That's like saying if we add another flavor of Coca Cola, that we're somehow removing the original Coca Cola. More variety doesn't remove or change the original in any way. If you don't understand that basic concept idk what to say man.
Except in the predominant cases of "pvp and pve servers" games, the "new taste" of cola pushes the original one out of the market, which makes the company push that new taste even more because it's way more profitable. And then the whole branding is built around this new taste rather than the original one.
So your argument is that we shouldn't provide more options, because it turns out our original version might be worse than the alternative.
If one design of gameplay is desired by the developers, why would they provide an easier version of it that players would abandon the original for simply because it's easier?
That had nothing to do with anything I said.
Still waiting for you to argue changing apex legends design lol.
That's like saying if we add another flavor of Coca Cola, that we're somehow removing the original Coca Cola. More variety doesn't remove or change the original in any way. If you don't understand that basic concept idk what to say man.
Except in the predominant cases of "pvp and pve servers" games, the "new taste" of cola pushes the original one out of the market, which makes the company push that new taste even more because it's way more profitable. And then the whole branding is built around this new taste rather than the original one.
So your argument is that we shouldn't provide more options, because it turns out our original version might be worse than the alternative.
If one design of gameplay is desired by the developers, why would they provide an easier version of it that players would abandon the original for simply because it's easier?
That had nothing to do with anything I said.
It's an argument of why there shouldn't be options for either pve or pvp
It's not related to what was quoted.
He quoted me saying: "So your argument is that we shouldn't provide more options, because it turns out our original version might be worse than the alternative."
His quote: "If one design of gameplay is desired by the developers, why would they provide an easier version of it that players would abandon the original for simply because it's easier?"
His response is about the difficulty of the game. That has nothing to do with what I said.
That's like saying if we add another flavor of Coca Cola, that we're somehow removing the original Coca Cola. More variety doesn't remove or change the original in any way. If you don't understand that basic concept idk what to say man.
Except in the predominant cases of "pvp and pve servers" games, the "new taste" of cola pushes the original one out of the market, which makes the company push that new taste even more because it's way more profitable. And then the whole branding is built around this new taste rather than the original one.
So your argument is that we shouldn't provide more options, because it turns out our original version might be worse than the alternative.
If one design of gameplay is desired by the developers, why would they provide an easier version of it that players would abandon the original for simply because it's easier?
That had nothing to do with anything I said.
It's an argument of why there shouldn't be options for either pve or pvp
It's not related to what was quoted.
He quoted me saying: "So your argument is that we shouldn't provide more options, because it turns out our original version might be worse than the alternative."
His quote: "If one design of gameplay is desired by the developers, why would they provide an easier version of it that players would abandon the original for simply because it's easier?"
His response is about the difficulty of the game. That has nothing to do with what I said.
PVE servers are easier due to not having an unpredictable OW PVP variable. Hence why people favor it.
It would be even more prevalent in AoC due to the games designs around PvP between nodes and their progression, and PVE content in the open world which is meant to be fought over by the playerbase.
That's like saying if we add another flavor of Coca Cola, that we're somehow removing the original Coca Cola. More variety doesn't remove or change the original in any way. If you don't understand that basic concept idk what to say man.
Except in the predominant cases of "pvp and pve servers" games, the "new taste" of cola pushes the original one out of the market, which makes the company push that new taste even more because it's way more profitable. And then the whole branding is built around this new taste rather than the original one.
So your argument is that we shouldn't provide more options, because it turns out our original version might be worse than the alternative.
If one design of gameplay is desired by the developers, why would they provide an easier version of it that players would abandon the original for simply because it's easier?
That had nothing to do with anything I said.
Still waiting for you to argue changing apex legends design lol.
That's like saying if we add another flavor of Coca Cola, that we're somehow removing the original Coca Cola. More variety doesn't remove or change the original in any way. If you don't understand that basic concept idk what to say man.
Except in the predominant cases of "pvp and pve servers" games, the "new taste" of cola pushes the original one out of the market, which makes the company push that new taste even more because it's way more profitable. And then the whole branding is built around this new taste rather than the original one.
So your argument is that we shouldn't provide more options, because it turns out our original version might be worse than the alternative.
If one design of gameplay is desired by the developers, why would they provide an easier version of it that players would abandon the original for simply because it's easier?
That had nothing to do with anything I said.
Still waiting for you to argue changing apex legends design lol.
Why would I want to change apex legends design.
Apparently the same reason you want to change AoC
I never said I wanted to change Ashes of Creation's design.
Really confusing how often people just start pretending they're having an argument that no one made.
That's like saying if we add another flavor of Coca Cola, that we're somehow removing the original Coca Cola. More variety doesn't remove or change the original in any way. If you don't understand that basic concept idk what to say man.
Except in the predominant cases of "pvp and pve servers" games, the "new taste" of cola pushes the original one out of the market, which makes the company push that new taste even more because it's way more profitable. And then the whole branding is built around this new taste rather than the original one.
So your argument is that we shouldn't provide more options, because it turns out our original version might be worse than the alternative.
If one design of gameplay is desired by the developers, why would they provide an easier version of it that players would abandon the original for simply because it's easier?
That had nothing to do with anything I said.
Still waiting for you to argue changing apex legends design lol.
Why would I want to change apex legends design.
Apparently the same reason you want to change AoC
I never said I wanted to change Ashes of Creation's design.
Really confusing how often people just start pretending they're having an argument that no one made.
You are advocating for pve servers lol, game isn't being designed for pve the same way apex is not designed for pve.
So your argument is that we shouldn't provide more options, because it turns out our original version might be worse than the alternative.
Yes, imo it's better to have a one design direction that represents the best form of devs' vision, even if it brings in less players, rather than having 2 subpar versions that not only split the playerbase but also split the dev time for each and increase the costs of upkeep of both.
Imo it's better to have theoretical 200-300k players of the Ashes Steven wants to make, who will stick with the game for as long as its alive because those 200-300k people are the precise target audience of Steven's vision, rather than having 1-2kk players with 100k (if even that) on pvp servers and the rest on pve, most of whom will just leave for other more pve-centered games because Ashes' systems would still push them away.
If you keep caravans, guild wars, node wars and node sieges in the game - all those pve players won't be able to play for too long, because all the pvpers who migrated from the pvp servers (because it's better to play on fuller servers) will dominate each and every one of those pvp events. And all the pvers will be losing their mats in caravans, their freeholds in node sieges and will be constantly killed during guild/node wars, because the hardcore pvpers will just overtake any and all mayoral positions.
Having followed this project for like 5 years, I’m just going to give you a blunt assessment based on my observations:
- you’re never going to get a PvE Ashes server
- you’re either going to get a PvX Ashes w/tuned corruption, or you’re going to get a FFA PvP Ashes
It’s as simple as the dude funding the whole deal is a stone cold ow pvp fanatic, so when he says ‘this game isn’t for everyone,’ he might be talking to you.
So your argument is that we shouldn't provide more options, because it turns out our original version might be worse than the alternative.
Yes, imo it's better to have a one design direction that represents the best form of devs' vision, even if it brings in less players, rather than having 2 subpar versions that not only split the playerbase but also split the dev time for each and increase the costs of upkeep of both.
Imo it's better to have theoretical 200-300k players of the Ashes Steven wants to make, who will stick with the game for as long as its alive because those 200-300k people are the precise target audience of Steven's vision, rather than having 1-2kk players with 100k (if even that) on pvp servers and the rest on pve, most of whom will just leave for other more pve-centered games because Ashes' systems would still push them away.
If you keep caravans, guild wars, node wars and node sieges in the game - all those pve players won't be able to play for too long, because all the pvpers who migrated from the pvp servers (because it's better to play on fuller servers) will dominate each and every one of those pvp events. And all the pvers will be losing their mats in caravans, their freeholds in node sieges and will be constantly killed during guild/node wars, because the hardcore pvpers will just overtake any and all mayoral positions.
I think the first part of what you're saying is fine, but you kind of make two arguments in that post.
1. You say that it's fine to have less players as long as the game remains true to it's vision.
I have no issue with that, it's totally valid.
2. You say PvE wouldn't actually have more players because of different reasons.
My point isn't even agreeing or disagreeing with that statement, the context of my statement was in response to someone who assumed PvE would in fact be more successful, not just in the short term but overall.
Having followed this project for like 5 years, I’m just going to give you a blunt assessment based on my observations:
- you’re never going to get a PvE Ashes server
- you’re either going to get a PvX Ashes w/tuned corruption, or you’re going to get a FFA PvP Ashes
It’s as simple as the dude funding the whole deal is a stone cold ow pvp fanatic, so when he says ‘this game isn’t for everyone,’ he might be talking to you.
I notice a trend of people wrongly assuming I want a PvE server.
You can defend and argue for things without being personally attached to them.
The point of the topic was:
Why would separate servers that focus on PvE be bad?
People then assumed the point of the topic was:
I want a PvE server, tell me why I shouldn't want one.
A lot of the comments here are just arguing a strawman argument that doesn't actually exist.
I mean it’s a nice tap dance, but if the point is “Why would separate servers that focus on PvE be bad?”
It’s a pointless question, because Ashes is a fundamentally OWPvP endeavor.
Pretty simple. 🤷♂️
If that was true than all questions would be pointless, because they all have one answer and everyone who disagrees is just wrong.
The reason the discussion is possible is because people can imagine a more PvE centric server that they would enjoy. You can argue why you would personally dislike that, but you can't change what other people enjoy.
Your argument is basically saying people shouldn't remove the bacon off their BLT because it's not how the sandwich was fundamentally designed. Sure it won't taste the same, and yes for a lot of people the bacon is the best part, but that doesn't change that some people would prefer a BLT without bacon. You can argue and say "oh well now its not even a BLT its just a LT!" and every argument is totally valid and fine but there is a reason you can order a BLT without bacon and the restaurant is going to oblige you.
My point isn't even agreeing or disagreeing with that statement, the context of my statement was in response to someone who assumed PvE would in fact be more successful, not just in the short term but overall.
That's because PvE is always more popular because the masses dislike conflict. All the most popular mmos show that.
But Ashes is not being designed as "the best pve mmo out there", it's being designed as a "pvx mmo, like in the old days". So they either have to completely change their design direction or they will literally repeat NW's fate. Make a game with a design that doesn't fit the pure pvers' preferences and lose >90% of their playerbase within a month or two. And Intrepid wouldn't have the money to come back from that kind of loss.
But if they keep with their current design, while yes they'll still have a big playerbase loss (because people are dumb, fall into hype and don't research what they pay for), but the core target audience that Intrepid is aiming at would stick around and play it for years to come.
Now there's a question of whether there's enough of that TA to keep the development coming, but that's on Steven and Intrepid to know.
I mean it’s a nice tap dance, but if the point is “Why would separate servers that focus on PvE be bad?”
It’s a pointless question, because Ashes is a fundamentally OWPvP endeavor.
Pretty simple. 🤷♂️
If that was true than all questions would be pointless, because they all have one answer and everyone who disagrees is just wrong.
The reason the discussion is possible is because people can imagine a more PvE centric server that they would enjoy. You can argue why you would personally dislike that, but you can't change what other people enjoy.
Your argument is basically saying people shouldn't remove the bacon off their BLT because it's not how the sandwich was fundamentally designed. Sure it won't taste the same, and yes for a lot of people the bacon is the best part, but that doesn't change that some people would prefer a BLT without bacon. You can argue and say "oh well now its not even a BLT its just a LT!" and every argument is totally valid and fine but there is a reason you can order a BLT without bacon and the restaurant is going to oblige you.
Just to shake up your analogy, I have worked as a butcher and our policy was to never prepare a steak cut under 1 inch thick because we believed it was wrong to do so. No matter how much a customer asked or complained, we told them no if they wanted a thin cut steak. The point is, its also completely fine to tell customers to piss off if they dont like how you do business. The other point of this is both analogies are pretty dumb when regarding to whether or not a game should have PVE servers.
The main point for ashes in particular is a PVE server doesnt line up with the current games design, and if you tried to argue designing it differently specifically for a PVE server, thatd be a waste of resources they could be using on the original design anyway. Not to mention the entire concept of separating playerbase is harmful to one side or the other. For other games like WoW it works fine, but for the way Ashes is being made, it simply ruins core systems that are designed with OWPVP in mind.
If that was true than all questions would be pointless, because they all have one answer and everyone who disagrees is just wrong.
No, your one question being pointless doesn’t make all other questions (or even all your other questions) pointless.
The reason the discussion is possible is because people can imagine a more PvE centric server that they would enjoy. You can argue why you would personally dislike that, but you can't change what other people enjoy.
That’s fine. It’s not about what I like or dislike in the conversation, it’s simply about what Ashes is and is not.
You can take the bacon off the BLT all you want, but it’s not going to sway the owner that intentionally named the place Mr. Bacon’s Bacon Shop, where every recipe has bacon, and who’s predilection is adding more bacon, to entertain taking bacon off the menu because you take it out of your sandwich.
The conversation isn’t about the sandwich name, it’s about whether you are in the right lunch spot.
Having followed this project for like 5 years, I’m just going to give you a blunt assessment based on my observations:
- you’re never going to get a PvE Ashes server
- you’re either going to get a PvX Ashes w/tuned corruption, or you’re going to get a FFA PvP Ashes
It’s as simple as the dude funding the whole deal is a stone cold ow pvp fanatic, so when he says ‘this game isn’t for everyone,’ he might be talking to you.
I notice a trend of people wrongly assuming I want a PvE server.
You can defend and argue for things without being personally attached to them.
The point of the topic was:
Why would separate servers that focus on PvE be bad?
People then assumed the point of the topic was:
I want a PvE server, tell me why I shouldn't want one.
A lot of the comments here are just arguing a strawman argument that doesn't actually exist.
So you are just arguing for the sake of arguing without reading the wiki or understanding the vision of the game.
Clearly they are not chasing the PvE money, they are trying to chase the best PvX game on the market because one doesn't exist....
\
The conversation isn’t about the sandwich name, it’s about whether you are in the right lunch spot.
No that's not the conversation. The conversation is about whether or not the restaurant should take the bacon off the BLT when a customer asks them to. Now adding PvE servers would be more difficult than taking bacon off a BLT, I understand and accept that as a perfectly reasonable argument.
But the argument that PvE servers would actually hurt PvP servers or the game in general has not yet been argued effectively, in my opinion.
From what I've seen, it seems like the people arguing against PvE servers, are essentially making the argument that if someone makes a shop called "Papa Bacon's BLTs" they shouldn't serve food to a vegetarian who wants a BLT without bacon.
The follow-up argument seems to be that vegetarians should not eat food at Papa Bacon's BLTs. But why not? If they want a BLT without any bacon, why should they be restricted from having one, when it literally takes less effort to make than a normal BLT? Because other people think it's stupid?
Again, if you want to make the argument that the creation and management of PvE servers would take too much effort, that's a totally reasonable conversation to have, but saying their existence would actually ruin the game just doesn't make any sense.
\
The conversation isn’t about the sandwich name, it’s about whether you are in the right lunch spot.
No that's not the conversation. The conversation is about whether or not the restaurant should take the bacon off the BLT when a customer asks them to. Now adding PvE servers would be more difficult than taking bacon off a BLT, I understand and accept that as a perfectly reasonable argument.
But the argument that PvE servers would actually hurt PvP servers or the game in general has not yet been argued effectively, in my opinion.
From what I've seen, it seems like the people arguing against PvE servers, are essentially making the argument that if someone makes a shop called "Papa Bacon's BLTs" they shouldn't serve food to a vegetarian who wants a BLT without bacon.
The follow-up argument seems to be that vegetarians should not eat food at Papa Bacon's BLTs. But why not? If they want a BLT without any bacon, why should they be restricted from having one, when it literally takes less effort to make than a normal BLT? Because other people think it's stupid?
Again, if you want to make the argument that the creation and management of PvE servers would take too much effort, that's a totally reasonable conversation to have, but saying their existence would actually ruin the game just doesn't make any sense.
Again game is being designed as PvX, that is like you trying to complain wow isn't designed as PvX and has instanced dungeons.. Your only point is they make more money by doing pve, and everyone is already where what mmorpgs can do to chase money.....
But the argument that PvE servers would actually hurt PvP servers or the game in general has not yet been argued effectively, in my opinion.
Have you heard of a super small super niche super underground little unknown game called World of fucking Warcraft? And all its pvp servers that literally died and pretty much became just 1 fully populated server, while DOZENS of pve servers thrived? Cause that's what we're talking about and giving examples of.
There's also NW's toggle mechanic, where barely anyone has it on, relatively speaking.
The follow-up argument seems to be that vegetarians should not eat food at Papa Bacon's BLTs. But why not? If they want a BLT without any bacon, why should they be restricted from having one, when it literally takes less effort to make than a normal BLT? Because other people think it's stupid?
They are not restricted from it. They can go to literally several other shops that are right around the corner who'd be more than glad to remove the bacon. But here at the "Papa Bacon's" we're proud MURRICAN'S that never remove a wholeass letter from a sandwich.
Having followed this project for like 5 years, I’m just going to give you a blunt assessment based on my observations:
- you’re never going to get a PvE Ashes server
- you’re either going to get a PvX Ashes w/tuned corruption, or you’re going to get a FFA PvP Ashes
It’s as simple as the dude funding the whole deal is a stone cold ow pvp fanatic, so when he says ‘this game isn’t for everyone,’ he might be talking to you.
I notice a trend of people wrongly assuming I want a PvE server.
You can defend and argue for things without being personally attached to them.
The point of the topic was:
Why would separate servers that focus on PvE be bad?
People then assumed the point of the topic was:
I want a PvE server, tell me why I shouldn't want one.
A lot of the comments here are just arguing a strawman argument that doesn't actually exist.
So you are just arguing for the sake of arguing without reading the wiki or understanding the vision of the game.
Clearly they are not chasing the PvE money, they are trying to chase the best PvX game on the market because one doesn't exist....
They want the game to have microtransactions and their current business model utilizes FOMO marketing strategies so they're obviously not ignoring the financial side of the business. They understand they have to compromise their vision to some degree to make the game profitable. More profit means more content, so its not like the less money a company makes the better their games will be.
They understand they have to compromise their vision to some degree to make the game profitable.
Where exactly is the "vision comptonization"? Steven doesn't consider cosmetics a win-state and he loves limited/collectible stuff, so both of those things are "within vision" for him.
Have you heard of a super small super niche super underground little unknown game called World of fucking Warcraft? And all its pvp servers that literally died and pretty much became just 1 fully populated server, while DOZENS of pve servers thrived? Cause that's what we're talking about and giving examples of.
That literally is not evidence of anything. The only thing that proves is that people who play WoW prefer PvE servers. So if they didn't have PvE servers and the only option was PvP the game would suffer.
There's also NW's toggle mechanic, where barely anyone has it on, relatively speaking.
Not talking about opt-in/opt-out PvP. That's a totally different concept and one I agree is awful. Also I always had it on cuz it gave you more stuff like War Mode in WoW, but yeah no one had it on so it was basically just free buffs. Stupid concept that doesn't work I totally agree.
They are not restricted from it. They can go to literally several other shops that are right around the corner who'd be more than glad to remove the bacon. But here at the "Papa Bacon's" we're proud MURRICAN'S that never remove a wholeass letter from a sandwich.
So they are restricted. What if they prefer Papa Bacon's BLT without bacon more than the McDonalds BLT without bacon down the street? Maybe Papa Bacon has way better sauce or the bun is different.
If you simply want to exclude people for the sake of excluding them that's your prerogative, I just personally disagree.
Having followed this project for like 5 years, I’m just going to give you a blunt assessment based on my observations:
- you’re never going to get a PvE Ashes server
- you’re either going to get a PvX Ashes w/tuned corruption, or you’re going to get a FFA PvP Ashes
It’s as simple as the dude funding the whole deal is a stone cold ow pvp fanatic, so when he says ‘this game isn’t for everyone,’ he might be talking to you.
I notice a trend of people wrongly assuming I want a PvE server.
You can defend and argue for things without being personally attached to them.
The point of the topic was:
Why would separate servers that focus on PvE be bad?
People then assumed the point of the topic was:
I want a PvE server, tell me why I shouldn't want one.
A lot of the comments here are just arguing a strawman argument that doesn't actually exist.
So you are just arguing for the sake of arguing without reading the wiki or understanding the vision of the game.
Clearly they are not chasing the PvE money, they are trying to chase the best PvX game on the market because one doesn't exist....
They want the game to have microtransactions and their current business model utilizes FOMO marketing strategies so they're obviously not ignoring the financial side of the business. They understand they have to compromise their vision to some degree to make the game profitable. More profit means more content, so its not like the less money a company makes the better their games will be.
You mean doing microtransactions like 80% of all games on the market are doing....I guess you are elaving out no box cost and expansion updates are free on AoC.
Why do you raise some of the most terrible points and argue those bad points are a reason for a pve servers when the game is not being designed as a PvE game. You don't take a game designed as a different purpose and slap PvE on it. The same way it doesn't work when you have a PvE game and slap a PvP world on it where there are no consequences to killing anyone.
You are raising very bad points; you are looking at PvX without understanding it's a different game type than PvE completely.
More money makes a better game, guess you must be into diablo immortal.
You mean doing microtransactions like 80% of all games on the market are doing....I guess you are elaving out no box cost and expansion updates are free on AoC.
So if 80% of all games are doing something than Ashes of Creation should also do it?
You're literally giving an argument that you don't even agree with.
I know why they want a cash shop and why they utilize FOMO marketing strategies.
Guess what? I never said they shouldn't.
Once again you have assumed something that is incorrect and built an entire argument around something that no one said.
You mean doing microtransactions like 80% of all games on the market are doing....I guess you are elaving out no box cost and expansion updates are free on AoC.
So if 80% of all games are doing something than Ashes of Creation should also do it?
You're literally giving an argument that you don't even agree with.
I know why they want a cash shop and why they utilize FOMO marketing strategies.
Guess what? I never said they shouldn't.
Once again you have assumed something that is incorrect and built an entire argument around something that no one said.
You mean doing microtransactions like 80% of all games on the market are doing....I guess you are elaving out no box cost and expansion updates are free on AoC.
So if 80% of all games are doing something than Ashes of Creation should also do it?
You're literally giving an argument that you don't even agree with.
I know why they want a cash shop and why they utilize FOMO marketing strategies.
Guess what? I never said they shouldn't.
Once again you have assumed something that is incorrect and built an entire argument around something that no one said.
Are you going to pay a 25$ sub fee?
Isn't it $15?
If you're asking if I would pay a $25 sub fee instead of having a cash shop, my answer is yes I would. I'd also like founder skins to be obtainable in-game.
BUT I DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD DO THAT
Why? Because I think they would have a bigger player base if they lowered the sub fee and implemented a cash shop.
The follow-up argument seems to be that vegetarians should not eat food at Papa Bacon's BLTs. But why not? If they want a BLT without any bacon, why should they be restricted from having one, when it literally takes less effort to make than a normal BLT? Because other people think it's stupid?
No, it's because having PvP built into the underpinnings of a game's systems and simply adding bacon to a sandwich aren't analogous. Ashes is elementally an OW PvP game, it's not added in like a condiment. The bacon is baked into the bread, the grease covers the entire kitchen, including the cutting boards the lettuce and tomatoes are sliced on. So, I'm not saying you can't pick whatever you want out of your BLT to make it vegetarian, I'm just saying you're not going to be served a BLT without bacon.
Again, if you want to make the argument that the creation and management of PvE servers would take too much effort, that's a totally reasonable conversation to have, but saying their existence would actually ruin the game just doesn't make any sense.
You mean doing microtransactions like 80% of all games on the market are doing....I guess you are elaving out no box cost and expansion updates are free on AoC.
So if 80% of all games are doing something than Ashes of Creation should also do it?
You're literally giving an argument that you don't even agree with.
I know why they want a cash shop and why they utilize FOMO marketing strategies.
Guess what? I never said they shouldn't.
Once again you have assumed something that is incorrect and built an entire argument around something that no one said.
Are you going to pay a 25$ sub fee?
Isn't it $15?
If you're asking if I would pay a $25 sub fee instead of having a cash shop, my answer is yes I would. I'd also like founder skins to be obtainable in-game.
BUT I DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD DO THAT
Why? Because I think they would have a bigger player base if they lowered the sub fee and implemented a cash shop.
Why are you saying this then if you understand the basics....
So if 80% of all games are doing something than Ashes of Creation should also do it?
Comments
it feels more like an "anti-sapiverenus" who wanted a far more hardcore ashes that what it will be
Not to mention that the game is designed around PvP being a factor.
Why would I want to change apex legends design.
It's not related to what was quoted.
He quoted me saying: "So your argument is that we shouldn't provide more options, because it turns out our original version might be worse than the alternative."
His quote: "If one design of gameplay is desired by the developers, why would they provide an easier version of it that players would abandon the original for simply because it's easier?"
His response is about the difficulty of the game. That has nothing to do with what I said.
PVE servers are easier due to not having an unpredictable OW PVP variable. Hence why people favor it.
It would be even more prevalent in AoC due to the games designs around PvP between nodes and their progression, and PVE content in the open world which is meant to be fought over by the playerbase.
Apparently the same reason you want to change AoC
I never said I wanted to change Ashes of Creation's design.
Really confusing how often people just start pretending they're having an argument that no one made.
You are advocating for pve servers lol, game isn't being designed for pve the same way apex is not designed for pve.
Imo it's better to have theoretical 200-300k players of the Ashes Steven wants to make, who will stick with the game for as long as its alive because those 200-300k people are the precise target audience of Steven's vision, rather than having 1-2kk players with 100k (if even that) on pvp servers and the rest on pve, most of whom will just leave for other more pve-centered games because Ashes' systems would still push them away.
If you keep caravans, guild wars, node wars and node sieges in the game - all those pve players won't be able to play for too long, because all the pvpers who migrated from the pvp servers (because it's better to play on fuller servers) will dominate each and every one of those pvp events. And all the pvers will be losing their mats in caravans, their freeholds in node sieges and will be constantly killed during guild/node wars, because the hardcore pvpers will just overtake any and all mayoral positions.
- you’re never going to get a PvE Ashes server
- you’re either going to get a PvX Ashes w/tuned corruption, or you’re going to get a FFA PvP Ashes
It’s as simple as the dude funding the whole deal is a stone cold ow pvp fanatic, so when he says ‘this game isn’t for everyone,’ he might be talking to you.
I think the first part of what you're saying is fine, but you kind of make two arguments in that post.
1. You say that it's fine to have less players as long as the game remains true to it's vision.
I have no issue with that, it's totally valid.
2. You say PvE wouldn't actually have more players because of different reasons.
My point isn't even agreeing or disagreeing with that statement, the context of my statement was in response to someone who assumed PvE would in fact be more successful, not just in the short term but overall.
I notice a trend of people wrongly assuming I want a PvE server.
You can defend and argue for things without being personally attached to them.
The point of the topic was:
Why would separate servers that focus on PvE be bad?
People then assumed the point of the topic was:
I want a PvE server, tell me why I shouldn't want one.
A lot of the comments here are just arguing a strawman argument that doesn't actually exist.
It’s a pointless question, because Ashes is a fundamentally OWPvP endeavor.
Pretty simple. 🤷♂️
If that was true than all questions would be pointless, because they all have one answer and everyone who disagrees is just wrong.
The reason the discussion is possible is because people can imagine a more PvE centric server that they would enjoy. You can argue why you would personally dislike that, but you can't change what other people enjoy.
Your argument is basically saying people shouldn't remove the bacon off their BLT because it's not how the sandwich was fundamentally designed. Sure it won't taste the same, and yes for a lot of people the bacon is the best part, but that doesn't change that some people would prefer a BLT without bacon. You can argue and say "oh well now its not even a BLT its just a LT!" and every argument is totally valid and fine but there is a reason you can order a BLT without bacon and the restaurant is going to oblige you.
But Ashes is not being designed as "the best pve mmo out there", it's being designed as a "pvx mmo, like in the old days". So they either have to completely change their design direction or they will literally repeat NW's fate. Make a game with a design that doesn't fit the pure pvers' preferences and lose >90% of their playerbase within a month or two. And Intrepid wouldn't have the money to come back from that kind of loss.
But if they keep with their current design, while yes they'll still have a big playerbase loss (because people are dumb, fall into hype and don't research what they pay for), but the core target audience that Intrepid is aiming at would stick around and play it for years to come.
Now there's a question of whether there's enough of that TA to keep the development coming, but that's on Steven and Intrepid to know.
Just to shake up your analogy, I have worked as a butcher and our policy was to never prepare a steak cut under 1 inch thick because we believed it was wrong to do so. No matter how much a customer asked or complained, we told them no if they wanted a thin cut steak. The point is, its also completely fine to tell customers to piss off if they dont like how you do business. The other point of this is both analogies are pretty dumb when regarding to whether or not a game should have PVE servers.
The main point for ashes in particular is a PVE server doesnt line up with the current games design, and if you tried to argue designing it differently specifically for a PVE server, thatd be a waste of resources they could be using on the original design anyway. Not to mention the entire concept of separating playerbase is harmful to one side or the other. For other games like WoW it works fine, but for the way Ashes is being made, it simply ruins core systems that are designed with OWPVP in mind.
No, your one question being pointless doesn’t make all other questions (or even all your other questions) pointless.
That’s fine. It’s not about what I like or dislike in the conversation, it’s simply about what Ashes is and is not.
You can take the bacon off the BLT all you want, but it’s not going to sway the owner that intentionally named the place Mr. Bacon’s Bacon Shop, where every recipe has bacon, and who’s predilection is adding more bacon, to entertain taking bacon off the menu because you take it out of your sandwich.
The conversation isn’t about the sandwich name, it’s about whether you are in the right lunch spot.
So you are just arguing for the sake of arguing without reading the wiki or understanding the vision of the game.
Clearly they are not chasing the PvE money, they are trying to chase the best PvX game on the market because one doesn't exist....
No that's not the conversation. The conversation is about whether or not the restaurant should take the bacon off the BLT when a customer asks them to. Now adding PvE servers would be more difficult than taking bacon off a BLT, I understand and accept that as a perfectly reasonable argument.
But the argument that PvE servers would actually hurt PvP servers or the game in general has not yet been argued effectively, in my opinion.
From what I've seen, it seems like the people arguing against PvE servers, are essentially making the argument that if someone makes a shop called "Papa Bacon's BLTs" they shouldn't serve food to a vegetarian who wants a BLT without bacon.
The follow-up argument seems to be that vegetarians should not eat food at Papa Bacon's BLTs. But why not? If they want a BLT without any bacon, why should they be restricted from having one, when it literally takes less effort to make than a normal BLT? Because other people think it's stupid?
Again, if you want to make the argument that the creation and management of PvE servers would take too much effort, that's a totally reasonable conversation to have, but saying their existence would actually ruin the game just doesn't make any sense.
Again game is being designed as PvX, that is like you trying to complain wow isn't designed as PvX and has instanced dungeons.. Your only point is they make more money by doing pve, and everyone is already where what mmorpgs can do to chase money.....
There's also NW's toggle mechanic, where barely anyone has it on, relatively speaking. They are not restricted from it. They can go to literally several other shops that are right around the corner who'd be more than glad to remove the bacon. But here at the "Papa Bacon's" we're proud MURRICAN'S that never remove a wholeass letter from a sandwich.
They want the game to have microtransactions and their current business model utilizes FOMO marketing strategies so they're obviously not ignoring the financial side of the business. They understand they have to compromise their vision to some degree to make the game profitable. More profit means more content, so its not like the less money a company makes the better their games will be.
That literally is not evidence of anything. The only thing that proves is that people who play WoW prefer PvE servers. So if they didn't have PvE servers and the only option was PvP the game would suffer.
Not talking about opt-in/opt-out PvP. That's a totally different concept and one I agree is awful. Also I always had it on cuz it gave you more stuff like War Mode in WoW, but yeah no one had it on so it was basically just free buffs. Stupid concept that doesn't work I totally agree.
So they are restricted. What if they prefer Papa Bacon's BLT without bacon more than the McDonalds BLT without bacon down the street? Maybe Papa Bacon has way better sauce or the bun is different.
If you simply want to exclude people for the sake of excluding them that's your prerogative, I just personally disagree.
You mean doing microtransactions like 80% of all games on the market are doing....I guess you are elaving out no box cost and expansion updates are free on AoC.
Why do you raise some of the most terrible points and argue those bad points are a reason for a pve servers when the game is not being designed as a PvE game. You don't take a game designed as a different purpose and slap PvE on it. The same way it doesn't work when you have a PvE game and slap a PvP world on it where there are no consequences to killing anyone.
You are raising very bad points; you are looking at PvX without understanding it's a different game type than PvE completely.
More money makes a better game, guess you must be into diablo immortal.
So if 80% of all games are doing something than Ashes of Creation should also do it?
You're literally giving an argument that you don't even agree with.
I know why they want a cash shop and why they utilize FOMO marketing strategies.
Guess what? I never said they shouldn't.
Once again you have assumed something that is incorrect and built an entire argument around something that no one said.
Are you going to pay a 25$ sub fee?
Isn't it $15?
If you're asking if I would pay a $25 sub fee instead of having a cash shop, my answer is yes I would. I'd also like founder skins to be obtainable in-game.
BUT I DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD DO THAT
Why? Because I think they would have a bigger player base if they lowered the sub fee and implemented a cash shop.
No, it's because having PvP built into the underpinnings of a game's systems and simply adding bacon to a sandwich aren't analogous. Ashes is elementally an OW PvP game, it's not added in like a condiment. The bacon is baked into the bread, the grease covers the entire kitchen, including the cutting boards the lettuce and tomatoes are sliced on. So, I'm not saying you can't pick whatever you want out of your BLT to make it vegetarian, I'm just saying you're not going to be served a BLT without bacon.
Here you go:
Why are you saying this then if you understand the basics....