Asgerr wrote: » So in your mind, the devs should be held hostage by the one Dygz in a hundred players, who throw an entire game out of the window because they only get to enjoy 80% (or more) of a game? How is his position not more harmful? It's entirely based on his own preferences for a carebear PvE experience (by his own admittance, not even as some sort of dig towards him).
XiraelAcaron wrote: » Asgerr wrote: » ... You won't just be swimming around, and doing stuff there, with people ganking you. If you're there with a ship of your own, you're basically going there to PvP as a combattant anyway. If you're there as part of a Caravan, then you're already there as Combatant as well. In what scenario are you, as a green, going to be in the middle of international waters just fucking about? They're not really gonna put resources there, because resource gathering and its related XP goes towards a Node''s XP, and international waters don't count towards that. They won't disable it in dungeons because in dungeons you're there to PvE. In international waters, where there is nothing, you're there to PvP anyway. So there is no griefing there. And if you're "just trying to cross the sea to the other continent" well hey, you get to be on edge for all of 10 minutes. Which is pretty much how long it'll take to cross the sea between the two continents. ... Exploration of the ocean content was always part of what PvE centric players imaginged doing. So being alone on the ocean in a ship was something people wanted. Not so much anymore under the current circumstances. You are right about the caravan, there is effectively no change there. The rest are some heavy assumptions on your part. If you are right, i agree that we do not really have a problem. But I doubt it. I assume there will be resouces to be gathered there. Whether corruption will be active or not in dungeons in the ocean I have no idea. But I would image that it is deactivate there as well. If it is just a matter of going there undisturbed that would be managable. We need some clarifcations about this.
Asgerr wrote: » ... You won't just be swimming around, and doing stuff there, with people ganking you. If you're there with a ship of your own, you're basically going there to PvP as a combattant anyway. If you're there as part of a Caravan, then you're already there as Combatant as well. In what scenario are you, as a green, going to be in the middle of international waters just fucking about? They're not really gonna put resources there, because resource gathering and its related XP goes towards a Node''s XP, and international waters don't count towards that. They won't disable it in dungeons because in dungeons you're there to PvE. In international waters, where there is nothing, you're there to PvP anyway. So there is no griefing there. And if you're "just trying to cross the sea to the other continent" well hey, you get to be on edge for all of 10 minutes. Which is pretty much how long it'll take to cross the sea between the two continents. ...
Asgerr wrote: » If he doesn't like a small section of the world doing something he doesn't like, then why should he get to tell everyone else we're wrong for liking something he doesn't? And that ideally the game should change to cater to his desire for absolutely no free PvP area ever.
Asgerr wrote: » International waters are essentially one big Caravan system. You're there opting into the consensual PvP experience. If you don't want to opt into a caravan, you stay away from it. If you don't want to opt into the international waters, you stay away from them.
Asgerr wrote: » You wouldn't tell the devs that they need to remove the caravan system because if there are 5 caravans going from one node to the other, you've suddenly reduced the total amount of surface area where you can choose not to opt into consensual PvP.
Dygz wrote: » True. We agree. It doesn't mean their choice is a bad one. It just means now the game is too much like EvE Online and ArcheAge for me to want to play it. It should be a great addition to players who love EvE Online and ArcheAge.
Dygz wrote: » Steven states that the reason for the change is that the Open Seas have unique NPCs and unique treasure-finding opportunities. Which is enticing, but... If exploring there means I'm going to be auto-flagged as a Combatant... I'm not playing that game. Because I don't play games that do that.
XiraelAcaron wrote: » Asgerr wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Asgerr wrote: » Dygz wrote: » You'll notice, here, in 2018, when we first had Steven on The Ashen Forge - I grilled Steven on his PvP philosophy almost immediately, trying to ascertain if I would actually play Ashes. My stance has not changed. I don't play games like EvE Online and ArcheAge. The change to the Open Seas does not conform with what Steven says in the video below. Which is OK. It just means Ashes now falls into the list of MMORPGs I don't play.https://youtu.be/ZnoHtzaQeMs?t=223 mark 3:43 It does for about 80% the world. If that 20% is enough to make you nope out, then nope out for good. @Dygz I think this is why, as a PvP-er, I see your departure as bad. This is the same way that Fighting Games die, their communities cannibalize themselves because the vocal supporters of whatever annoying/stressful mechanic, react with 'rejection'/'hostility' to anyone who 'doesn't like it and hopes the developers change it'. The community fractures, with the defenders becoming more and more insular, the game population becoming smaller and smaller and more focused on 'defending their beliefs from others who don't agree' even those who are just 'explaining why they don't play' or 'why they prefer other games instead', sometimes quite literally when asked ('hey why don't we see you for matches anymore?' and 'hey I heard you quit, what happened?') To me, people having these sorts of reactions to you becoming the norm is a big red flag for an unsustainably niche game, but that's subject to goals. So in your mind, the devs should be held hostage by the one Dygz in a hundred players, who throw an entire game out of the window because they only get to enjoy 80% (or more) of a game? How is his position not more harmful? It's entirely based on his own preferences for a carebear PvE experience (by his own admittance, not even as some sort of dig towards him). If he doesn't like a small section of the world doing something he doesn't like, then why should he get to tell everyone else we're wrong for liking something he doesn't? And that ideally the game should change to cater to his desire for absolutely no free PvP area ever. International waters are essentially one big Caravan system. You're there opting into the consensual PvP experience. If you don't want to opt into a caravan, you stay away from it. If you don't want to opt into the international waters, you stay away from them. You wouldn't tell the devs that they need to remove the caravan system because if there are 5 caravans going from one node to the other, you've suddenly reduced the total amount of surface area where you can choose not to opt into consensual PvP. As your position is entirely based on your own preferneces for a PvP experience.
Asgerr wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Asgerr wrote: » Dygz wrote: » You'll notice, here, in 2018, when we first had Steven on The Ashen Forge - I grilled Steven on his PvP philosophy almost immediately, trying to ascertain if I would actually play Ashes. My stance has not changed. I don't play games like EvE Online and ArcheAge. The change to the Open Seas does not conform with what Steven says in the video below. Which is OK. It just means Ashes now falls into the list of MMORPGs I don't play.https://youtu.be/ZnoHtzaQeMs?t=223 mark 3:43 It does for about 80% the world. If that 20% is enough to make you nope out, then nope out for good. @Dygz I think this is why, as a PvP-er, I see your departure as bad. This is the same way that Fighting Games die, their communities cannibalize themselves because the vocal supporters of whatever annoying/stressful mechanic, react with 'rejection'/'hostility' to anyone who 'doesn't like it and hopes the developers change it'. The community fractures, with the defenders becoming more and more insular, the game population becoming smaller and smaller and more focused on 'defending their beliefs from others who don't agree' even those who are just 'explaining why they don't play' or 'why they prefer other games instead', sometimes quite literally when asked ('hey why don't we see you for matches anymore?' and 'hey I heard you quit, what happened?') To me, people having these sorts of reactions to you becoming the norm is a big red flag for an unsustainably niche game, but that's subject to goals. So in your mind, the devs should be held hostage by the one Dygz in a hundred players, who throw an entire game out of the window because they only get to enjoy 80% (or more) of a game? How is his position not more harmful? It's entirely based on his own preferences for a carebear PvE experience (by his own admittance, not even as some sort of dig towards him). If he doesn't like a small section of the world doing something he doesn't like, then why should he get to tell everyone else we're wrong for liking something he doesn't? And that ideally the game should change to cater to his desire for absolutely no free PvP area ever. International waters are essentially one big Caravan system. You're there opting into the consensual PvP experience. If you don't want to opt into a caravan, you stay away from it. If you don't want to opt into the international waters, you stay away from them. You wouldn't tell the devs that they need to remove the caravan system because if there are 5 caravans going from one node to the other, you've suddenly reduced the total amount of surface area where you can choose not to opt into consensual PvP.
Azherae wrote: » Asgerr wrote: » Dygz wrote: » You'll notice, here, in 2018, when we first had Steven on The Ashen Forge - I grilled Steven on his PvP philosophy almost immediately, trying to ascertain if I would actually play Ashes. My stance has not changed. I don't play games like EvE Online and ArcheAge. The change to the Open Seas does not conform with what Steven says in the video below. Which is OK. It just means Ashes now falls into the list of MMORPGs I don't play.https://youtu.be/ZnoHtzaQeMs?t=223 mark 3:43 It does for about 80% the world. If that 20% is enough to make you nope out, then nope out for good. @Dygz I think this is why, as a PvP-er, I see your departure as bad. This is the same way that Fighting Games die, their communities cannibalize themselves because the vocal supporters of whatever annoying/stressful mechanic, react with 'rejection'/'hostility' to anyone who 'doesn't like it and hopes the developers change it'. The community fractures, with the defenders becoming more and more insular, the game population becoming smaller and smaller and more focused on 'defending their beliefs from others who don't agree' even those who are just 'explaining why they don't play' or 'why they prefer other games instead', sometimes quite literally when asked ('hey why don't we see you for matches anymore?' and 'hey I heard you quit, what happened?') To me, people having these sorts of reactions to you becoming the norm is a big red flag for an unsustainably niche game, but that's subject to goals.
Asgerr wrote: » Dygz wrote: » You'll notice, here, in 2018, when we first had Steven on The Ashen Forge - I grilled Steven on his PvP philosophy almost immediately, trying to ascertain if I would actually play Ashes. My stance has not changed. I don't play games like EvE Online and ArcheAge. The change to the Open Seas does not conform with what Steven says in the video below. Which is OK. It just means Ashes now falls into the list of MMORPGs I don't play.https://youtu.be/ZnoHtzaQeMs?t=223 mark 3:43 It does for about 80% the world. If that 20% is enough to make you nope out, then nope out for good.
Dygz wrote: » You'll notice, here, in 2018, when we first had Steven on The Ashen Forge - I grilled Steven on his PvP philosophy almost immediately, trying to ascertain if I would actually play Ashes. My stance has not changed. I don't play games like EvE Online and ArcheAge. The change to the Open Seas does not conform with what Steven says in the video below. Which is OK. It just means Ashes now falls into the list of MMORPGs I don't play.https://youtu.be/ZnoHtzaQeMs?t=223 mark 3:43
XiraelAcaron wrote: » @Asgerr He simply tells you what his reaction to this is. I am actually quite concerned that there are so few PvE players voicing their opinion here. It can be either very good (most pure PvE players do not really care about it) or very bad (most pure PvE players have already given up on the game). Or most simply missed the lifestream and have not yet heard about the change and did therefore not had a chance to form an opinion.
CROW3 wrote: » Asgerr wrote: » So in your mind, the devs should be held hostage by the one Dygz in a hundred players, who throw an entire game out of the window because they only get to enjoy 80% (or more) of a game? How is his position not more harmful? It's entirely based on his own preferences for a carebear PvE experience (by his own admittance, not even as some sort of dig towards him). This is the very tribalism @Azherae is talking about ‘fracturing’ the player-base. It’s not about @Dygz - it’s about the broader vision of PvX & Ashes. Once it devolves into the us-and-them of ‘those care bears’ and ‘those griefers’, that vision is diminished, if not gone entirely, and that’s very difficult to retrieve. Then the game becomes either ESO or MO2. Fine in their own right, but not where many of us have understood Ashes was headed for years.
Asgerr wrote: » XiraelAcaron wrote: » Asgerr wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Asgerr wrote: » Dygz wrote: » You'll notice, here, in 2018, when we first had Steven on The Ashen Forge - I grilled Steven on his PvP philosophy almost immediately, trying to ascertain if I would actually play Ashes. My stance has not changed. I don't play games like EvE Online and ArcheAge. The change to the Open Seas does not conform with what Steven says in the video below. Which is OK. It just means Ashes now falls into the list of MMORPGs I don't play.https://youtu.be/ZnoHtzaQeMs?t=223 mark 3:43 It does for about 80% the world. If that 20% is enough to make you nope out, then nope out for good. @Dygz I think this is why, as a PvP-er, I see your departure as bad. This is the same way that Fighting Games die, their communities cannibalize themselves because the vocal supporters of whatever annoying/stressful mechanic, react with 'rejection'/'hostility' to anyone who 'doesn't like it and hopes the developers change it'. The community fractures, with the defenders becoming more and more insular, the game population becoming smaller and smaller and more focused on 'defending their beliefs from others who don't agree' even those who are just 'explaining why they don't play' or 'why they prefer other games instead', sometimes quite literally when asked ('hey why don't we see you for matches anymore?' and 'hey I heard you quit, what happened?') To me, people having these sorts of reactions to you becoming the norm is a big red flag for an unsustainably niche game, but that's subject to goals. So in your mind, the devs should be held hostage by the one Dygz in a hundred players, who throw an entire game out of the window because they only get to enjoy 80% (or more) of a game? How is his position not more harmful? It's entirely based on his own preferences for a carebear PvE experience (by his own admittance, not even as some sort of dig towards him). If he doesn't like a small section of the world doing something he doesn't like, then why should he get to tell everyone else we're wrong for liking something he doesn't? And that ideally the game should change to cater to his desire for absolutely no free PvP area ever. International waters are essentially one big Caravan system. You're there opting into the consensual PvP experience. If you don't want to opt into a caravan, you stay away from it. If you don't want to opt into the international waters, you stay away from them. You wouldn't tell the devs that they need to remove the caravan system because if there are 5 caravans going from one node to the other, you've suddenly reduced the total amount of surface area where you can choose not to opt into consensual PvP. As your position is entirely based on your own preferneces for a PvP experience. See that's where you're wrong. I don't like PvP in general. But this is a good decision for the Game and its design philosophies, it's appeal to players that do, and the reduction of the amount of PvP on land for everyone else. I'm looking at this from the point of view of what's better for the game as a whole, which in turn will affect how good it is for the players. You seem to be approaching it from the point of view of what is best for you alone, and your or Dygz's preferences.
Dygz wrote: » Well, yeah, my preferences are going to determine whether or not I play a game. Of course.
XiraelAcaron wrote: » Asgerr wrote: » XiraelAcaron wrote: » Asgerr wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Asgerr wrote: » Dygz wrote: » You'll notice, here, in 2018, when we first had Steven on The Ashen Forge - I grilled Steven on his PvP philosophy almost immediately, trying to ascertain if I would actually play Ashes. My stance has not changed. I don't play games like EvE Online and ArcheAge. The change to the Open Seas does not conform with what Steven says in the video below. Which is OK. It just means Ashes now falls into the list of MMORPGs I don't play.https://youtu.be/ZnoHtzaQeMs?t=223 mark 3:43 It does for about 80% the world. If that 20% is enough to make you nope out, then nope out for good. @Dygz I think this is why, as a PvP-er, I see your departure as bad. This is the same way that Fighting Games die, their communities cannibalize themselves because the vocal supporters of whatever annoying/stressful mechanic, react with 'rejection'/'hostility' to anyone who 'doesn't like it and hopes the developers change it'. The community fractures, with the defenders becoming more and more insular, the game population becoming smaller and smaller and more focused on 'defending their beliefs from others who don't agree' even those who are just 'explaining why they don't play' or 'why they prefer other games instead', sometimes quite literally when asked ('hey why don't we see you for matches anymore?' and 'hey I heard you quit, what happened?') To me, people having these sorts of reactions to you becoming the norm is a big red flag for an unsustainably niche game, but that's subject to goals. So in your mind, the devs should be held hostage by the one Dygz in a hundred players, who throw an entire game out of the window because they only get to enjoy 80% (or more) of a game? How is his position not more harmful? It's entirely based on his own preferences for a carebear PvE experience (by his own admittance, not even as some sort of dig towards him). If he doesn't like a small section of the world doing something he doesn't like, then why should he get to tell everyone else we're wrong for liking something he doesn't? And that ideally the game should change to cater to his desire for absolutely no free PvP area ever. International waters are essentially one big Caravan system. You're there opting into the consensual PvP experience. If you don't want to opt into a caravan, you stay away from it. If you don't want to opt into the international waters, you stay away from them. You wouldn't tell the devs that they need to remove the caravan system because if there are 5 caravans going from one node to the other, you've suddenly reduced the total amount of surface area where you can choose not to opt into consensual PvP. As your position is entirely based on your own preferneces for a PvP experience. See that's where you're wrong. I don't like PvP in general. But this is a good decision for the Game and its design philosophies, it's appeal to players that do, and the reduction of the amount of PvP on land for everyone else. I'm looking at this from the point of view of what's better for the game as a whole, which in turn will affect how good it is for the players. You seem to be approaching it from the point of view of what is best for you alone, and your or Dygz's preferences. Maybe I should not have assumed what you playstyle is. However, I also do not simply look at it from my personal perspective. I am also looking at this from the point of view of whats better for the game as a whole and I do not come to the same conclusions as you. Others (including PvP players) think so as well.
Dygz wrote: » I mean... a change was made that has derailed it from its original premise.
XiraelAcaron wrote: » The original premise was the corruption was active everywhere. There was a change. And some people think that this change is not good for this game. You have another opinion. That is well. We discuss it in this thread. Some even tell about the consequences they draw from that. The tribalisim comes in when people get put in boxes and their opinions are disregarded because of that.
Asgerr wrote: » XiraelAcaron wrote: » The original premise was the corruption was active everywhere. There was a change. And some people think that this change is not good for this game. You have another opinion. That is well. We discuss it in this thread. Some even tell about the consequences they draw from that. The tribalisim comes in when people get put in boxes and their opinions are disregarded because of that. You mean like dismissing an entire game over a the smallest fraction of its content?
NaughtyBrute wrote: » @Asgerr This thread was not about if this change was good or bad. There is another thread for that. You are clearly trying to turn the conversation to what you feel comfortable discussing. So, let me say this because you might have missed it.. As a PvPer, I like this change. Is it clear? The discussion is not about that. It's a about the reasoning given by Steven for this change and more specifically, how the corruption system is now presented as not conforming with the risk-vs-reward philosophy.
