Archeage's zones rotate between peace(no pvp) and war(pvp). Considering he mentions this mechanic prior to the statement you are focused on, this seems to be what he is referring to. As others have pointed out, there are other significant differences between Ashes and Archeages pvp so they aren't easy to compare.
Sure, but Steven said, "Ashes is an open world and there are no zoned flagged PvP areas."
And now Ashes has a zoned, flagged PvP area.
I feel like you are cherry picking. If you read the whole statement, he is clearly talking about the peace/war mechanic and how that affected your choices.
"Well, ArcheAge... You pretty much knew in any territory that you went to what the system of PvP mechanics were, whether it was a peace zone or whether it was a PvP zone, so...if you were to take risks, it was of your time and choosing, depending on how you moved your packs and what zones you went through in order to move them.
So, that really doesn't relate well to what Ashes is trying to do. Because Ashes is an open world and there are no zoned flagged PvP areas. Instead there is just a flagging system that relates to the other players."
To reiterate, the peace and war zones was something that most zones did. They would rotate between peace and war which is something that isn't going to happen in ashes.
My post was going to be a bit longer but I think you didn't watch the full conversation between Dygz and Steven. EvE's PvP zones came up before the quote you are discussing. If Steven really intended to have this specific system before when Dygz was asking Steven about PvP there is almost no chance he wouldn't have clarified that 'Ashes will have zones like EvE' or noted one of the differences between Ashes and Archeage was the persistence of areas where you can always engage in PvP without penalty.
It's really obvious why Dygz asks these kinds of questions. I think Steven is an intelligent enough guy to understand that PvP 'always on war' zones would be relevant information to Dygz's question here. There are a lot of things about 'misunderstanding Steven' I feel are valid to assert against Dygz about his 1 to 1's with Steven. This is certainly not one of them.
Dygz had clear intentions in asking and vetting out Steven's perception of what qualifies as a murder box to Steven and EvE's zoning came up right before this part of your quote. Note that Steven did not consider EvE to be a murder box. But the fact that Dygz showed a pretty strong reaction relative to it would make it really weird to not have brought up and tried to walk Dygz through. After all Dygz expressed uncertainty, not rejection.
It was a clear part of the context of this conversation. It would have made sense from Steven's perspective to clarify to Dygz the PvP zone thing at this point in the conversation. So either Steven knew he was going to be making this change back then and was just trying to coax Dygz into not giving him a certain kind of press (which is a bad look imo)..... Or it changed after the fact (much more favorable look)....
The statement you are focused on is clearly in reference to the part i bolded, the part where he is referring to zones going through peace and war.
The part i think you are missing is the part where most pvp zones in archeage rotate between peace(no pvp) and war(pvp). He seems to be talking about that mechanic as in a sense, the zones have a flag that allows or disables pvp in them depending on the time. No where does he bring up how archeage's ocean was different since it never went into peace.
As other have brought up, Archeage also was a faction game where you were rewarded for killing members of the opposite faction. This is also something that Ashes does not have and another reason Steven would want to say the games are not alike. The crime system in Archeage was only for killing/stealing from members of your faction.
I think you don't understand what I'm saying.
Steven stated that Ashes has one global PvP mechanic. Until a few months ago, Ashes did not have zones with different PvP mechanics.
Friday, Steven stated there has been an important change.
So... I dunno. It seems like you are trying to say that it's not a change, even though Steven stated it is an important change.
@Dygz My Bartle Score is: Explorer 87%; Socializer 73% ; Achiever 47%; Killer 0%
My Bartle score:
60% Achiever,
53% Socialiser,
47% Explorer,
40% Killer.
The questions are poorly formatted with extreme irrelevance based on common scenarios. I could devise a better test in 6 hours, it doesn't mean anything when you tell us yours.
"MMORPGs should not have an endgame. Endgame is when you've finished all of the quests and stories and you're waiting for new content."
Your definition of endgame differs from Ashes. AOC endgame will consist of players running through content that is changing from other players effectively creating a everchanging loop of content. Which is what IS has said will be our endgame. So basically in our case the design has ALWAYS been that a player COULD finish all of the content, but the true endgame loop will be derived from a player to player experience. Your post on this topic are consistent, you were on the fence about this game before now your off the fence due to this change, but just your statement on the endgame loop indicates that you weren't understanding that after you completed that content, the loop was going to be player driven, which you never wanted to begin with. To me it seems like this REALLY is not the game you wanted to play well before this change.
OW bosses == PVP
Nodes == PVP
Bosses will likely need to auto flag you for PVP when participating in them otherwise I can screw your raid over and screw you over by making you corrupt.
"Part of the whole experience with nodes is that there is no real end-game, in that the world is constantly shifting every day. Month one is going to be really different from month two; and that's for the level 50s and level 1s" – Jeffrey Bard
Why don't we give suggestions to make their proposed systems work, get with the program or leave it be completely.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2022
Yeah... the questions are from the 1990s. So... don't work super-well for 202X RPGs.
If I were playing - you could try to screw my raid up. Wouldn't bother me.
There would be no way for you to make me go Corrupt.
"I didn't say getting PKed is a dealbreaker. Frequency of being PKed could be a dealbreaker."
Luckily there aren't nodes in the ocean right? You should think of it like a challenge to go outside your comfort zone and accomplish the task of exploring it. Not like it's ever changing like the land is. Game is about risk/reward from what I read so you should expect some content that puts you at risk if you want to see it all.
Or you could just do the hundreds of hours of content that isn't in the pvp ocean zone... going to not play because of that 1% of the content you dont like... can't wrap my head around it. It's like, I don't like fetch quests. I don't quit when I get a fetch quest or because I run into fetch quests alot.
I wanted to add my perspective to this conversation. For reference I am a PvE player, and I am still weighing if the corruption system will be enough to allow me to play the way I want to play without the constant need of being ganked or if ashes might just not be for me. That said, I for one think this is a great change (assuming I can still safely sail along the coast with a small buffer of safe space.) I think having this area as a designated open PvP area will be great to keep the high seas dangerous, regardless of PvE encounters. I think for one it will help draw people who are interested in PvP to that area so that they won't have to deal with players like me who refuse to fight back and let them get corruption. I think the idea of pirate PvP sounds really cool, and something I might even find myself dabbling in. I do hope that the PvE encounters out to see don't become absolutely mandatory for the best gear, but other then that this is a really cool change!
TL;DR: As a PvE player I think this is a really cool and good idea.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
"I didn't say getting PKed is a dealbreaker. Frequency of being PKed could be a dealbreaker."
Luckily there aren't nodes in the ocean right? You should think of it like a challenge to go outside your comfort zone and accomplish the task of exploring it. Not like it's ever changing like the land is. Game is about risk/reward from what I read so you should expect some content that puts you at risk if you want to see it all.
Or you could just do the hundreds of hours of content that isn't in the pvp ocean zone... going to not play because of that 1% of the content you dont like... can't wrap my head around it. It's like, I don't like fetch quests. I don't quit when I get a fetch quest or because I run into fetch quests alot.
Or I could just not play on the server that doesn't fit my playstyle.
I was already going out of my comfort zone with global Corruption.
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Archeage's zones rotate between peace(no pvp) and war(pvp). Considering he mentions this mechanic prior to the statement you are focused on, this seems to be what he is referring to. As others have pointed out, there are other significant differences between Ashes and Archeages pvp so they aren't easy to compare.
Sure, but Steven said, "Ashes is an open world and there are no zoned flagged PvP areas."
And now Ashes has a zoned, flagged PvP area.
I feel like you are cherry picking. If you read the whole statement, he is clearly talking about the peace/war mechanic and how that affected your choices.
"Well, ArcheAge... You pretty much knew in any territory that you went to what the system of PvP mechanics were, whether it was a peace zone or whether it was a PvP zone, so...if you were to take risks, it was of your time and choosing, depending on how you moved your packs and what zones you went through in order to move them.
So, that really doesn't relate well to what Ashes is trying to do. Because Ashes is an open world and there are no zoned flagged PvP areas. Instead there is just a flagging system that relates to the other players."
To reiterate, the peace and war zones was something that most zones did. They would rotate between peace and war which is something that isn't going to happen in ashes.
My post was going to be a bit longer but I think you didn't watch the full conversation between Dygz and Steven. EvE's PvP zones came up before the quote you are discussing. If Steven really intended to have this specific system before when Dygz was asking Steven about PvP there is almost no chance he wouldn't have clarified that 'Ashes will have zones like EvE' or noted one of the differences between Ashes and Archeage was the persistence of areas where you can always engage in PvP without penalty.
It's really obvious why Dygz asks these kinds of questions. I think Steven is an intelligent enough guy to understand that PvP 'always on war' zones would be relevant information to Dygz's question here. There are a lot of things about 'misunderstanding Steven' I feel are valid to assert against Dygz about his 1 to 1's with Steven. This is certainly not one of them.
Dygz had clear intentions in asking and vetting out Steven's perception of what qualifies as a murder box to Steven and EvE's zoning came up right before this part of your quote. Note that Steven did not consider EvE to be a murder box. But the fact that Dygz showed a pretty strong reaction relative to it would make it really weird to not have brought up and tried to walk Dygz through. After all Dygz expressed uncertainty, not rejection.
It was a clear part of the context of this conversation. It would have made sense from Steven's perspective to clarify to Dygz the PvP zone thing at this point in the conversation. So either Steven knew he was going to be making this change back then and was just trying to coax Dygz into not giving him a certain kind of press (which is a bad look imo)..... Or it changed after the fact (much more favorable look)....
I don't believe Steven knew of this specific change back then but also, all zones are pvp zones which is one of the points Steven was making. All this does is remove the potential penalty for killing someone which is still different from archeage where zones enable or disable pvp.
The system had already been explained to Dygz, i don't think there is anything Steven could do to further explain how the system would play to him without creating further situations like this where things are miss-interpreted.
At the end of the day, the best thing a person can do is play the system and see if they like it.
The statement you are focused on is clearly in reference to the part i bolded, the part where he is referring to zones going through peace and war.
The part i think you are missing is the part where most pvp zones in archeage rotate between peace(no pvp) and war(pvp). He seems to be talking about that mechanic as in a sense, the zones have a flag that allows or disables pvp in them depending on the time. No where does he bring up how archeage's ocean was different since it never went into peace.
As other have brought up, Archeage also was a faction game where you were rewarded for killing members of the opposite faction. This is also something that Ashes does not have and another reason Steven would want to say the games are not alike. The crime system in Archeage was only for killing/stealing from members of your faction.
I think you don't understand what I'm saying.
Steven stated that Ashes has one global PvP mechanic. Until a few months ago, Ashes did not have zones with different PvP mechanics.
Friday, Steven stated there has been an important change.
So... I dunno. It seems like you are trying to say that it's not a change, even though Steven stated it is an important change.
It's a change but i don't think it's as drastic as you are making it out to be. All zones have always been pvp zones since you could be attacked in every zone. This is different from archeage that disables pvp in zones during peace time. All this change does is remove the potential penalty for killing, not attacking, someone in the ocean.
Ima jump into this as will i have not used this before lmao
87% Killer
♣ Killers get their kicks from imposing themselves on others. This may be "nice", ie. busybody do-gooding, but few people practice such an approach because the rewards (a warm, cosy inner glow, apparently) aren't very substantial. Much more commonly, people attack other players with a view to killing off their personae (hence the name for this style of play). The more massive the distress caused, the greater the killer's joy at having caused it. Normal points-scoring is usually required so as to become powerful enough to begin causing havoc in earnest, and exploration of a kind is necessary to discover new and ingenious ways to kill people. Even socialising is sometimes worthwhile beyond taunting a recent victim, for example in finding out someone's playing habits, or discussing tactics with fellow killers. They're all just means to an end, though; only in the knowledge that a real person, somewhere, is very upset by what you've just done, yet can themselves do nothing about it, is there any true adrenalin-shooting, juicy fun.
53% Achiever
40% Socialiser
20% Explorer
*The bold part is accurate i remember when i was deep in someone's head in BDO he hated me and was flipping out lmao
It's a change but i don't think it's as drastic as you are making it out to be. All zones have always been pvp zones since you could be attacked in every zone. This is different from archeage that disables pvp in zones during peace time. All this change does is remove the potential penalty for killing, not attacking, someone in the ocean.
I think it's a hugely drastic change, and Steven even called it out as such. There's no way to downplay it.
Removing the penalty for killing is counterintuitive to the *entire* reason the corruption system exists and there by allows a game like AoC to try to correct what has been uncorrectable in every other game up until now. That's the entire premise of it!
If there's no reason for the corruption system at sea, there's no reason for the corruption system anywhere. That's what this says. It doesn't accomplish what it was set out to do. Because if it did, it would be the same at sea.
What I'd really like to hear from Steven and the team is how was this decision arrived at? Without actual gameplay testing, which to me, would be the only thing that could inform such a drastic change. As far as we know, the "idea" of the Corruption system is the same as it always was, and as bad or as good as it has ever been... until it gets in the hands of players. So I'd expect play testing before a change like this.
World Class Indoorsman
1
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
If there's no reason for the corruption system at sea, there's no reason for the corruption system anywhere. That's what this says. It doesn't accomplish what it was set out to do. Because if it did, it would be the same at sea.
Or it accomplishes it's goal of restricting pvp but on the sea, they want people fighting over stuff so they removed the restrictions.
What I'd really like to hear from Steven and the team is how was this decision arrived at? Without actual gameplay testing, which to me, would be the only thing that could inform such a drastic change. As far as we know, the "idea" of the Corruption system is the same as it always was, and as bad or as good as it has ever been... until it gets in the hands of players. So I'd expect play testing before a change like this.
Well you will also be able to test this change.
They probably arrived at this decision because the complications of the corruption system in a ship vs ship scenario and the fact they already intended the ocean to be a place for high level content.
Without this change, 2 ships fighting would be a race to see who could destroy the other ship without the players interacting with eachother. It would be awkward. It might be a strategy to send people over to interrupt repairs and shooting. If someone jumped over to your ship and flagged to interrupt you, you would then have to choose how many people you would flag to kill them. The cannon users on the other ship could then choose to flag to damage the people who flagged to kill the interrupter. You would then have to choose to send people over to flag on them or maybe switch out your cannon users with your flagged users. If your healers tried to help, they would become flagged. If killing a ship of a none-combatant would give you corruption then killing any ship would always give corruption since the driver doesn't have to fight back to function.
Combine this with the fact they intended the ocean to have contested content and it makes sense that you might change it so people are just flagged when they are on the ocean.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I don't believe Steven knew of this specific change back then but also, all zones are pvp zones which is one of the points Steven was making. All this does is remove the potential penalty for killing from someone which is still different from archeage where zones enable or disable pvp.
Steven was making the point that, in Ashes, all zones have the same PvP mechanic:
Default Non-Combatant with Corruption.
The system had already been explained to Dygz, i don't think there is anything Steven could do to further explain how the system would play to him without creating further situations like this where things are miss-interpreted.
It's a change but i don't think it's as drastic as you are making it out to be. All zones have always been pvp zones since you could be attacked in every zone. This is different from archeage that disables pvp in zones during peace time. All this change does is remove the potential penalty for killing, not attacking, someone in the ocean.
It is a change that is more trivial to you than it is to me.
All zones will always be PvP zones. True.
However, I will not play on a server that has zones with no Corruption and auto-flags me as a Combatant.
The specific types of PvP mechanics that ArcheAge had are irrelevant.
What is relevant is that Steven stated that Ashes has one global flagging system with no zones that have a different flagging system.
We now have a zone with a different PvP mechanic.
And, for me, that PvP mechanic of auto-flagged as Combatant with no Corruption means the Ashes Open Seas will be as much of a cluster-fuck as the ArcheAge naval content... if not worse.
1
Options
LethalityMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
If there's no reason for the corruption system at sea, there's no reason for the corruption system anywhere. That's what this says. It doesn't accomplish what it was set out to do. Because if it did, it would be the same at sea.
Or it accomplishes it's goal of restricting pvp but on the sea, they want people fighting over stuff so they removed the restrictions.
They *always* wanted that. Even before AoC was born on Kickstarter, Steven had these ideas in his head for a long time!
So why, all of a sudden... what caused it to change?
Because I presume they want people fighting all over the world... risk vs reward everywhere. Not just in certain zones.
Where, all of a sudden, did the corruption system fall apart in delivering that?
Asked another way: what makes you (or Intrepid) think that players who don't want to fight on land are suddenly going to want to fight at sea?
World Class Indoorsman
3
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Well, I mean... Steven told us Friday... "Not everybody is as excited about PvP. But, as I've always said...Ashes of Creation is not meant to be the game for everyone."
If you want to assume that this change is because the corruption system isn't good enough then based off the fact the change they made was one to allow pvp in an area, it is implying the system isn't good enough at allowing pvp. So if you are going to say their corruption system isn't good enough then you are telling them that the penalty must be too high and they need to lower it so pvp is more common on land.
Brilliant take! The corruption system strictly protects the land, but due to how harsh it is, the PvPers get an open sea where they can go ham.
We get it Dygz, Steven lied to you, broke your heart and stole your money. You can always ask him for a refund, I'm sure he's lenient about it at this stage of the game's development.
2
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2022
LMAO
Give me a kiss and I will feel better.
1
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I don't believe Steven knew of this specific change back then but also, all zones are pvp zones which is one of the points Steven was making. All this does is remove the potential penalty for killing from someone which is still different from archeage where zones enable or disable pvp.
Steven was making the point that, in Ashes, all zones have the same PvP mechanic:
Default Non-Combatant with Corruption.
The system had already been explained to Dygz, i don't think there is anything Steven could do to further explain how the system would play to him without creating further situations like this where things are miss-interpreted.
It's a change but i don't think it's as drastic as you are making it out to be. All zones have always been pvp zones since you could be attacked in every zone. This is different from archeage that disables pvp in zones during peace time. All this change does is remove the potential penalty for killing, not attacking, someone in the ocean.
It is a change that is more trivial to you than it is to me.
All zones will always be PvP zones. True.
However, I will not play on a server that has zones with no Corruption and auto-flags me as a Combatant.
The specific types of PvP mechanics that ArcheAge had are irrelevant.
What is relevant is that Steven stated that Ashes has one global flagging system with no zones that have a different flagging system.
We now have a zone with a different PvP mechanic.
And, for me, that PvP mechanic of auto-flagged as Combatant with no Corruption means the Ashes Open Seas will be as much of a cluster-fuck as the ArcheAge naval content... if not worse.
Archeage mechanics are only relevant because you used it for your comparison and it's that comparison you are using for your argument. You have picked out a statement and to understand the context of the statement, you need to understand what it was referring to.
I kind of hope it's a cluster-fuck and think that is the desire.
You can easily avoid it when you don't want to pvp since there will be plenty of content on land. The way i see it is if you play the way you claim and just explore, there is no reason someone would want to attack you. The only people who would attack you are those who just want to pvp and are looking for a fight. With this change, the majority of those people are probably going to be going to the ocean for that so your chances of being attacked has dropped. I guess i don't know how much you love the ocean so i could be miss reading this but i think this change is better for you then you realize.
If there's no reason for the corruption system at sea, there's no reason for the corruption system anywhere. That's what this says. It doesn't accomplish what it was set out to do. Because if it did, it would be the same at sea.
Or it accomplishes it's goal of restricting pvp but on the sea, they want people fighting over stuff so they removed the restrictions.
They *always* wanted that. Even before AoC was born on Kickstarter, Steven had these ideas in his head for a long time!
So why, all of a sudden... what caused it to change?
Because I presume they want people fighting all over the world... risk vs reward everywhere. Not just in certain zones.
Where, all of a sudden, did the corruption system fall apart in delivering that?
Asked another way: what makes you (or Intrepid) think that players who don't want to fight on land are suddenly going to want to fight at sea?
This hasn't changed anything, people will still be fighting all over the world, there will just be some zones where there is more fighting.
I left a bigger response on my response to your edit but the short of it is probably the complications of corruption in a ship v ship scenario and the fact the ocean was already intended for high level content they wanted people to fight over.
To answer your last question, this change is obviously for people who want to pvp.
1
Options
FantmxMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I am not a pvper. I have always planned to run a freehold and at times engage in pve. But I accepted, during Kickstarter, that I will be in a world of pvp. I am 100% okay with that. I'm also a lifetime sub. So this is not about do I or do I not pay to play. This is about the long term health of a game that I am already invested in and very passionate about. That is generally the lens that I look at things through.
My concern is a perceived growing imbalance between pvp and pve, both of which are needed for Ashes to be what it wants to be. If we get to a state where PvE players and crafters can't enjoy the game because a significant portion of the game time is spent fighting off players that they don't want to be fighting in the first place, we will lose them.
It is in my opinion that it is already difficult to get the average pve player and crafter committed because of the possibility of daily forced pvp. I am well aware of the views Ashes is getting on YouTube and that is a great thing. But I have been running in pve MMORPG circles since EQ and I can say there is a growing concern among them.
That said, it was made more tolerable because of the proposed corruption mechanic. Now removing that from a significant portion of the game has some ramifications.
Steven once said:
If you don't have a strong, solid PvE focus as a game, then there's not much meaning to whatever PvP is going to provide.
I fully agree with that statement.
The mechanism for world change, according to the original Kickstarter video, is not open world or naval free for all pvp. It is castle sieges, guild wars, node sieges, battlegrounds, and caravans. Another statement I fully agree with.
The last thing I will say is I think we can all agree that we all very much want to see Ashes succeed in all of it's vision.
I've said this before ill say it again, quoting thing from 4-5 years ago when they have more and different designers working on the team. Though it will stay as its original goal for the overall game. Things will change in some design elements based on what they are working on and planning for players.
This can include all kinds of elements with design, combat, etc. It is a game in development and things are not set in stone either way and will be overly tested as well as gathering feedback from player opinion and developer goals.
Steven was making the point that, in Ashes, all zones have the same PvP mechanic:
Default Non-Combatant with Corruption.
You choose to interpret it that way.
Steven described how unlike Archeage's peace and PvP zones, AoC's whole open world is PvP-viable, not just some zones. And there's flagging system, but nowhere does he mention that the flag won't be enforced under any circumstances. In the open sea case, the flag is enforced just like it's enforced when you attack a Non-Corrupted player.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Archeage mechanics are only relevant because you used it for your comparison and it's that comparison you are using for your argument. You have picked out a statement and to understand the context of the statement, you need to understand what it was referring to.
The only part I need to understand is that when answering my question about ArcheAge, Steven stated that Ashes only has one global PvP flagging rules, rather than zones with different PvP flagging rules.
And that change to the Open Seas flagging rules will be a cluster-fuck similar to the ArcheAge naval content...ArcheAge naval content is the precise reason that I chose not to play ArcheAge
You can easily avoid it when you don't want to pvp since there will be plenty of content on land. The way i see it is if you play the way you claim and just explore, there is no reason someone would want to attack you. The only people who would attack you are those who just want to pvp and are looking for a fight. With this change, the majority of those people are probably going to be going to the ocean for that so your chances of being attacked has dropped. I guess i don't know how much you love the ocean so i could be miss reading this but i think this change is better for you then you realize.
I can easily avoid it by not playing the game.
Just as I did with ArcheAge.
I'm not going to play on a server that has a zone that auto-flags me as a Combatant and has no Corruption.
I've said this before ill say it again, quoting thing from 4-5 years ago when they have more and different designers working on the team. Though it will stay as its original goal for the overall game. Things will change in some design elements based on what they are working on and planning for players.
This can include all kinds of elements with design, combat, etc. It is a game in development and things are not set in stone either way and will be overly tested as well as gathering feedback from player opinion and developer goals.
Yes, and it's important to note there are orders of magnitude when those changes occur. The corruption system - including it's presence - isn't a design 'element' it's a design 'pillar;' it is the backbone of PvX.
Hence the spike in conversation & amplitude of the responses.
3
Options
LethalityMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
This hasn't changed anything, people will still be fighting all over the world, there will just be some zones where there is more fighting.
I don't mean to do a quote war, but, if nothing has changed, then why change anything?
And, how can we draw a conclusion there will be more fighting? Those non-combatants aren't any more likely to fight back that they were before, in fact there will likely be less frighting. Just more Ganking which has nothing to do with game objectives.
To answer your last question, this change is obviously for people who want to pvp.
Similarly, how does this deliver more "pvp" to those who want to PvP? They could attack everyone just like they could before - only now without a rules check.
They're not getting any PvP because there's nothing here that says those players will now all of a sudden fight back... that's not PvP that's ganking.
I'd agree that IS probably what they want, what doesn't make sense is why Steve would trash the Corruption system to allow it. The system that has been touted as the holy grail to make PvPvE finally possible and balanced in am MMO.
World Class Indoorsman
2
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
This hasn't changed anything, people will still be fighting all over the world, there will just be some zones where there is more fighting.
I don't mean to do a quote war, but, if nothing has changed, then why change anything?
And, how can we draw a conclusion there will be more fighting? Those non-combatants aren't any more likely to fight back that they were before, in fact there will likely be less frighting. Just more Ganking which has nothing to do with game objectives.
This will most likely lead to more fighting because people who want to fight will gravitate towards the ocean and will be encountering each other more often then if they were spread out across the world.
We now seem to be 'well it's your mistake for not thinking the game might not be for you in the first place, and clearly the goal is to have some free for all areas, you could just not play in those'.
I see the implication here as 'but you should play anyway, it's not a big deal'.
But some PvE players, and at least the PvP players I know personally, have seen this in other games and it usually amounts to just the 'wolf and sheep' thing. Because in the end, some people prefer their danger and challenge to primarily come from PvE content.
And if you say 'the world is supposed to feel dangerous' but then go 'so we have increased the PvP content', those people have no recourse. AI plays fair, people don't, and I'm not talking about power gaps. If an AI starts to do something contrary to 'general reason' that is somehow annoying (not even necessarily effective), a PvE player complains, or flags it as a bug.
If a human starts to do something 'contrary to general reason' that is somehow annoying (again, not necessarily effective), the PvE player can't be sure it will or won't continue. Some people say 'just adapt', but the stronger option is just better because most PvP opponents are not fun.
The stronger option being the one chosen. "Just don't play". That's the core here. If you can't grasp why Dygz doesn't play on servers with autoflag PvP zones, one big potential reason is because games like that get more of a certain annoying type of player in their population.
My fighting game experience applies in this case only because it's the psychology of players that applies, not the mechanics. In those games if I get into a match where my opponent's entire goal is to annoy and negate any option I have, even if I win I lose so I stop fighting. I can 'leave altogether'. Some of those people will invite me back, sometimes I'll go back because I think their intention is 'Ok ok I'll stop'.
8 out of 10 times it isn't. They're so dedicated to just being annoying that they do this anyway.
So from my end, PvP heavy games aren't unappealing because of the threat of people killing me. They're unappealing because people are annoying, often instead of actually fighting. Ashes explicitly has no defenses against people being annoying in their owPvP as it is. To me, this would be a big deal. This may not apply to any of you talking now, but I know you know they exist.
The most appealing thing about a strongly designed PvX game for me was the idea that the 'person who plays just to annoy' would not even want to play. I feel like that's been eroded now, but I'm not sure, so I'll await the 'reassurances'. Corruption wasn't even going to resolve this in 1v1, and if I start fighting and start winning but then keep being pinged or 'harassed' by an opponent who now flees, every time I flag Combatant I have removed any chance they have corruption. I've looked into ArcheAge, and am doing so more and more from this. It's not the same as playing it, but it's certainly not showing up any good points so far.
I'm already thinking about how the 'attacking a ship in coastal waters from Open Sea' and 'moving in and out of open sea or neutral waters quickly' mechanics will work in Ashes (I expect they will be fine, but expectation isn't a strong factor around here at the moment)
tl;dr People suck and this change makes more of the worst people more willing to play this game.
If there's no reason for the corruption system at sea, there's no reason for the corruption system anywhere. That's what this says. It doesn't accomplish what it was set out to do. Because if it did, it would be the same at sea.
Or it accomplishes it's goal of restricting pvp but on the sea, they want people fighting over stuff so they removed the restrictions.
They *always* wanted that. Even before AoC was born on Kickstarter, Steven had these ideas in his head for a long time!
So why, all of a sudden... what caused it to change?
Because I presume they want people fighting all over the world... risk vs reward everywhere. Not just in certain zones.
Where, all of a sudden, did the corruption system fall apart in delivering that?
Asked another way: what makes you (or Intrepid) think that players who don't want to fight on land are suddenly going to want to fight at sea?
Here you go again with the "THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM HAS FAILED!". It is literally just a different zone with different rules. It still maintains a focus on PVP and PVE. It's just more PVP to add more risk. Nothing about the oceans being auto flagged pvp implies that the corruption system is going to fail on land. How do you even correlate that unless you're just trying to make people panic?
I've said this before ill say it again, quoting thing from 4-5 years ago when they have more and different designers working on the team. Though it will stay as its original goal for the overall game. Things will change in some design elements based on what they are working on and planning for players.
This can include all kinds of elements with design, combat, etc. It is a game in development and things are not set in stone either way and will be overly tested as well as gathering feedback from player opinion and developer goals.
Yes, and it's important to note there are orders of magnitude when those changes occur. The corruption system - including it's presence - isn't a design 'element' it's a design 'pillar;' it is the backbone of PvX.
Hence the spike in conversation & amplitude of the responses.
That element hasn't changed its still in the game as intended for those areas in the normal gameplay loop. I don't see it personally as being a backbone of PvX, i see it as a tool to control the amount of pvp that is going on for very set reasons. Something that is needed to prevent certain bad elements of players forced in a small area that can prevent node and player progress if done too much a be a bit of a larger wall to overcome.
The Ocean is a different kind of content with its own gameplay loop and challenges. Is as much nearly impact the node development, nor are people respawning as close together having a whole ocean and coast to take their boat along before they go into the flagged area. It simply is a more dangerous area that players can go and be challenged by more kinds of pvp content. This is a PvX game just as you have the pve content there is pvp content that has its own flavors and styles as well then being simply the same type of content.
It is like saying you don't like the arena in a game so you won't play it because of that. Or you don't like the fact a guild can dec you and nothing can protect you from them attacking you, or a node. There is different levels and flavors and the sea content is something you can avoid in game unless you feel like consenting so that kind of PvP and area it is your choice.
Comments
My post was going to be a bit longer but I think you didn't watch the full conversation between Dygz and Steven. EvE's PvP zones came up before the quote you are discussing. If Steven really intended to have this specific system before when Dygz was asking Steven about PvP there is almost no chance he wouldn't have clarified that 'Ashes will have zones like EvE' or noted one of the differences between Ashes and Archeage was the persistence of areas where you can always engage in PvP without penalty.
It's really obvious why Dygz asks these kinds of questions. I think Steven is an intelligent enough guy to understand that PvP 'always on war' zones would be relevant information to Dygz's question here. There are a lot of things about 'misunderstanding Steven' I feel are valid to assert against Dygz about his 1 to 1's with Steven. This is certainly not one of them.
Dygz had clear intentions in asking and vetting out Steven's perception of what qualifies as a murder box to Steven and EvE's zoning came up right before this part of your quote. Note that Steven did not consider EvE to be a murder box. But the fact that Dygz showed a pretty strong reaction relative to it would make it really weird to not have brought up and tried to walk Dygz through. After all Dygz expressed uncertainty, not rejection.
It was a clear part of the context of this conversation. It would have made sense from Steven's perspective to clarify to Dygz the PvP zone thing at this point in the conversation. So either Steven knew he was going to be making this change back then and was just trying to coax Dygz into not giving him a certain kind of press (which is a bad look imo)..... Or it changed after the fact (much more favorable look)....
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
Steven stated that Ashes has one global PvP mechanic. Until a few months ago, Ashes did not have zones with different PvP mechanics.
Friday, Steven stated there has been an important change.
So... I dunno. It seems like you are trying to say that it's not a change, even though Steven stated it is an important change.
My Bartle score:
60% Achiever,
53% Socialiser,
47% Explorer,
40% Killer.
The questions are poorly formatted with extreme irrelevance based on common scenarios. I could devise a better test in 6 hours, it doesn't mean anything when you tell us yours.
"MMORPGs should not have an endgame. Endgame is when you've finished all of the quests and stories and you're waiting for new content."
Your definition of endgame differs from Ashes. AOC endgame will consist of players running through content that is changing from other players effectively creating a everchanging loop of content. Which is what IS has said will be our endgame. So basically in our case the design has ALWAYS been that a player COULD finish all of the content, but the true endgame loop will be derived from a player to player experience. Your post on this topic are consistent, you were on the fence about this game before now your off the fence due to this change, but just your statement on the endgame loop indicates that you weren't understanding that after you completed that content, the loop was going to be player driven, which you never wanted to begin with. To me it seems like this REALLY is not the game you wanted to play well before this change.
OW bosses == PVP
Nodes == PVP
Bosses will likely need to auto flag you for PVP when participating in them otherwise I can screw your raid over and screw you over by making you corrupt.
"Part of the whole experience with nodes is that there is no real end-game, in that the world is constantly shifting every day. Month one is going to be really different from month two; and that's for the level 50s and level 1s" – Jeffrey Bard
Why don't we give suggestions to make their proposed systems work, get with the program or leave it be completely.
If I were playing - you could try to screw my raid up. Wouldn't bother me.
There would be no way for you to make me go Corrupt.
Their proposed systems work, as far as I know.
Luckily there aren't nodes in the ocean right? You should think of it like a challenge to go outside your comfort zone and accomplish the task of exploring it. Not like it's ever changing like the land is. Game is about risk/reward from what I read so you should expect some content that puts you at risk if you want to see it all.
Or you could just do the hundreds of hours of content that isn't in the pvp ocean zone... going to not play because of that 1% of the content you dont like... can't wrap my head around it. It's like, I don't like fetch quests. I don't quit when I get a fetch quest or because I run into fetch quests alot.
TL;DR: As a PvE player I think this is a really cool and good idea.
I was already going out of my comfort zone with global Corruption.
I don't believe Steven knew of this specific change back then but also, all zones are pvp zones which is one of the points Steven was making. All this does is remove the potential penalty for killing someone which is still different from archeage where zones enable or disable pvp.
The system had already been explained to Dygz, i don't think there is anything Steven could do to further explain how the system would play to him without creating further situations like this where things are miss-interpreted.
At the end of the day, the best thing a person can do is play the system and see if they like it.
It's a change but i don't think it's as drastic as you are making it out to be. All zones have always been pvp zones since you could be attacked in every zone. This is different from archeage that disables pvp in zones during peace time. All this change does is remove the potential penalty for killing, not attacking, someone in the ocean.
87% Killer
♣ Killers get their kicks from imposing themselves on others. This may be "nice", ie. busybody do-gooding, but few people practice such an approach because the rewards (a warm, cosy inner glow, apparently) aren't very substantial. Much more commonly, people attack other players with a view to killing off their personae (hence the name for this style of play). The more massive the distress caused, the greater the killer's joy at having caused it. Normal points-scoring is usually required so as to become powerful enough to begin causing havoc in earnest, and exploration of a kind is necessary to discover new and ingenious ways to kill people. Even socialising is sometimes worthwhile beyond taunting a recent victim, for example in finding out someone's playing habits, or discussing tactics with fellow killers. They're all just means to an end, though; only in the knowledge that a real person, somewhere, is very upset by what you've just done, yet can themselves do nothing about it, is there any true adrenalin-shooting, juicy fun.
53% Achiever
40% Socialiser
20% Explorer
*The bold part is accurate i remember when i was deep in someone's head in BDO he hated me and was flipping out lmao
I think it's a hugely drastic change, and Steven even called it out as such. There's no way to downplay it.
Removing the penalty for killing is counterintuitive to the *entire* reason the corruption system exists and there by allows a game like AoC to try to correct what has been uncorrectable in every other game up until now. That's the entire premise of it!
If there's no reason for the corruption system at sea, there's no reason for the corruption system anywhere. That's what this says. It doesn't accomplish what it was set out to do. Because if it did, it would be the same at sea.
What I'd really like to hear from Steven and the team is how was this decision arrived at? Without actual gameplay testing, which to me, would be the only thing that could inform such a drastic change. As far as we know, the "idea" of the Corruption system is the same as it always was, and as bad or as good as it has ever been... until it gets in the hands of players. So I'd expect play testing before a change like this.
Or it accomplishes it's goal of restricting pvp but on the sea, they want people fighting over stuff so they removed the restrictions.
Well you will also be able to test this change.
They probably arrived at this decision because the complications of the corruption system in a ship vs ship scenario and the fact they already intended the ocean to be a place for high level content.
Without this change, 2 ships fighting would be a race to see who could destroy the other ship without the players interacting with eachother. It would be awkward. It might be a strategy to send people over to interrupt repairs and shooting. If someone jumped over to your ship and flagged to interrupt you, you would then have to choose how many people you would flag to kill them. The cannon users on the other ship could then choose to flag to damage the people who flagged to kill the interrupter. You would then have to choose to send people over to flag on them or maybe switch out your cannon users with your flagged users. If your healers tried to help, they would become flagged. If killing a ship of a none-combatant would give you corruption then killing any ship would always give corruption since the driver doesn't have to fight back to function.
Combine this with the fact they intended the ocean to have contested content and it makes sense that you might change it so people are just flagged when they are on the ocean.
Default Non-Combatant with Corruption.
Nothing was misinterpreted.
It is a change that is more trivial to you than it is to me.
All zones will always be PvP zones. True.
However, I will not play on a server that has zones with no Corruption and auto-flags me as a Combatant.
The specific types of PvP mechanics that ArcheAge had are irrelevant.
What is relevant is that Steven stated that Ashes has one global flagging system with no zones that have a different flagging system.
We now have a zone with a different PvP mechanic.
And, for me, that PvP mechanic of auto-flagged as Combatant with no Corruption means the Ashes Open Seas will be as much of a cluster-fuck as the ArcheAge naval content... if not worse.
They *always* wanted that. Even before AoC was born on Kickstarter, Steven had these ideas in his head for a long time!
So why, all of a sudden... what caused it to change?
Because I presume they want people fighting all over the world... risk vs reward everywhere. Not just in certain zones.
Where, all of a sudden, did the corruption system fall apart in delivering that?
Asked another way: what makes you (or Intrepid) think that players who don't want to fight on land are suddenly going to want to fight at sea?
"Not everybody is as excited about PvP. But, as I've always said...Ashes of Creation is not meant to be the game for everyone."
Give me a kiss and I will feel better.
Archeage mechanics are only relevant because you used it for your comparison and it's that comparison you are using for your argument. You have picked out a statement and to understand the context of the statement, you need to understand what it was referring to.
I kind of hope it's a cluster-fuck and think that is the desire.
You can easily avoid it when you don't want to pvp since there will be plenty of content on land. The way i see it is if you play the way you claim and just explore, there is no reason someone would want to attack you. The only people who would attack you are those who just want to pvp and are looking for a fight. With this change, the majority of those people are probably going to be going to the ocean for that so your chances of being attacked has dropped. I guess i don't know how much you love the ocean so i could be miss reading this but i think this change is better for you then you realize.
This hasn't changed anything, people will still be fighting all over the world, there will just be some zones where there is more fighting.
I left a bigger response on my response to your edit but the short of it is probably the complications of corruption in a ship v ship scenario and the fact the ocean was already intended for high level content they wanted people to fight over.
To answer your last question, this change is obviously for people who want to pvp.
My concern is a perceived growing imbalance between pvp and pve, both of which are needed for Ashes to be what it wants to be. If we get to a state where PvE players and crafters can't enjoy the game because a significant portion of the game time is spent fighting off players that they don't want to be fighting in the first place, we will lose them.
It is in my opinion that it is already difficult to get the average pve player and crafter committed because of the possibility of daily forced pvp. I am well aware of the views Ashes is getting on YouTube and that is a great thing. But I have been running in pve MMORPG circles since EQ and I can say there is a growing concern among them.
That said, it was made more tolerable because of the proposed corruption mechanic. Now removing that from a significant portion of the game has some ramifications.
Steven once said: I fully agree with that statement.
The mechanism for world change, according to the original Kickstarter video, is not open world or naval free for all pvp. It is castle sieges, guild wars, node sieges, battlegrounds, and caravans. Another statement I fully agree with.
The last thing I will say is I think we can all agree that we all very much want to see Ashes succeed in all of it's vision.
This can include all kinds of elements with design, combat, etc. It is a game in development and things are not set in stone either way and will be overly tested as well as gathering feedback from player opinion and developer goals.
Steven described how unlike Archeage's peace and PvP zones, AoC's whole open world is PvP-viable, not just some zones. And there's flagging system, but nowhere does he mention that the flag won't be enforced under any circumstances. In the open sea case, the flag is enforced just like it's enforced when you attack a Non-Corrupted player.
And that change to the Open Seas flagging rules will be a cluster-fuck similar to the ArcheAge naval content...ArcheAge naval content is the precise reason that I chose not to play ArcheAge
Precisely my point.
It's just not my desire.
I can easily avoid it by not playing the game.
Just as I did with ArcheAge.
I'm not going to play on a server that has a zone that auto-flags me as a Combatant and has no Corruption.
Yes, and it's important to note there are orders of magnitude when those changes occur. The corruption system - including it's presence - isn't a design 'element' it's a design 'pillar;' it is the backbone of PvX.
Hence the spike in conversation & amplitude of the responses.
I don't mean to do a quote war, but, if nothing has changed, then why change anything?
And, how can we draw a conclusion there will be more fighting? Those non-combatants aren't any more likely to fight back that they were before, in fact there will likely be less frighting. Just more Ganking which has nothing to do with game objectives.
Similarly, how does this deliver more "pvp" to those who want to PvP? They could attack everyone just like they could before - only now without a rules check.
They're not getting any PvP because there's nothing here that says those players will now all of a sudden fight back... that's not PvP that's ganking.
I'd agree that IS probably what they want, what doesn't make sense is why Steve would trash the Corruption system to allow it. The system that has been touted as the holy grail to make PvPvE finally possible and balanced in am MMO.
This will most likely lead to more fighting because people who want to fight will gravitate towards the ocean and will be encountering each other more often then if they were spread out across the world.
We now seem to be 'well it's your mistake for not thinking the game might not be for you in the first place, and clearly the goal is to have some free for all areas, you could just not play in those'.
I see the implication here as 'but you should play anyway, it's not a big deal'.
But some PvE players, and at least the PvP players I know personally, have seen this in other games and it usually amounts to just the 'wolf and sheep' thing. Because in the end, some people prefer their danger and challenge to primarily come from PvE content.
And if you say 'the world is supposed to feel dangerous' but then go 'so we have increased the PvP content', those people have no recourse. AI plays fair, people don't, and I'm not talking about power gaps. If an AI starts to do something contrary to 'general reason' that is somehow annoying (not even necessarily effective), a PvE player complains, or flags it as a bug.
If a human starts to do something 'contrary to general reason' that is somehow annoying (again, not necessarily effective), the PvE player can't be sure it will or won't continue. Some people say 'just adapt', but the stronger option is just better because most PvP opponents are not fun.
The stronger option being the one chosen. "Just don't play". That's the core here. If you can't grasp why Dygz doesn't play on servers with autoflag PvP zones, one big potential reason is because games like that get more of a certain annoying type of player in their population.
My fighting game experience applies in this case only because it's the psychology of players that applies, not the mechanics. In those games if I get into a match where my opponent's entire goal is to annoy and negate any option I have, even if I win I lose so I stop fighting. I can 'leave altogether'. Some of those people will invite me back, sometimes I'll go back because I think their intention is 'Ok ok I'll stop'.
8 out of 10 times it isn't. They're so dedicated to just being annoying that they do this anyway.
So from my end, PvP heavy games aren't unappealing because of the threat of people killing me. They're unappealing because people are annoying, often instead of actually fighting. Ashes explicitly has no defenses against people being annoying in their owPvP as it is. To me, this would be a big deal. This may not apply to any of you talking now, but I know you know they exist.
The most appealing thing about a strongly designed PvX game for me was the idea that the 'person who plays just to annoy' would not even want to play. I feel like that's been eroded now, but I'm not sure, so I'll await the 'reassurances'. Corruption wasn't even going to resolve this in 1v1, and if I start fighting and start winning but then keep being pinged or 'harassed' by an opponent who now flees, every time I flag Combatant I have removed any chance they have corruption. I've looked into ArcheAge, and am doing so more and more from this. It's not the same as playing it, but it's certainly not showing up any good points so far.
I'm already thinking about how the 'attacking a ship in coastal waters from Open Sea' and 'moving in and out of open sea or neutral waters quickly' mechanics will work in Ashes (I expect they will be fine, but expectation isn't a strong factor around here at the moment)
tl;dr People suck and this change makes more of the worst people more willing to play this game.
Oh I didn't realize the servers would be different. That works too
Here you go again with the "THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM HAS FAILED!". It is literally just a different zone with different rules. It still maintains a focus on PVP and PVE. It's just more PVP to add more risk. Nothing about the oceans being auto flagged pvp implies that the corruption system is going to fail on land. How do you even correlate that unless you're just trying to make people panic?
That element hasn't changed its still in the game as intended for those areas in the normal gameplay loop. I don't see it personally as being a backbone of PvX, i see it as a tool to control the amount of pvp that is going on for very set reasons. Something that is needed to prevent certain bad elements of players forced in a small area that can prevent node and player progress if done too much a be a bit of a larger wall to overcome.
The Ocean is a different kind of content with its own gameplay loop and challenges. Is as much nearly impact the node development, nor are people respawning as close together having a whole ocean and coast to take their boat along before they go into the flagged area. It simply is a more dangerous area that players can go and be challenged by more kinds of pvp content. This is a PvX game just as you have the pve content there is pvp content that has its own flavors and styles as well then being simply the same type of content.
It is like saying you don't like the arena in a game so you won't play it because of that. Or you don't like the fact a guild can dec you and nothing can protect you from them attacking you, or a node. There is different levels and flavors and the sea content is something you can avoid in game unless you feel like consenting so that kind of PvP and area it is your choice.