Azherae wrote: » I'm not saying that it shouldn't be like this, I'm simply adding it to the conceptual pile of reasons why PvE-focused players who build up those skills don't necessarily enjoy games like Ashes. Note it again. The player with the higher SKILL at one thing can have EQUAL skill to the other in PvP but because of their wish to push their PvE skill, they are disadvantaged in a PvP conflict anyway.
Azherae wrote: » Warth wrote: » Azherae wrote: » The PvE player does not have an explicit choice to engage in PvE as a way of trying to defeat the PvP skill of the PvP player in most games. If Ashes provides this as a small number of other games does, great. The PvP player always has the choice of either 'trying to win in PvE' or 'trying to win in PvP', but they should obviously (let's assume builds are different) focus on the PvP using their skill because they 'would lose the PvE'. They don't need to 'request the terms of the contest'. This i dont agree with. Both players have the option to solve the issue through PvE, PvP, or Diplomacy. The PvE player merely chooses not to see PvP as a valid option, which is HIS choice. The option is there, he merely chooses not to take it. It wouldnt be a choice, if there was PvP Gear only a PvP Player owns, that make it impossible for a PvE Player to even consider the option. This is not the case here though. The options you have are the same. Being a pacifist is a choice. Azherae wrote: » A game with a good culture or mechanics to incentivize these things would be better than a game where the optimal solution of the PvP player is, for example 'debuff and hit the PvE player while they are mid-combat and hope the mob kills them', and where the optimal solution of the PvE player is better than 'figure out a way to drop too many enemies into the cleave range of the PvP player who chooses not to PvP (to avoid corruption) so that they die'. This i agree with. Its not optimal, but this is ultimately what the corruption system will lead to, the same way it lead to this kind of behavior in Lineage 2. Im willing to see where Intrepid takes it though. Even if alternative routes of fuckery will be present it wont be a no-go for me either. This has nothing to do with being a Pacifist. For this discussion to even matter, the definitions of PvP and PvE player MUST refer to people who have explictly more skill or a better build for one of the two. Otherwise there's no need for any of it, which I would be glad for. If you wish to perceive this as 'Well everyone should have the same ability to PvP gear/build wise and should aim for the same levels of skill', sure. The PvE player would need a way to go 'I am going to use my skill with PvE against you whether you want to PvE or not' to the PvP player, for this to be 'balanced' because the PvP player has that option. 'Choosing' to PvP when you know you are disadvantaged due to build, what you practice, etc, simply because you do not have the option to do the other thing if your opponent chooses not to let you is what I am referring to here. But if we are rejecting the very concept of 'PvE player' from even that perspective because that player type 'should not exist in Ashes', then all we have to do is hope that the game gets enough attention from players who don't mind 'My PvE skill only matters in a conflict if my opponent agrees to use it for the contest'.
Warth wrote: » Azherae wrote: » The PvE player does not have an explicit choice to engage in PvE as a way of trying to defeat the PvP skill of the PvP player in most games. If Ashes provides this as a small number of other games does, great. The PvP player always has the choice of either 'trying to win in PvE' or 'trying to win in PvP', but they should obviously (let's assume builds are different) focus on the PvP using their skill because they 'would lose the PvE'. They don't need to 'request the terms of the contest'. This i dont agree with. Both players have the option to solve the issue through PvE, PvP, or Diplomacy. The PvE player merely chooses not to see PvP as a valid option, which is HIS choice. The option is there, he merely chooses not to take it. It wouldnt be a choice, if there was PvP Gear only a PvP Player owns, that make it impossible for a PvE Player to even consider the option. This is not the case here though. The options you have are the same. Being a pacifist is a choice. Azherae wrote: » A game with a good culture or mechanics to incentivize these things would be better than a game where the optimal solution of the PvP player is, for example 'debuff and hit the PvE player while they are mid-combat and hope the mob kills them', and where the optimal solution of the PvE player is better than 'figure out a way to drop too many enemies into the cleave range of the PvP player who chooses not to PvP (to avoid corruption) so that they die'. This i agree with. Its not optimal, but this is ultimately what the corruption system will lead to, the same way it lead to this kind of behavior in Lineage 2. Im willing to see where Intrepid takes it though. Even if alternative routes of fuckery will be present it wont be a no-go for me either.
Azherae wrote: » The PvE player does not have an explicit choice to engage in PvE as a way of trying to defeat the PvP skill of the PvP player in most games. If Ashes provides this as a small number of other games does, great. The PvP player always has the choice of either 'trying to win in PvE' or 'trying to win in PvP', but they should obviously (let's assume builds are different) focus on the PvP using their skill because they 'would lose the PvE'. They don't need to 'request the terms of the contest'.
Azherae wrote: » A game with a good culture or mechanics to incentivize these things would be better than a game where the optimal solution of the PvP player is, for example 'debuff and hit the PvE player while they are mid-combat and hope the mob kills them', and where the optimal solution of the PvE player is better than 'figure out a way to drop too many enemies into the cleave range of the PvP player who chooses not to PvP (to avoid corruption) so that they die'.
NiKr wrote: » Azherae wrote: » I'm not saying that it shouldn't be like this, I'm simply adding it to the conceptual pile of reasons why PvE-focused players who build up those skills don't necessarily enjoy games like Ashes. Note it again. The player with the higher SKILL at one thing can have EQUAL skill to the other in PvP but because of their wish to push their PvE skill, they are disadvantaged in a PvP conflict anyway. This is why I hope Intrepid somehow manages to design mobs in such a way that fighting them wouldn't be too different from fighting humans. At the end of the day it's just some movement around and CCs/attacks. And when PvE players realize that they can fight back against players the same way they would fight back against an agro mob who attacked them first. Obviously this doesn't include the gatherer part of the pve player spectrum, but those are protected by the corruption system (to a point) and would probably usually be on the lower adventure lvl side of progression so it's not like any pvper would be ready to just kill them.
mcstackerson wrote: » As with your skill comment. Yes, as with all games, you will need to learn the variety of skills to play, at least play efficiently. Your PvE skill is important because it allows you to gather resources and progress. Your pvp skill allows you to fight over those resources. Knowing both is important in the game.
Azherae wrote: » I'm sure they're working on it, it's not THAT hard, but then you are in territory that is pretty rough for the majority of players for a different reason. Remember I told you a while ago that the ONE Dark Rift enemy in BDO that fights relatively close to how a player would, is the one they mark as 'Very Hard' in their rating system. So you'd be saying 'You need to have a level of gaming skill equal to a PvP player to take on harder content in this game'. As a solution to literally every 'problem' this game theoretically has (except not really) I'll take it.
Warth wrote: » I dont really care about terminology. Most of it lost all meaning forever ago. Even his definition of PvX is something that isnt commonly used in the genre, where PvX is mostly used to describe guilds/games with both PvE and PvP Content. By that common definition, both AA and EVE would be PvX. By that definition Albion would be PvX. By that definition WoW would be PvX. Which is why i prefer Stevens definition of PvX Games, aka a game, where PvE and PvP are intertwined.
NiKr wrote: » Azherae wrote: » I'm sure they're working on it, it's not THAT hard, but then you are in territory that is pretty rough for the majority of players for a different reason. Remember I told you a while ago that the ONE Dark Rift enemy in BDO that fights relatively close to how a player would, is the one they mark as 'Very Hard' in their rating system. So you'd be saying 'You need to have a level of gaming skill equal to a PvP player to take on harder content in this game'. As a solution to literally every 'problem' this game theoretically has (except not really) I'll take it. I mean, this could apply only to the "juicy" mobs at higher lvls. As in, if you haven't learned how you character plays by then - you should be fine with farming weak mobs that don't give you great loot. I know that statement reeks of elitism, but that kind of thing applies to literally every mmo out there. Your skill is not great enough to participate in this raid? You don't get the loot from it, and usually that's the best loot. Apply that same logic to open world mobs and equate those mobs to pvp, and you'll have yourself true pvx players. Well, out of all the people who do understand how their character plays and manage to farm such mobs. At which point, in theory, to them the pvp shouldn't be any different than pve, which to me seems like the perfect pvx setup that Ashes should be striving for. Keep the game difficult and give the players the means to overcome said difficulty. Not everyone will, but that's where you say "ashes is not for everyone", except now it'd still appeal to all the hardcore pvers out there. Now I realize that it's not as easy as I explained it there, with Dygz being the biggest example of why. There'll always be people who dislike pvp out of principle and that's ok, there'll still be a ton of other features in the game that they can interact with.
NiKr wrote: » When PvE players realize that they can fight back against players the same way they would fight back against an agro mob who attacked them first. Obviously this doesn't include the gatherer part of the pve player spectrum, but those are protected by the corruption system (to a point) and would probably usually be on the lower adventure lvl side of progression so it's not like any pvper would be ready to just kill them.
Dizz wrote: » PvX means a game is made with PvP and PvE cross to each other no matter what kind player you are, which means if you are a player only feel joy in PvP than PvE or PVP than PvE Ashes of Creation might not your game, and a well made PvX game will make sure no matter what content you doing you won't always 100% avoid the PvP or PvE part. A lot of games tried to make PvX before so Ashes of Creation is not special in anyway, it's special because Intrepid trying to make a PvX type of game that already not a majority taste for a long time and so call MMORPG genre is dying and games we can see now are full of shit in general in this era. So PvX is a game type not really easy to have fun for hardcore PvP/PvE players which means players only want to do PvP or PvE and don't want the other part, to those kind of players you need to really understand that before you give your opinions. Like open sea is a higher risk and higher return zone, it's just what we know for sure is that they choose to make open sea a auto flagging pvp zone to represent the higher risk for now, maybe the monsters are also much danger than monsters on land which means it's maybe won't work like a heavy PvP zone. If the thing is that because there is a content leans more to PvP so the game needs a content leans more to PvE as a counter, Ashes of Creation will not far to become just a game have PvP and PvE part and call itself PvX like other shit games. Too much hardcore PvP/PvE players here in official forum and want to make Ashes of Creation their game instead of make it fun, it's just too much "I don't play like that way so I don't want that content" BS like PvPer don't do PvE contents or PvEer don't want PvP contents cross to PvE contents or even they think PvPers are toxic etc, if these BS is truth that most players are just like what they said then Ashes of Creation is already dead.
Dygz wrote: » NiKr wrote: » When PvE players realize that they can fight back against players the same way they would fight back against an agro mob who attacked them first. Obviously this doesn't include the gatherer part of the pve player spectrum, but those are protected by the corruption system (to a point) and would probably usually be on the lower adventure lvl side of progression so it's not like any pvper would be ready to just kill them. Um. AI cannot yet play the same way Humans play. And, I would not play a game where AI fights the same way Humans fight.
Azherae wrote: » This has nothing to do with being a Pacifist. For this discussion to even matter, the definitions of PvP and PvE player MUST refer to people who have explictly more skill or a better build for one of the two. Otherwise there's no need for any of it, which I would be glad for.
Azherae wrote: » 'Choosing' to PvP when you know you are disadvantaged due to build, what you practice, etc, simply because you do not have the option to do the other thing if your opponent chooses not to let you is what I am referring to here.
Azherae wrote: » But if we are rejecting the very concept of 'PvE player' from even that perspective because that player type 'should not exist in Ashes', then all we have to do is hope that the game gets enough attention from players who don't mind 'My PvE skill only matters in a conflict if my opponent agrees to use it for the contest'.
NiKr wrote: » I mean, this could apply only to the "juicy" mobs at higher lvls. As in, if you haven't learned how you character plays by then - you should be fine with farming weak mobs that don't give you great loot. I know that statement reeks of elitism, but that kind of thing applies to literally every mmo out there. Your skill is not great enough to participate in this raid? You don't get the loot from it, and usually that's the best loot. Apply that same logic to open world mobs and equate those mobs to pvp, and you'll have yourself true pvx players. Well, out of all the people who do understand how their character plays and manage to farm such mobs. At which point, in theory, to them the pvp shouldn't be any different than pve, which to me seems like the perfect pvx setup that Ashes should be striving for.
NiKr wrote: » Keep the game difficult and give the players the means to overcome said difficulty. Not everyone will, but that's where you say "ashes is not for everyone", except now it'd still appeal to all the hardcore pvers out there.
NiKr wrote: » Now I realize that it's not as easy as I explained it there, with Dygz being the biggest example of why. There'll always be people who dislike pvp out of principle and that's ok, there'll still be a ton of other features in the game that they can interact with.
Azherae wrote: » And now, for a personal addition to this. One of the largest problems with this, I think outright huge problems, is that higher PvE skill automatically puts many players in a situation where they are automatically disadvantaged in PvP against a player with less of it. Let's use Alpha-1 as a simple example. Crabs on a beach, level 13-15. High skill PvE player goes there at level 8 and starts racking up the exp. Lower skill PvE player or one who doesn't have as good a build doesn't go there until level 11 or 12. These two players could have literally the same build, gear, and PvP skill, and the LESS skilled PvE player would win their fight. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be like this, I'm simply adding it to the conceptual pile of reasons why PvE-focused players who build up those skills don't necessarily enjoy games like Ashes. Note it again. The player with the higher SKILL at one thing can have EQUAL skill to the other in PvP but because of their wish to push their PvE skill, they are disadvantaged in a PvP conflict anyway.
Warth wrote: » Azherae wrote: » This has nothing to do with being a Pacifist. For this discussion to even matter, the definitions of PvP and PvE player MUST refer to people who have explictly more skill or a better build for one of the two. Otherwise there's no need for any of it, which I would be glad for. Interesting. The definition ive seen before plenty on this forum is:PvE Player: Player who wants to primarily do PvE and avoids PvP for the most part / if humanly possible / unless they have the feeling to participate at this exact moment. PvP Player: Someone who doesnt mind or even likes participating in PvP opportunities. So thats what i answered to. However, lets adress the definition you have posted before: I feel like dividing the PvP and PvE players by skill is arbitrary. How do you divide PvE and PvP through their PvP skill? Does one suddenly stop from being a PvE player when he faces someone worse than them? The Build definition i can get behind, so ill roll with that for the sake of the argument. Going for either a pvp optimized build, a pve optimized (bossing, mobbing) build or anything inbetween is the players choice. As such, this decision should have consequences: Improve your PvP Toolkit and decrease your efficiency in PvE Increase your PvE Efficiency at the cost of your PvP Toolkit. When a Player decides to go for a PvE-centric build at the expense of PvP-Tools, then they decide to increase their risk of being weaker in a PvP scenario in order to be better at farming when left alone. (Higher Risk - better Rewards) When a player decides to go for a PvP-centric build that makes them less efficient at farming PvE, then he goes for a lower Risk - lower reward approach. I do not see how this is a bad thing. Its the players choice. It gives them the agency to decide what they want to go for. Azherae wrote: » 'Choosing' to PvP when you know you are disadvantaged due to build, what you practice, etc, simply because you do not have the option to do the other thing if your opponent chooses not to let you is what I am referring to here. To rephrase what i wrote on top. What you practice and what you build for is your decision, not the decision of anybody else. If you are unhappy with the outcome, adapt, improve, overcome. Azherae wrote: » But if we are rejecting the very concept of 'PvE player' from even that perspective because that player type 'should not exist in Ashes', then all we have to do is hope that the game gets enough attention from players who don't mind 'My PvE skill only matters in a conflict if my opponent agrees to use it for the contest'. Im a PvE player at heart. If left to do so, I will spend 90+% of my time doing PvE (Mostly Gathering) activities. That doesnt mean that im not planning to defend my farming spot when i have to or prepare for the ultimate scenario of being attacked (in whichever form) by another player. In a game like Ashes, being able to defend your farm spot is as important as the ability to optimally use the farm spot when its secure. I think Intrepid has been very clear about that in the past. People might disagree with the direction as it isnt to their preference, but thats the game they want to build and if this turns away people, that do not want to get involved into PvP whatsoever, then thats the choice they are making and Im happy for it.
NiKr wrote: » To address all the responses and related comments here: I'm not even talking about super complex AIs that copy humans exactly, I'm just saying that giving mobs a bit more mobility than just "stand here and move your arms" or at the very best "keep running after the target and hit them". And give them abilities that are similar to players' in their effect. Them being stuns, dashes, buffs, heals, etc. I'm sure there's been at least a few mmos that have done this already, I'm just saying to have such mobs in Ashes too and make them difficult. A PvE challenge, if you will.
NiKr wrote: » And to address @Dygz directly, yes, I know that you don't partake in hardcore pve either. Which is why I said that there'd still be a ton of other content in the game. And just like you wouldn't participate in smth like a WoW mythic or a FF14 ultimate - you'd just avoid such mobs in Ashes (that is if you do even decide to play it).
NiKr wrote: » Maybe it's just my L2 bias, but I don't really understand why people differentiate players from mobs both hit you and you can hit both, that's it. Which is why my main assumption on this topic is that the reason for the differentiation is the difficulty of combat. And that is why I suggested what I suggested.
