Noaani wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Which is also pretty selfish is you talking about how long people have been around for. It really doesn't matter 1 year, 5 years, one month. Plenty of new people are going to come with their view points and everyone is just as valuable. Where did I say anyone's opinion was more or less valid because they had been here longer or shorter? This is just another in a long line of situations where you read things that aren't there. You really need to stop doing that - if I dont mention the word "opinion" in a post, why would you think I am talking about opinions? You should know, as far as I am concerned, everyone's opinion is exactly as valid as that opinion warrants. That is the end of that specific point of discussion. The reason I mentioned Dygz has been here so long is to point out that he has invested a lot of time in to this community. Lex is probably the only person with more time invested. Dygz has specifically asked as many questions about PvP and corruption as any one person could ask, often directly to Steven, during interviews that Dygz himself conducted. No where in all of that did Intrepid think to say "corruption doesnt apply to about half of the game world", even though they HAD to know that was the plan. I never said they should share every decision with us. They just recently told us about CC not working on greens, and that's fine. However, having a system that is specifically designed to prevent the game being a murder box (Steven's words, if you disagree, take it up with him, not me), and then many years later saying that this system only applies to half the game world - and an entire content type - is simply not acceptable. It would be like Steven coming along now and saying that actually, PvE in dungeons is all going to be instanced. The open world we talked about, that is all just overland stuff. That would be unacceptable at this point in development, but is the exact same thing that happened with ocean corruption. You are only arguing against my point because you like this change. The thing is, I dont even consider it a change, I was expecting it. My complaint is purely about how unacceptable it is to make announcements that so drastically change the game after people have spent so long in the community trying to get this information (which brings us back to me saying Dygz has been here for 5 years).
Mag7spy wrote: » Which is also pretty selfish is you talking about how long people have been around for. It really doesn't matter 1 year, 5 years, one month. Plenty of new people are going to come with their view points and everyone is just as valuable.
Dygz wrote: » It's enough of a change to shift it from a balanced PvP/PvE game to a PvP-centric game for me. All PvP-centric MMORPGs include some PvE.
Mag7spy wrote: » 1. Do not bring up my date joining as use it as a contrast, no one is reading into thing you are effective assuming I've been keeping up into the game for a year. If that does not matter do not reference it in a post. It is that simple.
game from becoming a murder box? The orginal design has Corruption as a punishment for non-consensual PvP and no permanent zones with auto-flag to Combatant. Default in all zones is Non-Combatant.
Mag7spy wrote: » NiKr I'll ask you what does Noaani know about the development besides what we are shown. It is a pretty naïve and consumer term "At this point in development"
Noaani wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Noaani wrote: » If you are going to give a hypothetical, give one that is at least reasonable, ideally even plausible Here's an example of what he's saying directly from L2. There's a BiS set for mages. Its pieces can drop from a few bosses (with a good chunk of those being epic ones that have 2-7 day respawns, and all others having 24+-3h ones) and they can also be crafted. You need mats and recipes to craft them. And while mats have a few locations that you can farm, recipes come from literally 1 kind of a mob (it's 3 mobs but they come as a group and have a shared respawn). And the chance to drop the recipe is abysmal This group of mobs has 3 spawn location in the entire game. Literally every mage on the server would be trying to get this recipe for themselves. And there's several examples for this kind of interaction. Bosses are controlled by bigger guilds or have fucked up respawn times and mobs are so sought after that you'd have to fight dozens of players to even get a chance to get the loot from the mob, let alone dropping the recipe itself. You'll obviously just call this bad design, but that's a real example of what Depraved was talking about. Now, since the original question was "what would you do kn a PvE server if...", I'll reiterate my same point. I would stop playing a game with shit developers. Once again, that kind of thing can work in a PvP game. In a PvE game, however, developers need to be better. That scenario in a PvE game would see that PvE game fail. Immediately. Those goes back to what I said in the other thread - people that have only really played PvP simply do not understand PvE. Of course you aren't going to enjoy it if you dont understand it. PvE at its core is far more complex than PvP. It has to be. Developers of games that rely on PvP use PvP for challenge and as a restriction. Your above example is such a case. PvE developers have to provide that challenge for players, and have to come up with that reateuction. This REQUIEWS the game and its content to be more complex. Not just on an encounter basis, but in the structure of where mobs are placed, mob spawns, quest design, everything. So again, in the above situation, I would simply stop playing the game because the developers simply have no idea what they are doing, they are developing the wrong type of content for the game they have (which we have established in this hypothetical question is PvE).
NiKr wrote: » Noaani wrote: » If you are going to give a hypothetical, give one that is at least reasonable, ideally even plausible Here's an example of what he's saying directly from L2. There's a BiS set for mages. Its pieces can drop from a few bosses (with a good chunk of those being epic ones that have 2-7 day respawns, and all others having 24+-3h ones) and they can also be crafted. You need mats and recipes to craft them. And while mats have a few locations that you can farm, recipes come from literally 1 kind of a mob (it's 3 mobs but they come as a group and have a shared respawn). And the chance to drop the recipe is abysmal This group of mobs has 3 spawn location in the entire game. Literally every mage on the server would be trying to get this recipe for themselves. And there's several examples for this kind of interaction. Bosses are controlled by bigger guilds or have fucked up respawn times and mobs are so sought after that you'd have to fight dozens of players to even get a chance to get the loot from the mob, let alone dropping the recipe itself. You'll obviously just call this bad design, but that's a real example of what Depraved was talking about.
Noaani wrote: » If you are going to give a hypothetical, give one that is at least reasonable, ideally even plausible
Sathrago wrote: » game from becoming a murder box? The orginal design has Corruption as a punishment for non-consensual PvP and no permanent zones with auto-flag to Combatant. Default in all zones is Non-Combatant. @Dygz bro I already showed you that battlegrounds have always been intended for the game. These are open world zones that auto flag you when you enter them. Let's just say the seas dont exist and the node ruins dont exist. What the hell were you expecting these battlegrounds to be?
Noaani wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » 1. Do not bring up my date joining as use it as a contrast, no one is reading into thing you are effective assuming I've been keeping up into the game for a year. If that does not matter do not reference it in a post. It is that simple. I bought up the fact Dygz has long been active in this community as a point to illustrate why he would be justified in being disappointed in Intrepid for not having mentioned it for that long. The more someone has invested a thing, the more they stand to lose if that thing doesnt pay out. If you have been a part of something for a year, you stand to lose less than someone that has been a part of the same thing for five years. I'd you read any more than that in to the comment about when you joined vs when Dygz joined, then it was all in your head. As to your continued irrelevant point about game development, wells it continues to be irrelevant. There are a limited number of things that could have happened for us to arrive at the place we are now. 1, Intrepid put jo thought at all in to naval content until now. 2, Intrepid did put thought in to naval content, but had no immediate intention to have the ocean corruption free, and then had to change that for some undisclosed reason. 3, Intrepid did put thought in to it, knew the ocean would need to be corruption free, and just didnt tell anyone. At this point in development, scenario 1 is outright unacceptable. It shows a total lack of organization at Intrepid, and is a sure sign that the game is in trouble (to the point I would have doubts as to it ever launching). Scenario 2 is unrealistic. There would be no reason to need to change it for system/mechanics reasons (any such issues would be present in costal waters, as others have pointed out). The only way this could logically happen is if it was an option decision that Intrepid decided to make. If this is the case, they literally made the decision to alter a massive part of the game from what many players assumed it would be. This is the default that players are assuming has happened. Scenario 3 would suggest Intrwpid dont give a shit about their community. None of the above scenarios suggest Intrepid didnt fuck up in some way. What's worse is that their communication in regards to it has been shockingly bad. Not only did they fuck up, but they fucked up the fuck up and made it worse. Now, unless you have another scenario that is reasonable and plausable as to how Intrepid could go 5 years without mentioning a MAJOR aspect of the game, an aspect that literally alters the entire concept of the game to many people, we have to assume one of these above scenarios is the case. Based on that, no matter which of said scenarios turns out to be true, Intrepid fucked up.
Mag7spy wrote: » You are overexaggerating.
NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » NiKr I'll ask you what does Noaani know about the development besides what we are shown. It is a pretty naïve and consumer term "At this point in development" I saw it as just Noaani's opinion on the matter. And even if I personally like the change, I was also quite shocked when Steven announced it because it is in fact a huge part of the world that has a completely different set of rules of existence now. And I definitely see how and why someone would be quite displeased with this change. But I'd really have to see their plans for open seas content in order to really understand the reasoning behind the change. If they plan to have a ton of mobs in the water that a ship full of PKers can easily grind to remove their corruption and those mobs are in bumfuck nowhere, then, yeah, corruption at sea wouldn't really matter either way. But if there's only a few bosses and a few fishing spots there (with maybe underwater treasures) - I see no real point in changing it to ffa pvp zone other than the "AA had it this way" one. At which point we come to Dygz' supposition that this change came directly from Steven due to there being no Lead Designer to argue against said change. And I personally agree with Dygz' point because I remember quite a few moments during dev streams where Steven and Jeff had differing povs on things. And while Steven would often say "nah, this is how it's gonna be", the sheer fact that the povs were different would indicate to me that outside of dev streams there'd be a long discussion about that design point and Jeff might've just not wanted to undermine his boss in front of thousands of people by arguing against that point. And now that the Lead Designer is gone we have Steven who keeps saying "this is how it's gonna be" and pretty much no one there to say no or to at least argue why it might be better to not change the design direction. Now, I agree with Steven's design for the most part, mainly because he comes from the games that I myself loved (or would've loved in case of early AA), but what I love is obviously far from what most people love so I think it's not the best situation when every design change follows my preferences But as we all keep saying, we gotta test it all in alpha, otherwise this whole discussion is somewhat pointless, outside of the sheer fact that we show Intrepid that there's people who're dissatisfied with the change.
NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » You are overexaggerating. This article says that NW had its change from survival to what it is now during the alpha stage of the survival versionhttps://www.rockpapershotgun.com/new-world-developer-interview And this change is considered one of the hugest fuckups in mmos (well, considered that by the pvp community obviously) because it did a 180. Now obviously Intrepid didn't do a full 180 quite yet, but changing half of the world's rules is quite close to that imo. And with the ruins mechanic change we're now setting a precedent and an exact direction ("2 points make a line" and all that) for the design of the game. I'm not saying that Steven's about to make Ashes a ffa pvp game, but the direction of the changes is definitely pointing there.
Mag7spy wrote: » I just can't see land and water content even remotely on the same wavelength as far as where the content you will be wanting to do most of the time.
NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » NiKr I'll ask you what does Noaani know about the development besides what we are shown. It is a pretty naïve and consumer term "At this point in development" I saw it as just Noaani's opinion on the matter. And even if I personally like the change, I was also quite shocked when Steven announced it because it is in fact a huge part of the world that has a completely different set of rules of existence now. And I definitely see how and why someone would be quite displeased with this change. But I'd really have to see their plans for open seas content in order to really understand the reasoning behind the change. If they plan to have a ton of mobs in the water that a ship full of PKers can easily grind to remove their corruption and those mobs are in bumfuck nowhere, then, yeah, corruption at sea wouldn't really matter either way. But if there's only a few bosses and a few fishing spots there (with maybe underwater treasures) - I see no real point in changing it to ffa pvp zone other than the "AA had it this way" one. At which point we come to Dygz' supposition that this change came directly from Steven due to there being no Lead Designer to argue against said change. And I personally agree with Dygz' point because I remember quite a few moments during dev streams where Steven and Jeff had differing povs on things. And while Steven would often say "nah, this is how it's gonna be", the sheer fact that the povs were different would indicate to me that outside of dev streams there'd be a long discussion about that design point and Jeff might've just not wanted to undermine his boss in front of thousands of people by arguing against that point. And now that the Lead Designer is gone we have Steven who keeps saying "this is how it's gonna be" and pretty much no one there to say no or to at least argue why it might be better to not change the design direction. Now, I agree with Steven's design for the most part, mainly because he comes from the games that I myself loved (or would've loved in case of early AA), but what I love is obviously far from what most people love so I think it's not the best situation when every design change follows my preferences But as we all keep saying, we gotta test it all in alpha, otherwise this whole discussion is someone pointless, outside of the sheer fact that we show Intrepid that there's people who're dissatisfied with the change.
Depraved wrote: » converting the node ruins into a pvp area isnt a drastic change T____T it literally stays true to the design philosophies of the game, such as player agency and interaction, and risk vs reward. this is literally just content added that stays true to the design philosophies.
