PvE Players tell me why you follow Ashes of Creation

Doesn't matter if the first time you saw Ashes was in kickstarter, or just learned of the project 2 weeks ago.

As a PvE first player, what makes you look forward to PvE in AoC or what was the defining feature that you're looking forward to?

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Ludullu

Dygz wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

Or that your PvE goals involve PvP.

On a PvP server where players can be attacked at any time, PvP can always occur.
So… that is just PvP. PvX is meaningless.

But for you in particular, if it wasn't for the design you laid out you wouldn't have to fight that player. So the pve design led you to pvp. That is the crux of the pvx idea.

And the same applies to people who care about pvp more. They want to be stronger, so they'll have to participate in pve, which might also involve pvp along the way, so the pvpers are definitely winning doubly here.

p.s. I would definitely love some stuff that would be similar to what you described in the game, because I'm sure there'd be other pvp-averse people who might shift their pov on pvp due to that kind of design.

SirChancelot

Dolyem wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

A player focused on hunting a player is not really something that the devs design.
🙄

If it wasn't a part of the design, open world PvP wouldnt be a thing, just events and instanced PvP. There's literally a system for players to hunt players that hunt other players.

Are you planning on hunting corrupted players? Or just cool with the idea of your character being very corrupted?

Dolyem

SirChancelot wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

A player focused on hunting a player is not really something that the devs design.
🙄

If it wasn't a part of the design, open world PvP wouldnt be a thing, just events and instanced PvP. There's literally a system for players to hunt players that hunt other players.

Are you planning on hunting corrupted players? Or just cool with the idea of your character being very corrupted?

Both actually. I plan to have a specific load out for each. Perhaps even separate characters. That way when there's too many corrupted I can hop on my bounty hunter, and if there's to many bounty hunters I'll hop on the corrupted character for a challenge. And having a notorious corrupted character sounds fun

CROW3

Dygz wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

Or that your PvE goals involve PvP.

On a PvP server where players can be attacked at any time, PvP can always occur.
So… that is just a PvP server ruleset for an MMORPG. PvX is meaningless.

Ok.

SirChancelot

Dolyem wrote: »

SirChancelot wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

A player focused on hunting a player is not really something that the devs design.
🙄

If it wasn't a part of the design, open world PvP wouldnt be a thing, just events and instanced PvP. There's literally a system for players to hunt players that hunt other players.

Are you planning on hunting corrupted players? Or just cool with the idea of your character being very corrupted?

Both actually. I plan to have a specific load out for each. Perhaps even separate characters. That way when there's too many corrupted I can hop on my bounty hunter, and if there's to many bounty hunters I'll hop on the corrupted character for a challenge. And having a notorious corrupted character sounds fun

Doesn't increasing corruption cause decreasing stats?

I mean, good luck to you I guess... But my understanding is corruption is aiming to prevent exactly that.

Dolyem

SirChancelot wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

SirChancelot wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

A player focused on hunting a player is not really something that the devs design.
🙄

If it wasn't a part of the design, open world PvP wouldnt be a thing, just events and instanced PvP. There's literally a system for players to hunt players that hunt other players.

Are you planning on hunting corrupted players? Or just cool with the idea of your character being very corrupted?

Both actually. I plan to have a specific load out for each. Perhaps even separate characters. That way when there's too many corrupted I can hop on my bounty hunter, and if there's to many bounty hunters I'll hop on the corrupted character for a challenge. And having a notorious corrupted character sounds fun

Doesn't increasing corruption cause decreasing stats?

I mean, good luck to you I guess... But my understanding is corruption is aiming to prevent exactly that.

It's to prevent griefing, not ganking. Obviously I won't be corrupting myself into oblivion. I'd kill a few, and work it off while fighting bounty hunters, maybe I'll succeed, maybe I won't. And that's just assuming other players don't fight back.

Dolyem

Also, corruption still needs tested to really know if its too lenient or too punishing. I still believe corruption should have more variables in its progress of hurting the player, but I'll be able to give a more solid opinion once it is tested.

Korela

PvE - log in to fight NPCs

PvP - log in to fight Players

PvX - log in to play a game

Dygz

CROW3 wrote: »

Or that your PvE goals involve PvP.

And, actually, Steven’s version of “PvX” feels even more extreme than having cake shoved down your throat.
Steven shoves the cake down your throat, up your shirt, down your pants, in your shoes, in your hair…

Vyril

PvP only is Call of Duty, Magic the Gathering
PvE only is Palia, Vampire Survivor

What is AoC?

Liniker

Vyril wrote: »

PvP only is Call of Duty, Magic the Gathering
PvE only is Palia, Vampire Survivor

What is AoC?

Archeage, Lineage 2, EVE, Albion, Dark age of Camelot, Warhammer online, Revelation Online, Ultima online, Mortal online,

the list goes on,

Vyril

Liniker wrote: »

Vyril wrote: »

PvP only is Call of Duty, Magic the Gathering
PvE only is Palia, Vampire Survivor

What is AoC?

Archeage, Lineage 2, EVE, Albion, Dark age of Camelot, Warhammer online, Revelation Online, Ultima online, Mortal online,

the list goes on,

AoC are those games? Sorry Liniker not sure what you're saying.

I was getting to the point where people say any game that has PvP is only a PvP game and not PvX. And since AoC is not like any I listed in terms of content. The logical conclusion is its PvX.

I guess as I write this, you're right all the games you listed are also PvX.

Liniker

Vyril wrote: »

I guess as I write this, you're right all the games you listed are also PvX.

yea I thought you were asking for examples of PvX mmorpgs, my bad

Dygz

Vyril wrote: »

I was getting to the point where people say any game that has PvP is only a PvP game and not PvX. And since AoC is not like any I listed in terms of content. The logical conclusion is its PvX.

I guess as I write this, you're right all the games you listed are also PvX.

I'm not aware of any pure PvP MMORPGs. Maybe ShadowBane tried to some closest.
So, if EvE Online and ArcheAge and UO and Lineage II are PvX MMORPGs...
When I ask Steven if he's hoping Ashes PvP is like EvE and ArcheAge - the answer should be yes.
When I tell him those games are too PvP-centric for me, he should say... "Well, Ashes is not made for everyone, so maybe you are not part of the target audience."
Or say, "Well, we consider those games to be PvX, like Ashes, rather than PvP-centric."

PvX MMORPG is the same thing as a PvP-centric MMORPG. Which is why the term PvX is meaningless.
PvP servers on EQ/EQ2/WoW are also PvX.
Saying Ashes is PvX does not help players who refuse to play UO, EvE Online and ArcheAge understand that Ashes isn't made for their playstyle.

Dolyem

I'd argue that while most MMORPGs could be considered PvX, the key with Ashes is to make a game where both PvP and PvE are as equally synergized and prominent as possible.
Other MMORPGs tend to favor one side or the other too much, making the dominant focus significantly overshadow the lesser. You can see this on many PvE servers where even the instanced PvP is extremely lacking.

The problem for PvE-only players is they want absolutely nothing to do with PvP, so even a PvX game which is perfectly balanced in utilizing both PvE and PvP sounds abhorrent to them, while a majority of the PvP players will be happy to play the full experience.

Noaani

Dolyem wrote: »

How aren't they linked directly when by venturing into the world to gain rewards, you are risking being killed by both pvp and pve?

How are they linked?

Imagine you and I are on different servers, mine has significantly more PvP than yours (servers will have vastly differing amounts of PvP - that is basically a given).

You and I both venturing out to work the same content look at facing very different risk via PvP, yet we each only stand to gain the same rewards from that content we are planning to work.

Thus, the risk and reward are not connected. At all.

If they were connected, the more risk you actually face (not potentially face), the greater your rewards.

Dolyem

Noaani wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

How aren't they linked directly when by venturing into the world to gain rewards, you are risking being killed by both pvp and pve?

How are they linked?

Imagine you and I are on different servers, mine has significantly more PvP than yours (servers will have vastly differing amounts of PvP - that is basically a given).

You and I both venturing out to work the same content look at facing very different risk via PvP, yet we each only stand to gain the same rewards from that content we are planning to work.

Thus, the risk and reward are not connected. At all.

If they were connected, the more risk you actually face (not potentially face), the greater your rewards.

By that logic, every server should have the exact same nodes progressing in the same way. Because, from my understanding, we should each have the exact same experience according to you.

It isn't supposed to be consistent or the same every time you go to the same spot.

We don't have the same risks on different servers in the same spot? Surprise, we likely won't even have the same PVE content there either

Edit: I think your main issue is with the gamble of not knowing what you may gain in a PvP confrontation.
And as long as you get a reward taking a risk, that alone is the connection. It's open world PvP, it's supposed to be unpredictable and spontaneous.

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

If they were connected, the more risk you actually face (not potentially face), the greater your rewards.

If your server has way less pvp then it means that you don't need more people for any given content at any given time. So the reward you get for, say, killing Big Monkey boss would be split across fewer people.

Dolyem's server would have way more competition, which would make the whole encounter with the Big Monkey require more people (either in the same group or split into the "farming" and "protecting" groups). But all of those people would have to be rewarded for their efforts, so whatever the reward from the boss would be - every member would get a smaller part.

This is also a reason why pvp inclined people get kinda butthurt when pvers ask for pve servers. Because in that case they'd be getting higher reward for less risk.

Also, if Intrepid make a system that tracks player interactions (mainly pvp encounters) and then showcase that during the server choice, your server with less pvp might attract more people. Which might then lead to more pvp, because there'd be more competition. And Dolyem's server might lose some people to your server or just to other games (would depend on how good AoC is as a game).

So the risk/reward equation of both servers would balance out in the long run.

Noaani

Dolyem wrote: »

By that logic, every server should have the exact same nodes progressing in the same way. Because, from my understanding, we should each have the exact same experience according to you.

My logic isn't that anything in the game should change - it is simply that calling PvP "risk vs reward" is inaccurate.

Raven016

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

If they were connected, the more risk you actually face (not potentially face), the greater your rewards.

If your server has way less pvp then it means that you don't need more people for any given content at any given time. So the reward you get for, say, killing Big Monkey boss would be split across fewer people.

Dolyem's server would have way more competition, which would make the whole encounter with the Big Monkey require more people (either in the same group or split into the "farming" and "protecting" groups). But all of those people would have to be rewarded for their efforts, so whatever the reward from the boss would be - every member would get a smaller part.

This is also a reason why pvp inclined people get kinda butthurt when pvers ask for pve servers. Because in that case they'd be getting higher reward for less risk.

Also, if Intrepid make a system that tracks player interactions (mainly pvp encounters) and then showcase that during the server choice, your server with less pvp might attract more people. Which might then lead to more pvp, because there'd be more competition. And Dolyem's server might lose some people to your server or just to other games (would depend on how good AoC is as a game).

So the risk/reward equation of both servers would balance out in the long run.

Depends how a server ended up having less PvP.
Maybe has less PvP and can maintain that state.
Also on a PvE server would be better to have more Big Monkey bosses, even instanced, because if fewer players can kill it, the others do what? Or maybe efficiently farming the Big Monkey boss gives more in return in a given time than on a chaotic PvP server?

Child Item