If you want open world PvP you just play on a PvP server.
The game can be designed the exact same way and nothing needs to change other than on a PvE server, open world PvP is just disabled. You'd still have areas where PvP is enabled, just not the entire map.
Many of the systems are designed around PvPvE/PvX game, so for example Caravans wont work, economy would probably also not work well (As we have seen in NW when a game is designed with PvX mind and at the last minute make it Optional) and etc. Which means that this servers have to be balanced separately which take dev resources which could be used for content and etc
Caravans still work, node sieges still work. If people don't want to use caravans because of the risk of being attacked, they lose out on the main method of transporting goods across long distances.
Yes the economy would be faster, but that just means node sieges happen more often and cities are destroyed sooner. It would just be a faster paced version of a PvP server because there is less of a barrier to reach endgame, but destroying nodes is still the main item sink that would remain untouched.
lies. game wont be same.
How do you dethrone a large guild? you cant harass guild members making them leave. you cant take their resources, notihng
You can't do that in a PvP server either. The stronger guild just owns whatever they want.
no, i can harass individual players until they leave guild
If you want open world PvP you just play on a PvP server.
The game can be designed the exact same way and nothing needs to change other than on a PvE server, open world PvP is just disabled. You'd still have areas where PvP is enabled, just not the entire map.
Many of the systems are designed around PvPvE/PvX game, so for example Caravans wont work, economy would probably also not work well (As we have seen in NW when a game is designed with PvX mind and at the last minute make it Optional) and etc. Which means that this servers have to be balanced separately which take dev resources which could be used for content and etc
Caravans still work, node sieges still work. If people don't want to use caravans because of the risk of being attacked, they lose out on the main method of transporting goods across long distances.
Yes the economy would be faster, but that just means node sieges happen more often and cities are destroyed sooner. It would just be a faster paced version of a PvP server because there is less of a barrier to reach endgame, but destroying nodes is still the main item sink that would remain untouched.
lies. game wont be same.
How do you dethrone a large guild? you cant harass guild members making them leave. you cant take their resources, notihng
You can't do that in a PvP server either. The stronger guild just owns whatever they want.
no, i can harass individual players until they leave guild
September 12. 2022: Being naked can also be used to bring a skilled artisan to different freeholds... Don't summon family!
it's very unlikely griefing will be a serious issue
Yeah gamers are a really friendly community that all love and respect each other.
Surely we won't see the giga nuclear griefers of doom turn the game into metagaming trash.
Surely making changes to a system from 2003 will be able to combat one of the sweatiest and most degenerate types of playstyles that has thrived in every system attempting to prevent it.
Surely.
there actually alot of respect in the pvp community and between pvp guild unless you rage when u die then they get a kick out of it and then they just farm you for entertainment if you say gg or gf and leave it at that its generaly pretty good in most pvp centric games i play MMO wise.
when PvE players die in PvP they tend to say something dumb and that just makes them do it again i guess pvp players tend to respect people with a back bone and not children that go ape when they get PKed atleast from my experiences
If you want open world PvP you just play on a PvP server.
The game can be designed the exact same way and nothing needs to change other than on a PvE server, open world PvP is just disabled. You'd still have areas where PvP is enabled, just not the entire map.
Many of the systems are designed around PvPvE/PvX game, so for example Caravans wont work, economy would probably also not work well (As we have seen in NW when a game is designed with PvX mind and at the last minute make it Optional) and etc. Which means that this servers have to be balanced separately which take dev resources which could be used for content and etc
Caravans still work, node sieges still work. If people don't want to use caravans because of the risk of being attacked, they lose out on the main method of transporting goods across long distances.
Yes the economy would be faster, but that just means node sieges happen more often and cities are destroyed sooner. It would just be a faster paced version of a PvP server because there is less of a barrier to reach endgame, but destroying nodes is still the main item sink that would remain untouched.
lies. game wont be same.
How do you dethrone a large guild? you cant harass guild members making them leave. you cant take their resources, notihng
You can't do that in a PvP server either. The stronger guild just owns whatever they want.
not always your gorilla warfare large guilds hit them in spots kil some members and disapear before they can react, do that enough u get people quitting the guild cause they feel like there not being helped, a guild of about 10 people derailed a huge guild in Archage just by constantly hitting there trade pack runs and disapearing withing 2 minutes of first hit while there entire guild portaled in (Which also wont be able to be done in AoC due to lack of fast travel options)
In darkfall mega alliancesa formed and they always got toppled by all the small guys allying up and hitting them constantly till mega zerg fell appart and then the counter zerg disbanded since it wasnt a threat anymore.
pve players have the ability to do that too since they outnumber pvp population if they were to ever unite they could probaly push any pvp out of there neck of the woods but they never do just complain about it instead. PvE players seem to lack diplomancy skills where pvper will do diplomacy with other guilds but i guess thats cause there use to the more solo/guild only kinda things so they never had to talk to other guilds for assistance and all that.
If you want open world PvP you just play on a PvP server.
The game can be designed the exact same way and nothing needs to change other than on a PvE server, open world PvP is just disabled. You'd still have areas where PvP is enabled, just not the entire map.
Many of the systems are designed around PvPvE/PvX game, so for example Caravans wont work, economy would probably also not work well (As we have seen in NW when a game is designed with PvX mind and at the last minute make it Optional) and etc. Which means that this servers have to be balanced separately which take dev resources which could be used for content and etc
Caravans still work, node sieges still work. If people don't want to use caravans because of the risk of being attacked, they lose out on the main method of transporting goods across long distances.
Yes the economy would be faster, but that just means node sieges happen more often and cities are destroyed sooner. It would just be a faster paced version of a PvP server because there is less of a barrier to reach endgame, but destroying nodes is still the main item sink that would remain untouched.
lies. game wont be same.
How do you dethrone a large guild? you cant harass guild members making them leave. you cant take their resources, notihng
You can't do that in a PvP server either. The stronger guild just owns whatever they want.
no, i can harass individual players until they leave guild
you can be diplomatic too and make the mega zerg to counter act the big bads aswell and jjst overwhelm them where they go but they just complain too cause they know no better.
the funny thing is the pvp players seem to have more social skils when it comes to games reaching out doing diplomacy peace treaties and that stuff where the pve player tend to be anti social and stay with there clicks/guild but yeah they say the pvp players are antisocial lol so yeah i guess they dont know any better cause they play there pve have which function differently than most pvp games that have guild cities in such as darkfall
Either way i think it be a good experience for the PvE crowd to experience a game like AoC and see a little of the fence on the other side with diplomacy cause thats what actualy makes pvp games entertaining/dynamic but thats of course if they dont flat out refuse due to pvp being in a game. I do think both side of the fence should experience what steven has in mind first before jumping to conclusion and wait till atleast a month or 2 into alpha 2 before complaining bout it cause alot of it comes down to what the corruption system is tuned to to wether or not it be basicly a pve game or a gank fest the trick is to get it in the middle of that. If u kill 1 green then risk ur gear dropping pvp wont happen if u can killl 100 greens and then u start dropping gear it be a gank fest but if it like 5 kills a day is allowed before gear drops then pvp would be rather rare seeing as population bnetween pvp and pve players.
not to mention pvp players would be grouped up in there guild and nodes they call home so due to travel they wont venture to far out from there so alot of the world will be relativly safe
If you want open world PvP you just play on a PvP server.
The game can be designed the exact same way and nothing needs to change other than on a PvE server, open world PvP is just disabled. You'd still have areas where PvP is enabled, just not the entire map.
Many of the systems are designed around PvPvE/PvX game, so for example Caravans wont work, economy would probably also not work well (As we have seen in NW when a game is designed with PvX mind and at the last minute make it Optional) and etc. Which means that this servers have to be balanced separately which take dev resources which could be used for content and etc
Caravans still work, node sieges still work. If people don't want to use caravans because of the risk of being attacked, they lose out on the main method of transporting goods across long distances.
Yes the economy would be faster, but that just means node sieges happen more often and cities are destroyed sooner. It would just be a faster paced version of a PvP server because there is less of a barrier to reach endgame, but destroying nodes is still the main item sink that would remain untouched.
lies. game wont be same.
How do you dethrone a large guild? you cant harass guild members making them leave. you cant take their resources, notihng
You can't do that in a PvP server either. The stronger guild just owns whatever they want.
not always your gorilla warfare large guilds hit them in spots kil some members and disapear before they can react, do that enough u get people quitting the guild cause they feel like there not being helped, a guild of about 10 people derailed a huge guild in Archage just by constantly hitting there trade pack runs and disapearing withing 2 minutes of first hit while there entire guild portaled in (Which also wont be able to be done in AoC due to lack of fast travel options)
In darkfall mega alliancesa formed and they always got toppled by all the small guys allying up and hitting them constantly till mega zerg fell appart and then the counter zerg disbanded since it wasnt a threat anymore.
pve players have the ability to do that too since they outnumber pvp population if they were to ever unite they could probaly push any pvp out of there neck of the woods but they never do just complain about it instead. PvE players seem to lack diplomancy skills where pvper will do diplomacy with other guilds but i guess thats cause there use to the more solo/guild only kinda things so they never had to talk to other guilds for assistance and all that.
If you can make most of the players leave their guild, that guild isn't strong.
The guilds I'm talking about wouldn't even accept a player that can't handle their own. There will be guilds where every single player is a hardcore, fully geared, sweaty PvPer.
If you want open world PvP you just play on a PvP server.
The game can be designed the exact same way and nothing needs to change other than on a PvE server, open world PvP is just disabled. You'd still have areas where PvP is enabled, just not the entire map.
Many of the systems are designed around PvPvE/PvX game, so for example Caravans wont work, economy would probably also not work well (As we have seen in NW when a game is designed with PvX mind and at the last minute make it Optional) and etc. Which means that this servers have to be balanced separately which take dev resources which could be used for content and etc
Caravans still work, node sieges still work. If people don't want to use caravans because of the risk of being attacked, they lose out on the main method of transporting goods across long distances.
Yes the economy would be faster, but that just means node sieges happen more often and cities are destroyed sooner. It would just be a faster paced version of a PvP server because there is less of a barrier to reach endgame, but destroying nodes is still the main item sink that would remain untouched.
lies. game wont be same.
How do you dethrone a large guild? you cant harass guild members making them leave. you cant take their resources, notihng
You can't do that in a PvP server either. The stronger guild just owns whatever they want.
not always your gorilla warfare large guilds hit them in spots kil some members and disapear before they can react, do that enough u get people quitting the guild cause they feel like there not being helped, a guild of about 10 people derailed a huge guild in Archage just by constantly hitting there trade pack runs and disapearing withing 2 minutes of first hit while there entire guild portaled in (Which also wont be able to be done in AoC due to lack of fast travel options)
In darkfall mega alliancesa formed and they always got toppled by all the small guys allying up and hitting them constantly till mega zerg fell appart and then the counter zerg disbanded since it wasnt a threat anymore.
pve players have the ability to do that too since they outnumber pvp population if they were to ever unite they could probaly push any pvp out of there neck of the woods but they never do just complain about it instead. PvE players seem to lack diplomancy skills where pvper will do diplomacy with other guilds but i guess thats cause there use to the more solo/guild only kinda things so they never had to talk to other guilds for assistance and all that.
If you can make most of the players leave their guild, that guild isn't strong.
The guilds I'm talking about wouldn't even accept a player that can't handle their own. There will be guilds where every single player is a hardcore, fully geared, sweaty PvPer.
look at you. raging for pve for something u dont know will work or not. Imagine ur a player of that guild. u would be qqing non stop and rage quit bcs ppl dontr help you,
i won, ur guild is now 1 less member.
multiply.
the problem is ur guild, not players, leaving guild makes ur life easier, so u leave it. guild is weaker, server domination changes
If you want open world PvP you just play on a PvP server.
The game can be designed the exact same way and nothing needs to change other than on a PvE server, open world PvP is just disabled. You'd still have areas where PvP is enabled, just not the entire map.
Many of the systems are designed around PvPvE/PvX game, so for example Caravans wont work, economy would probably also not work well (As we have seen in NW when a game is designed with PvX mind and at the last minute make it Optional) and etc. Which means that this servers have to be balanced separately which take dev resources which could be used for content and etc
Caravans still work, node sieges still work. If people don't want to use caravans because of the risk of being attacked, they lose out on the main method of transporting goods across long distances.
Yes the economy would be faster, but that just means node sieges happen more often and cities are destroyed sooner. It would just be a faster paced version of a PvP server because there is less of a barrier to reach endgame, but destroying nodes is still the main item sink that would remain untouched.
lies. game wont be same.
How do you dethrone a large guild? you cant harass guild members making them leave. you cant take their resources, notihng
You can't do that in a PvP server either. The stronger guild just owns whatever they want.
not always your gorilla warfare large guilds hit them in spots kil some members and disapear before they can react, do that enough u get people quitting the guild cause they feel like there not being helped, a guild of about 10 people derailed a huge guild in Archage just by constantly hitting there trade pack runs and disapearing withing 2 minutes of first hit while there entire guild portaled in (Which also wont be able to be done in AoC due to lack of fast travel options)
In darkfall mega alliancesa formed and they always got toppled by all the small guys allying up and hitting them constantly till mega zerg fell appart and then the counter zerg disbanded since it wasnt a threat anymore.
pve players have the ability to do that too since they outnumber pvp population if they were to ever unite they could probaly push any pvp out of there neck of the woods but they never do just complain about it instead. PvE players seem to lack diplomancy skills where pvper will do diplomacy with other guilds but i guess thats cause there use to the more solo/guild only kinda things so they never had to talk to other guilds for assistance and all that.
If you can make most of the players leave their guild, that guild isn't strong.
The guilds I'm talking about wouldn't even accept a player that can't handle their own. There will be guilds where every single player is a hardcore, fully geared, sweaty PvPer.
look at you. raging for pve for something u dont know will work or not. Imagine ur a player of that guild. u would be qqing non stop and rage quit bcs ppl dontr help you,
i won, ur guild is now 1 less member.
multiply.
the problem is ur guild, not players, leaving guild makes ur life easier, so u leave it. guild is weaker, server domination changes
I genuinely have no idea what you're trying to say. I'm not trying to be a jerk and it's not like we all need perfect grammar and stuff but seriously dude I have no idea what you're trying to say.
0
Options
netrimosMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I don't think I like the idea of PVP servers in econ/political MMOs, but I don't really care either way. I'll play on PVP regardless of what they end up offering. If they do end up having alternate ruleset servers, I'd rather see them take a less binary approach and instead just empower mayors to decide what goes on in their nodes. I'd rather them leave it up to the individual node mayors to disable/enable world pvp or corruption, but even then I don't think it should be binary. Just greatly discouraged at a high resource cost (or encouraged at a sizeable resource buff) I'm all for nodes being able to govern their way into a lawless state (or high tax over governed turd) though. At least this way It'd lead to interesting economic and political situations. What makes this genre of games fun is the drama, and drama is always juicier when you force people with conflicting goals to play in the same space by tricking them into thinking they can make a difference if they come into power.
I don't think I like the idea of PVP servers in econ/political MMOs, but I don't really care either way. I'll play on PVP regardless of what they end up offering. If they do end up having alternate ruleset servers, I'd rather see them take a less binary approach and instead just empower mayors to decide what goes on in their nodes. I'd rather them leave it up to the individual node mayors to disable/enable world pvp or corruption, but even then I don't think it should be binary. Just greatly discouraged at a high resource cost (or encouraged at a sizeable resource buff) I'm all for nodes being able to govern their way into a lawless state (or high tax over governed turd) though. At least this way It'd lead to interesting economic and political situations. What makes this genre of games fun is the drama, and drama is always juicier when you force people with conflicting goals to play in the same space by tricking them into thinking they can make a difference if they come into power.
Drama is fun until it isn't. Guilds just mass murdering small groups of players so they can't play the game, is not very interesting.
0
Options
netrimosMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I don't think I like the idea of PVP servers in econ/political MMOs, but I don't really care either way. I'll play on PVP regardless of what they end up offering. If they do end up having alternate ruleset servers, I'd rather see them take a less binary approach and instead just empower mayors to decide what goes on in their nodes. I'd rather them leave it up to the individual node mayors to disable/enable world pvp or corruption, but even then I don't think it should be binary. Just greatly discouraged at a high resource cost (or encouraged at a sizeable resource buff) I'm all for nodes being able to govern their way into a lawless state (or high tax over governed turd) though. At least this way It'd lead to interesting economic and political situations. What makes this genre of games fun is the drama, and drama is always juicier when you force people with conflicting goals to play in the same space by tricking them into thinking they can make a difference if they come into power.
Drama is fun until it isn't. Guilds just mass murdering small groups of players so they can't play the game, is not very interesting.
Most fun things are fun until it isn't. If you were to get a PVE server how would you do it? World pvp-off at start servers and letting players govern their way into enabling world pvp per node satisfies the conditions of your initial post. That way people can pick and choose where to farm depending on their risk appetite. Nodes with content that is negatively impacted by no pvp can enable it. I'd rather see that instead of an always off system.
there actually alot of respect in the pvp community and between pvp guild unless you rage when u die then they get a kick out of it and then they just farm you for entertainment if you say gg or gf and leave it at that its generaly pretty good in most pvp centric games i play MMO wise.
I've made more friends by just talking to my enemies than I did by talking to my guildies. There's always some internal tension within guilds (especially huge ones), but there's barely any real tension between war enemies, outside of the fighting itself of course.
I'd spend hours just sitting in town with a few war enemies from different guilds, talking about random shit. There was mutual respect and I've even seen "romeo and juliet"-type shit a few times. Good times
I don't think I like the idea of PVP servers in econ/political MMOs, but I don't really care either way. I'll play on PVP regardless of what they end up offering. If they do end up having alternate ruleset servers, I'd rather see them take a less binary approach and instead just empower mayors to decide what goes on in their nodes. I'd rather them leave it up to the individual node mayors to disable/enable world pvp or corruption, but even then I don't think it should be binary. Just greatly discouraged at a high resource cost (or encouraged at a sizeable resource buff) I'm all for nodes being able to govern their way into a lawless state (or high tax over governed turd) though. At least this way It'd lead to interesting economic and political situations. What makes this genre of games fun is the drama, and drama is always juicier when you force people with conflicting goals to play in the same space by tricking them into thinking they can make a difference if they come into power.
Drama is fun until it isn't. Guilds just mass murdering small groups of players so they can't play the game, is not very interesting.
Most fun things are fun until it isn't. If you were to get a PVE server how would you do it? World pvp-off at start servers and letting players govern their way into enabling world pvp per node satisfies the conditions of your initial post. That way people can pick and choose where to farm depending on their risk appetite. Nodes with content that is negatively impacted by no pvp can enable it. I'd rather see that instead of an always off system.
I understand the game is mostly focused on PvP, so when I say PvE I obviously don't mean just make a new video game.
All I mean by PvE, is that unnecessary PvP is disabled. For example, if there is ever a situation that could be done purely PvE without losing any content, allow the players that want that experience to have it. Obviously PvE players will still want arenas and node sieges and open world pvp around ruins and caravans and dungeons and world bosses etc...
Would it change the economy? Yes. But that's always been the case, that isn't new to Ashes of Creation. PvE servers have different economies than PvP servers but both economies are fine. One might be more inflated or faster or slower but for the majority of players it really doesn't matter that much. Not as much as the difference between PvP and PvE at least.
Yeah gamers are a really friendly community that all love and respect each other.
Surely we won't see the giga nuclear griefers of doom turn the game into metagaming trash.
Surely making changes to a system from 2003 will be able to combat one of the sweatiest and most degenerate types of playstyles that has thrived in every system attempting to prevent it.
Surely.
There won't be any significant amounts of griefing because the corruption system will just make it not worth it.
As Steven explained in his post, the system is very notably different from the early 2000's one invoked by Lucky Ghost and other people.
I see absolutely no reason to assume the currently designed corruption system wont work and you mention no such reason, only a baseless, already disproven premise.
If the PvX version of the IP only has little to modest success then re-utilizing the existing assets and content into a PvE version would start to make more sense.
If the PvX version of the IP only has little to modest success then re-utilizing the existing assets and content into a PvE version would start to make more sense.
Or they continue to expand ont he current content and the PvX game to make it grow more then starting to make a pve game all the sudden.
If the PvX flops then there is still something to recoup and move forward with.
So you are making a point based on the game flopping?
Yes, if the level of financial success does not provide enough support then moving to the PvE model as a second game IP still using the existing assets and contents is a viable option. I'm not predicting a flop, just stating that all of their hard work is not lost and a PvE model will draw subs.
If the PvX flops then there is still something to recoup and move forward with.
So you are making a point based on the game flopping?
Yes, if the level of financial success does not provide enough support then moving to the PvE model as a second game IP still using the existing assets and contents is a viable option. I'm not predicting a flop, just stating that all of their hard work is not lost and a PvE model will draw subs.
The game can be designed the exact same way and nothing needs to change other than on a PvE server
False.
The game is designed from the ground up to be player economy driven. Things like travel time & the threat of "overstaying your welcome" to farm a particular area for resources all play into the cost-benefit analysis players must make. The game itself will be balanced with this in mind. How many resources you can carry, how quickly you gather, resource node locations, etc. will all be determined taking into account the threat that one player may want to pay a price (Corruption) in order to kill you and take a portion of your gatherables. When you remove this threat, you change the design philosophy of the entire game. What you end up with is a completely broken economy like that which New World suffered from. Obviously, Intrepid wants to provide players with a fun experience. They DON'T want to have to balance the game in two ways - one for PvP servers and again for PvE servers. It ends up creating a compromised balance for BOTH.
The game can be designed the exact same way and nothing needs to change
No.
Economy on PvP and PvE server would be very different. Node system competitive nature useless on PvE.
IMHO AoC main goal to create community around competition of cities for dominance and survival. AoC goal (IMHO) is to create environment for strong gaming communities cemented around common need to advance and defend city by any means possible including aggression.
How do you do it in PvE server? Player control cities in PvE environment are useless and even negative.
IMHO PvE server at this point would be counter productive and have negative effect on speed of development.
Yeah gamers are a really friendly community that all love and respect each other.
Surely we won't see the giga nuclear griefers of doom turn the game into metagaming trash.
Surely making changes to a system from 2003 will be able to combat one of the sweatiest and most degenerate types of playstyles that has thrived in every system attempting to prevent it.
Surely.
There won't be any significant amounts of griefing because the corruption system will just make it not worth it.
As Steven explained in his post, the system is very notably different from the early 2000's one invoked by Lucky Ghost and other people.
I see absolutely no reason to assume the currently designed corruption system wont work and you mention no such reason, only a baseless, already disproven premise.
There is no such thing as "not worth it" only "can I do it".
For the casual and hardcore player, yes you can incentivize them to not grief.
But once we go beyond hardcore, into the super sweats, the 30hr straight ritalin gamer, the four multibox account gamer, the rogue that sat in Steemwheedle Port all day just waiting to kill anyone doing the 25 minute escort quest just to waste their time. These player live to overcome and even abuse any system trying to stop them.
I'm going to play on a pvp server either way, but I don't understand the vitriol against the idea of pve servers. If you're going to play on a pvp server it literally won't affect you at all that they exist. The game mechanics would work just fine without open world pvp. It wont have as competitive of an economy, and it will probably be less exciting, but some people would prefer it and that's fine. The kind of people who want to play on a pve server wont last in AoC as it stands anyways so it isn't going to affect population.
Like I said I'm not going to play on a pve server even if they exist but some people seem way too angry about the idea. If adding pve servers helped the game keep more players and be more successful so that we can get more expansions, I'm all for it. It's not going to affect me at all.
Did you skip over the post at the top about how a PvE server wouldn't work with a game like ashes or are you just ignoring it?
Comments
no, i can harass individual players until they leave guild
there actually alot of respect in the pvp community and between pvp guild unless you rage when u die then they get a kick out of it and then they just farm you for entertainment if you say gg or gf and leave it at that its generaly pretty good in most pvp centric games i play MMO wise.
when PvE players die in PvP they tend to say something dumb and that just makes them do it again i guess pvp players tend to respect people with a back bone and not children that go ape when they get PKed atleast from my experiences
not always your gorilla warfare large guilds hit them in spots kil some members and disapear before they can react, do that enough u get people quitting the guild cause they feel like there not being helped, a guild of about 10 people derailed a huge guild in Archage just by constantly hitting there trade pack runs and disapearing withing 2 minutes of first hit while there entire guild portaled in (Which also wont be able to be done in AoC due to lack of fast travel options)
In darkfall mega alliancesa formed and they always got toppled by all the small guys allying up and hitting them constantly till mega zerg fell appart and then the counter zerg disbanded since it wasnt a threat anymore.
pve players have the ability to do that too since they outnumber pvp population if they were to ever unite they could probaly push any pvp out of there neck of the woods but they never do just complain about it instead. PvE players seem to lack diplomancy skills where pvper will do diplomacy with other guilds but i guess thats cause there use to the more solo/guild only kinda things so they never had to talk to other guilds for assistance and all that.
you can be diplomatic too and make the mega zerg to counter act the big bads aswell and jjst overwhelm them where they go but they just complain too cause they know no better.
the funny thing is the pvp players seem to have more social skils when it comes to games reaching out doing diplomacy peace treaties and that stuff where the pve player tend to be anti social and stay with there clicks/guild but yeah they say the pvp players are antisocial lol so yeah i guess they dont know any better cause they play there pve have which function differently than most pvp games that have guild cities in such as darkfall
Either way i think it be a good experience for the PvE crowd to experience a game like AoC and see a little of the fence on the other side with diplomacy cause thats what actualy makes pvp games entertaining/dynamic but thats of course if they dont flat out refuse due to pvp being in a game. I do think both side of the fence should experience what steven has in mind first before jumping to conclusion and wait till atleast a month or 2 into alpha 2 before complaining bout it cause alot of it comes down to what the corruption system is tuned to to wether or not it be basicly a pve game or a gank fest the trick is to get it in the middle of that. If u kill 1 green then risk ur gear dropping pvp wont happen if u can killl 100 greens and then u start dropping gear it be a gank fest but if it like 5 kills a day is allowed before gear drops then pvp would be rather rare seeing as population bnetween pvp and pve players.
not to mention pvp players would be grouped up in there guild and nodes they call home so due to travel they wont venture to far out from there so alot of the world will be relativly safe
If you can make most of the players leave their guild, that guild isn't strong.
The guilds I'm talking about wouldn't even accept a player that can't handle their own. There will be guilds where every single player is a hardcore, fully geared, sweaty PvPer.
look at you. raging for pve for something u dont know will work or not. Imagine ur a player of that guild. u would be qqing non stop and rage quit bcs ppl dontr help you,
i won, ur guild is now 1 less member.
multiply.
the problem is ur guild, not players, leaving guild makes ur life easier, so u leave it. guild is weaker, server domination changes
I genuinely have no idea what you're trying to say. I'm not trying to be a jerk and it's not like we all need perfect grammar and stuff but seriously dude I have no idea what you're trying to say.
Drama is fun until it isn't. Guilds just mass murdering small groups of players so they can't play the game, is not very interesting.
Most fun things are fun until it isn't. If you were to get a PVE server how would you do it? World pvp-off at start servers and letting players govern their way into enabling world pvp per node satisfies the conditions of your initial post. That way people can pick and choose where to farm depending on their risk appetite. Nodes with content that is negatively impacted by no pvp can enable it. I'd rather see that instead of an always off system.
I'd spend hours just sitting in town with a few war enemies from different guilds, talking about random shit. There was mutual respect and I've even seen "romeo and juliet"-type shit a few times. Good times
I understand the game is mostly focused on PvP, so when I say PvE I obviously don't mean just make a new video game.
All I mean by PvE, is that unnecessary PvP is disabled. For example, if there is ever a situation that could be done purely PvE without losing any content, allow the players that want that experience to have it. Obviously PvE players will still want arenas and node sieges and open world pvp around ruins and caravans and dungeons and world bosses etc...
Would it change the economy? Yes. But that's always been the case, that isn't new to Ashes of Creation. PvE servers have different economies than PvP servers but both economies are fine. One might be more inflated or faster or slower but for the majority of players it really doesn't matter that much. Not as much as the difference between PvP and PvE at least.
There won't be any significant amounts of griefing because the corruption system will just make it not worth it.
As Steven explained in his post, the system is very notably different from the early 2000's one invoked by Lucky Ghost and other people.
I see absolutely no reason to assume the currently designed corruption system wont work and you mention no such reason, only a baseless, already disproven premise.
Or they continue to expand ont he current content and the PvX game to make it grow more then starting to make a pve game all the sudden.
If the PvX flops then there is still something to recoup and move forward with.
So you are making a point based on the game flopping?
Yes, if the level of financial success does not provide enough support then moving to the PvE model as a second game IP still using the existing assets and contents is a viable option. I'm not predicting a flop, just stating that all of their hard work is not lost and a PvE model will draw subs.
So then like bless unleashed?
False.
The game is designed from the ground up to be player economy driven. Things like travel time & the threat of "overstaying your welcome" to farm a particular area for resources all play into the cost-benefit analysis players must make. The game itself will be balanced with this in mind. How many resources you can carry, how quickly you gather, resource node locations, etc. will all be determined taking into account the threat that one player may want to pay a price (Corruption) in order to kill you and take a portion of your gatherables. When you remove this threat, you change the design philosophy of the entire game. What you end up with is a completely broken economy like that which New World suffered from. Obviously, Intrepid wants to provide players with a fun experience. They DON'T want to have to balance the game in two ways - one for PvP servers and again for PvE servers. It ends up creating a compromised balance for BOTH.
Economy on PvP and PvE server would be very different. Node system competitive nature useless on PvE.
IMHO AoC main goal to create community around competition of cities for dominance and survival. AoC goal (IMHO) is to create environment for strong gaming communities cemented around common need to advance and defend city by any means possible including aggression.
How do you do it in PvE server? Player control cities in PvE environment are useless and even negative.
IMHO PvE server at this point would be counter productive and have negative effect on speed of development.
There is no such thing as "not worth it" only "can I do it".
For the casual and hardcore player, yes you can incentivize them to not grief.
But once we go beyond hardcore, into the super sweats, the 30hr straight ritalin gamer, the four multibox account gamer, the rogue that sat in Steemwheedle Port all day just waiting to kill anyone doing the 25 minute escort quest just to waste their time. These player live to overcome and even abuse any system trying to stop them.
Not sure why you would play Ashes if you don't care about PvP at all seeing as it is 80% of the game.
You mean word-dog should pay attention to word-ing?
Stealing this from one of my guildmates. I'm just convinced at this point that people think like this.
who was talking about ffxiv
Did you skip over the post at the top about how a PvE server wouldn't work with a game like ashes or are you just ignoring it?