There are many facets that will drive potential players away. Just the same as some of those facets will bring more players in. We will see how big the drop off rates will be at the different markers for the play time added to each package - the 9 months marker being the highest end. Not sure how many lifetime subs were sold. Such is the bane of open development and such is the bane of changes made to concepts. One can never tell if the effects will be positive or negative. At least the combat updates have generally been positive so far - if not the substance of the combat.
The trend in games is not positive at the moment. All games have lost 90 to 95% of players in less than a year in recent years - even Elden Ring and Minecraft. Thus, Ashes has an uphill battle already. We can't change the corruption system substantially because there are too many factions that all want different changes - therefore, no changes can occur because all other changes would have to be side-lined or implemented too and that means a total overhaul of the corruption system.
The idea to put in a buffer is the same argument some people used to have of making Streamers immune. It simply is not fair for anyone except those who directly benefit. Thus, it won't or can't be implemented.
Since the game will not launch soon (probably 2+ y before launch) is not too difficould to modify system inside the game like the corruption one, and onestly this system is going on from 2000, so with the new tecnology is possible to do much more. They just need to think how can improve it instead of copy paste L2 or other similar games (quite similar to that and i dont see anything new in this system).
PvE players would be even less inclined to fight back.
PvE players simply find PvP (usually world PvP) annoing and DONT want to do it no matter what. Even if you say that after a PvP kills you will gather 100% more resource the vast majority of PvE players will still try to avoid PvP XD
If you want to farm players in peace without risk of consequences ... Ashes isn't going to quench that thirst either.
Well, the only penalty that you cant avoid is the loss of exp and if you cant go back in levels (for now we dont know) is something that doenst matter, all the other "penalty" can be avoided in many "non intended (I hope they are not inteded) ways"
@Dygz - hehe, I plan on quoting this ironically and out of context liberally.
@Asraiel - I think your suggestion is in line with a few others over the past years to 'soften' (may not be the right word) the PvE experience in a PvX world. My concern is with this suggestion (as with the others) is that I don't want to add ways to differentiate PvE activity from PvP activity. I really want Ashes to just have PvX activity, and being attacked randomly is part of that PvX reality.
So the chance that someone gets killed without firstly trying to fight back or cc its attackers are slim to none existing and the system instantly flags the attacked player as combatant the moment he starts defending and fighting back or cc. And so a kill won't mark the attacker as a red or corrupt player.
Sorry but your premise is non-existent and based purely on your opinion, therefore the "problem" and "solutions" you're discussing are also fictional.
There's enough motivation to both fight back and not fight back:
Fight back: if you die, you'll only lose half of the mats you would otherwise (25% of the total).
Not fight back: you'll lose half of the mats you have (50% of the total), but the aggressor will become red, so you can come back, kill them and get a chance of dropping their gear.
To me it feels like you're creating a situation which is false and using it to hide the real reason why you want opt-in PvP and/or other weird (and bad) ideas:
This would not alter the planned flagging system but opts in a little extra safety and protection to those that will primarily play the game in pve and protects partly from the primarily instinctive biological reaction to protect against attacks. and not getting to feel the hard punishment if getting killed and so getting the feel of depression.
I chuckled with the "this would not alter the planned flagging system", it's like lying to yourself.
You want safety for some players in a game that, from the very start, is not safe and will, hopefully, never be safe. More recently New World showed why anything with "opt-in" in its name is a bad idea, but it wasn't the first game to do it (and fail at it).
I honestly laughed with the "punishment if (of) getting killed and getting the feel of depression". It's like playing a PvP game like CSGO and crying when you get killed by someone. If you feel depressed because you died in an online game and lost stuff, you should either not play a PvP game with loot on death or look for professional help.
Sometimes I get the feeling that people who literally never played a game where dying isn't safe now want to play a game where there is loot on death, but instead of facing it or not playing the game, they want the game to change for them. Ludicrous.
TL;DR: Stop trying to create excuses and blaming imaginary reasons for your dislike of not being safe anywhere from being killed and dropping some loot. You might think you are a "PvX" player, but unfortunately you are not. You only want to PvP when you want to PvP, which by definition, is a PvE player. In Ashes, there's no such thing as consensual PvP, and there never will be.
A:
Its always quite amusing when people speak out against the currently planned corruption system with the argument, that an overwhelming majority of players are only interested in PvE.
Mate, if an overwhelming majority of players is only interested in PvE on your server, then you wont get ganked a lot either and the problem you are describing is literally solved before it even became one.
B:
The current planned flagging system is at least something however i don't believe that it will lead to many players getting red flagged. Normal human behavior is upon being attacked you instinctively protect and fight back. This doesn't only apply to Real Life it also goes into Virtual World behavior. So the chance that someone gets killed without firstly trying to fight back or cc its attackers are slim to none existing and the system instantly flags the attacked player as combatant the moment he starts defending and fighting back or cc. And so a kill won't mark the attacker as a red or corrupt player.
Thats pretty much were your entire argument falls apart for me.
There is nothing "instinctual" about defending yourself in AoC.
You have to press a key combination to even be able to hit back. Thats a conscious decision, not an instinctual response. If people want to fight back, they may. If people dont want to, they dont have to. Its their choice. Also, the reduced death penalty is designed to be an incentive towards fighting back, nothing else. If people indeed fight back constantly, then it did exactly what it was meant to do.
C:
The only time you should ever be caught off guard when ganked, is when its perpetrated by someone with stealth. If you dont see a Mage casting a fire ball at you or a purple warrior running towards you, then thats on you for not paying attention.
I chuckled with the "this would not alter the planned flagging system", it's like lying to yourself.
You want safety for some players in a game that, from the very start, is not safe and will, hopefully, never be safe. More recently New World showed why anything with "opt-in" in its name is a bad idea, but it wasn't the first game to do it (and fail at it).
I honestly laughed with the "punishment if (of) getting killed and getting the feel of depression". It's like playing a PvP game like CSGO and crying when you get killed by someone. If you feel depressed because you died in an online game and lost stuff, you should either not play a PvP game with loot on death or look for professional help.
Sometimes I get the feeling that people who literally never played a game where dying isn't safe now want to play a game where there is loot on death, but instead of facing it or not playing the game, they want the game to change for them. Ludicrous.TL;DR: Stop trying to create excuses and blaming imaginary reasons for your dislike of not being safe anywhere from being killed and dropping some loot. You might think you are a "PvX" player, but unfortunately you are not. You only want to PvP when you want to PvP, which by definition, is a PvE player. In Ashes, there's no such thing as consensual PvP, and there never will be.
Cheers, couldnt have said it better. Actually, the moment you started the game you consented to the possibility of being ganked. So id say its indeed consensual.
This topic this idea has its focus alone on a system that automates things in the game without the need of interaction from the support. all the infos about what the game and its systems could be are yet mostly written in the wiki and leaked thru offical statements or dev stream. until alpha 2 a lot is still clouded in mist.
one major thing that is yet nowere to be seen is the Rules and the Terms of use opon which player need to agree in order to create an account. many things that to this point in development isnt zemented in the game may chage or will have in addion some written rules to it instead of selfmaintaining systems. so that certain cases of pvp or non pvp interaction may get punisheble by the support if reported in.
as mentioned many times i see the open development progress and the nature of the project where the fanbase is asked frequently about their thoughts as oportunity to share ideas i have about the game. with the primarly objection to reach those in charge to may give a imput that may or may not lead to something simular or even something new. i and as well ever fan if supporter or not has the same power to actualy change how the game will be in numbers that power is 0.
the moment the topic is read by officals the topic has forfilled its purpose. if we as fans of the project think its good or bad doesnt matter.
Steven and John are the heads of the project if they are happy with the game as it is, we may join in and play the game developed for them and their team.
i will keep on posting whenever a idea comes to my mind to share it with the team (usualy more than 7 day prozess befor opening a topic)
i myself as a pvx hardcore player with enouth freetime to play 12h a day will definetly be there to burry your corpses. i simply have a heart for those that wanna enjoy more the lore and the pve content of the game.
see you killed by my meteor storm xD
PS: Let me know in advance which type of tombstone you prefer.
Do your resource gathering on your lower-level alt (2nd account alt, if you do that) and have your higher level main camped hidden in the area. If some dude who thinks he is tough attacks your gathering alt, let the alt die and the attacker go red. Then swoop down with your main and kill the fool and pick up his weapon if he drops it. You might even want the alt naked, so he goes down in one shot.
There is an old thread on 'Alt Bait Tactic' that goes into some detail on this.
Do your resource gathering on your lower-level alt (2nd account alt, if you do that) and have your higher level main camped hidden in the area. If some dude who thinks he is tough attacks your gathering alt, let the alt die and the attacker go red. Then swoop down with your main and kill the fool and pick up his weapon if he drops it. You might even want the alt naked, so he goes down in one shot.
There is an old thread on 'Alt Bait Tactic' that goes into some detail on this.
Oh hey! I am asking about this in the Q&A! Last week it almost made it onto the dev talk!
Non-Combatants have normal death penalties when killed by a PvP attack. The same amount as if killed by a mob.
If you don't fight back and your attacker doesn't kill you because they don't want to suffer 4x the normal death penalties, you lose 0 resources.
And, giving your attacker Corruption not only ends the unwanted PvP combat as quickly as possible, but also deters future PKs.
that's cute, imagine not flagging, not reducing all your penalties by 50% to get the other guy red..... when he can use consumables and grind of his corruption and later on showing up as a green again saying "thx for the loot"
corrupted does not equal dead if you are smart about it, yall will learn this soon.
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2022
Corrupted doesn’t equal dead in any case…Corrupted equals Corrupted, but they will die at some point.
And… they will waste more time getting rid of their Corruption and death penalties than I will from one death where I did not fight back.
Normal death penalty is not a problem.
The Corrupted player is welcome to the loot.
I dunno why you think they’re going to be able to find me again so easily.
I really don't like opt-in systems.
You can abuse it by being disruptive/annoying without any possible retribution. Imagine if someone can try and steal your boss or contest your farming spot and you can't attack them because they didn't opt-in?
Ashes was designed a specific way, and I want to play the game they have in mind. And I see a lot of comments from people who want it to be a different game.
We need to see if the current design and values achieve the intended goals during testing, but I feel like the current design should work pretty well.
"So the chance that someone gets killed without firstly trying to fight back or cc its attackers are slim to none existing"
I disagree with this.
Since that's the basis of the perception, I also then disagree with the idea as a whole.
I also disagree with it because the system already literally does this. If you fight back, you already have a '-50% lootability'. The thing it is 'adding' is a lot of complexity around this which allows one to 'continue fighting without getting flagged. Which I think is a problem in healer-fighter duos, for example.
If you are implying that a healer can heal someone who is flagged without getting flagged themselves, i'd really doubt that'll be the case.
I don't think most of us want to see a corrupt player with 40 healers going around and decimating small villages(okay, maybe once... but that's it lol). If it's not a thing on Alpha 2 launch, my guess is it will be shortly after.
I think the only issue that comes into question with dropping loot on death is how gear repair works. You don't want to get into and pit of having died so many times you've dropped everything you have in regards to resources and every piece of gear is broken so your chances of repairing anything have basically gone down the drain and you are reliant of people giving you resources to get back on your feet. If this is not the case, as in repairing only cots money and you don't drop money on death then I don't see dropping resources as a problem. Considering how expensive certain things are such as buying plots of land I think dropping your money as well as what resources you have on you is a bit much, but again until this is tested in A2 we will have to see what works and what doesn't.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
We don’t drop money when we die.
And, there’s no reason to be dying so many times your gear breaks.
Ashes doesn’t have corpse runs.
All I have to say is EVERY single MMO that has appeased the masses to protect them against "gankers and griefers" has, in the end, failed.
4
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
EQ and WoW have not failed yet.
Protecting the masses against "gankers and griefers" works fine there.
Typically it's the MMORPGs that don't protect the masses against "griefers and gankers" that fail.
EvE being a notable exception.
The trend in games is not positive at the moment. All games have lost 90 to 95% of players in less than a year in recent years - even Elden Ring and Minecraft. Thus, Ashes has an uphill battle already. We can't change the corruption system substantially because there are too many factions that all want different changes - therefore, no changes can occur because all other changes would have to be side-lined or implemented too and that means a total overhaul of the corruption system.
The idea to put in a buffer is the same argument some people used to have of making Streamers immune. It simply is not fair for anyone except those who directly benefit. Thus, it won't or can't be implemented. I still believe the death penalties should be reviewed but then PvE players would be even less inclined to fight back.
Of course single player games like Elden Ring loose 90% of it player base after the players finish the game they dont have a reason to stick around and play more they done there story line
The problem we have is the devs have added a stupid system of drops being related to combat stance. Its a stupid notion because it doesn't incentivise PvP, it also does not decentivise PvP. Everyone should just drop the same amount of resources. This would then stop players seeking greens for bigger payloads and it also stops greens from quitting because they are forced to turn purple to cut down on resource loss.
I completely agree, either they drop the same amount, OR swap it! If you want to be a non-combatant because you want to focus on pve, make it slightly less incentivizing to attack a green. Keeping combatants fighting other combatants.
0
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Or just play the game as it is.
It is a conscious choice by Steven and the team to incentivize and prioritize PvX.
Why try to divide the community?
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
even if this topic may not bring the answer it should be known the planed system has to much potential to scare off potential players.
Yes, definitely.
I think to make it less of a potential to scare off players, the system should punish them less, but not remove the ability to attack them completely.
All players should be attackable
Green players (if they dont attack back aka stay stationary, etc) should be penalized the least. That way the combatant player gets less reward for killing them AND gets the 4x death pentalty
If a Green player responds, they become a combatant and then can be looted, etc. just like any other combatant.
Combatants can fight other combatants and have normal death penalties.
I feel this somewhat helps lessen the sting for pve players, but doesn't remove them completely from pvp combat.
I for one will likely stay a combatant as I like pvp, but I also don't plan to go around ganking greens. But I see this as a good compromise.
1
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
LMAO
So... you mean PvEers shoud have the least amount of risk and have the least incentive to flag for random PvP combat.
That's not going to achieve the goals for Ashes to be an open world PvX game if the majority of the playerbase has little incentive to flag for random, open world PvP combat.
LMAO
So... you mean PvEers shoud have the least amount of risk and have the least incentive to flag for random PvP combat.
That's not going to achieve the goals for Ashes to be an open world PvX game if the majority of the playerbase has little incentive to flag for random, open world PvP combat.
Yes, I think they should lose less, but still lose. I dont know what the exact amount will be, but lets say you lose 50% of gathered items and/or gold, they should still lose like 20-30%.
That should still sting (possibly enough to fight back in the chance they might win and not lose anything), but not enough if they ABSOLUTELY hate pvp. The Ganker would still get a small reward (20-30% of their stuff) but also get the increased death penalty which might make them thing twice before ganking a green.
I think with that change, it will be possibly more appealing to attack other combatants, but still leave non-combatants on the table as prey (seeing that 20-30% of their stuff would likely be a nice amount if they had been out gathering, etc)
EDIT: A non-combatant for sure should not loose MORE than someone flagged as a combatant. At bare minimum, combatants and non-combatants should lose the same amount.
1
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2022
Um. No.
It should be exactly as currently designed:
Non-Combatants should lose the normal amount. Combatants are rewarded for flagging for PvP by losing half the normal amount. PvEers are rewarded for doing something they wouldn't normally enjoy doing.
That's what helps make Ashes a PvX game.
Of course single player games like Elden Ring loose 90% of it player base after the players finish the game they dont have a reason to stick around and play more they done there story line
I meant the upward trend stopped and the downward trend started. A lot of MMOs are designed around solo play (BDO being a prime example), that still means the figures are fucked. Although, I do own Elden Ring but its still in the wrapper. I haven't played the game yet.
Comments
And that's totally OK.
Steven has already made it clear that a PvX game is not going to be for everyone.
If players want to farm resources in peace without risk of PvP ... Ashes isn't going to quench that thirst.
If players want to farm other players in peace without risk of consequences ... Ashes isn't going to quench that thirst either.
Since the game will not launch soon (probably 2+ y before launch) is not too difficould to modify system inside the game like the corruption one, and onestly this system is going on from 2000, so with the new tecnology is possible to do much more. They just need to think how can improve it instead of copy paste L2 or other similar games (quite similar to that and i dont see anything new in this system).
PvE players simply find PvP (usually world PvP) annoing and DONT want to do it no matter what. Even if you say that after a PvP kills you will gather 100% more resource the vast majority of PvE players will still try to avoid PvP XD
Edit:
Well, the only penalty that you cant avoid is the loss of exp and if you cant go back in levels (for now we dont know) is something that doenst matter, all the other "penalty" can be avoided in many "non intended (I hope they are not inteded) ways"
@Dygz - hehe, I plan on quoting this ironically and out of context liberally.
@Asraiel - I think your suggestion is in line with a few others over the past years to 'soften' (may not be the right word) the PvE experience in a PvX world. My concern is with this suggestion (as with the others) is that I don't want to add ways to differentiate PvE activity from PvP activity. I really want Ashes to just have PvX activity, and being attacked randomly is part of that PvX reality.
Sorry but your premise is non-existent and based purely on your opinion, therefore the "problem" and "solutions" you're discussing are also fictional.
There's enough motivation to both fight back and not fight back:
Fight back: if you die, you'll only lose half of the mats you would otherwise (25% of the total).
Not fight back: you'll lose half of the mats you have (50% of the total), but the aggressor will become red, so you can come back, kill them and get a chance of dropping their gear.
To me it feels like you're creating a situation which is false and using it to hide the real reason why you want opt-in PvP and/or other weird (and bad) ideas:
I chuckled with the "this would not alter the planned flagging system", it's like lying to yourself.
You want safety for some players in a game that, from the very start, is not safe and will, hopefully, never be safe. More recently New World showed why anything with "opt-in" in its name is a bad idea, but it wasn't the first game to do it (and fail at it).
I honestly laughed with the "punishment if (of) getting killed and getting the feel of depression". It's like playing a PvP game like CSGO and crying when you get killed by someone. If you feel depressed because you died in an online game and lost stuff, you should either not play a PvP game with loot on death or look for professional help.
Sometimes I get the feeling that people who literally never played a game where dying isn't safe now want to play a game where there is loot on death, but instead of facing it or not playing the game, they want the game to change for them. Ludicrous.
TL;DR: Stop trying to create excuses and blaming imaginary reasons for your dislike of not being safe anywhere from being killed and dropping some loot. You might think you are a "PvX" player, but unfortunately you are not. You only want to PvP when you want to PvP, which by definition, is a PvE player. In Ashes, there's no such thing as consensual PvP, and there never will be.
Cheers
Its always quite amusing when people speak out against the currently planned corruption system with the argument, that an overwhelming majority of players are only interested in PvE.
Mate, if an overwhelming majority of players is only interested in PvE on your server, then you wont get ganked a lot either and the problem you are describing is literally solved before it even became one.
B:
Thats pretty much were your entire argument falls apart for me.
There is nothing "instinctual" about defending yourself in AoC.
You have to press a key combination to even be able to hit back. Thats a conscious decision, not an instinctual response. If people want to fight back, they may. If people dont want to, they dont have to. Its their choice. Also, the reduced death penalty is designed to be an incentive towards fighting back, nothing else. If people indeed fight back constantly, then it did exactly what it was meant to do.
C:
The only time you should ever be caught off guard when ganked, is when its perpetrated by someone with stealth. If you dont see a Mage casting a fire ball at you or a purple warrior running towards you, then thats on you for not paying attention.
Cheers, couldnt have said it better. Actually, the moment you started the game you consented to the possibility of being ganked. So id say its indeed consensual.
one major thing that is yet nowere to be seen is the Rules and the Terms of use opon which player need to agree in order to create an account. many things that to this point in development isnt zemented in the game may chage or will have in addion some written rules to it instead of selfmaintaining systems. so that certain cases of pvp or non pvp interaction may get punisheble by the support if reported in.
as mentioned many times i see the open development progress and the nature of the project where the fanbase is asked frequently about their thoughts as oportunity to share ideas i have about the game. with the primarly objection to reach those in charge to may give a imput that may or may not lead to something simular or even something new. i and as well ever fan if supporter or not has the same power to actualy change how the game will be in numbers that power is 0.
the moment the topic is read by officals the topic has forfilled its purpose. if we as fans of the project think its good or bad doesnt matter.
Steven and John are the heads of the project if they are happy with the game as it is, we may join in and play the game developed for them and their team.
i will keep on posting whenever a idea comes to my mind to share it with the team (usualy more than 7 day prozess befor opening a topic)
i myself as a pvx hardcore player with enouth freetime to play 12h a day will definetly be there to burry your corpses. i simply have a heart for those that wanna enjoy more the lore and the pve content of the game.
see you killed by my meteor storm xD
PS: Let me know in advance which type of tombstone you prefer.
There is an old thread on 'Alt Bait Tactic' that goes into some detail on this.
Oh hey! I am asking about this in the Q&A! Last week it almost made it onto the dev talk!
that's cute, imagine not flagging, not reducing all your penalties by 50% to get the other guy red..... when he can use consumables and grind of his corruption and later on showing up as a green again saying "thx for the loot"
corrupted does not equal dead if you are smart about it, yall will learn this soon.
And… they will waste more time getting rid of their Corruption and death penalties than I will from one death where I did not fight back.
Normal death penalty is not a problem.
The Corrupted player is welcome to the loot.
I dunno why you think they’re going to be able to find me again so easily.
This isn’t news. This is how the corruption system has been documented for years.
You can abuse it by being disruptive/annoying without any possible retribution. Imagine if someone can try and steal your boss or contest your farming spot and you can't attack them because they didn't opt-in?
Ashes was designed a specific way, and I want to play the game they have in mind. And I see a lot of comments from people who want it to be a different game.
We need to see if the current design and values achieve the intended goals during testing, but I feel like the current design should work pretty well.
If you are implying that a healer can heal someone who is flagged without getting flagged themselves, i'd really doubt that'll be the case.
I don't think most of us want to see a corrupt player with 40 healers going around and decimating small villages(okay, maybe once... but that's it lol). If it's not a thing on Alpha 2 launch, my guess is it will be shortly after.
And, there’s no reason to be dying so many times your gear breaks.
Ashes doesn’t have corpse runs.
Protecting the masses against "gankers and griefers" works fine there.
Typically it's the MMORPGs that don't protect the masses against "griefers and gankers" that fail.
EvE being a notable exception.
It ain't "yours". I don't see your name on it... FREE FOR AAAALLLLLLL!!!
Of course single player games like Elden Ring loose 90% of it player base after the players finish the game they dont have a reason to stick around and play more they done there story line
I completely agree, either they drop the same amount, OR swap it! If you want to be a non-combatant because you want to focus on pve, make it slightly less incentivizing to attack a green. Keeping combatants fighting other combatants.
It is a conscious choice by Steven and the team to incentivize and prioritize PvX.
Why try to divide the community?
Yes, definitely.
I think to make it less of a potential to scare off players, the system should punish them less, but not remove the ability to attack them completely.
I feel this somewhat helps lessen the sting for pve players, but doesn't remove them completely from pvp combat.
I for one will likely stay a combatant as I like pvp, but I also don't plan to go around ganking greens. But I see this as a good compromise.
So... you mean PvEers shoud have the least amount of risk and have the least incentive to flag for random PvP combat.
That's not going to achieve the goals for Ashes to be an open world PvX game if the majority of the playerbase has little incentive to flag for random, open world PvP combat.
Yes, I think they should lose less, but still lose. I dont know what the exact amount will be, but lets say you lose 50% of gathered items and/or gold, they should still lose like 20-30%.
That should still sting (possibly enough to fight back in the chance they might win and not lose anything), but not enough if they ABSOLUTELY hate pvp. The Ganker would still get a small reward (20-30% of their stuff) but also get the increased death penalty which might make them thing twice before ganking a green.
I think with that change, it will be possibly more appealing to attack other combatants, but still leave non-combatants on the table as prey (seeing that 20-30% of their stuff would likely be a nice amount if they had been out gathering, etc)
EDIT: A non-combatant for sure should not loose MORE than someone flagged as a combatant. At bare minimum, combatants and non-combatants should lose the same amount.
It should be exactly as currently designed:
Non-Combatants should lose the normal amount. Combatants are rewarded for flagging for PvP by losing half the normal amount. PvEers are rewarded for doing something they wouldn't normally enjoy doing.
That's what helps make Ashes a PvX game.
I meant the upward trend stopped and the downward trend started. A lot of MMOs are designed around solo play (BDO being a prime example), that still means the figures are fucked. Although, I do own Elden Ring but its still in the wrapper. I haven't played the game yet.