "no more than 20%, if even that". Cause as I see it, if people can drop 50% of their shit from a gank - Ashes in a much more dangerous place than I thought.

No idea, I'm sure it will be subject to testing. It was half in Alpha-1, so.

I will assume that in Alpha-2 they will set it to their intended value, since it won't be a valid test if not (I'd also expect them to test many different numbers).

They were not testing Corruption or PvP behavioural incentives of this type in Alpha-1, so there's no reason to assume 50% is the default, but it IS a weird value to set it to, to start with, if your 'design space' is all the way at 20%, even if you are doing max-effect testing.

Warth

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

'Drop up to half your gathered resources and certificates on death' is a BIG incentive for me. In a game without this, where the player suffers something else or is slightly inconvenienced, I would play more like you because the 'benefit to PvP' would be the fight itself or 'getting to keep the farm', and there would be no calculation to do.

Do we have any concrete word on the "up to half" part? I think I've always heard "a fraction". If it is truly up to half their inventory of gatherables, my pov might change, but so far I've been operating on a "no more than 20%, if even that". Cause as I see it, if people can drop 50% of their shit from a gank - Ashes in a much more dangerous place than I thought.

@NiKr there is none. This was never said. I think he confuses it with losing half when being purple.

With this being said, I'd be all for:

Combatants losing 25% of the inventory
Non-Combatants losing 50%
Corrupted losing 100%

Child Item