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

Meztopheles

NiKr wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

I don't think there's anything such as that in the MMORPG genre. That's like, fortnite. No PVE content, just players against players. But not even an MMO or RPG.

Yeah, which is why I consider the whole division of "pve" and "pvp" a silly thing. Because there's always games that have pure pve progression ways, but never mmos that have pure pvp ways. But Dygz counters that with "rpgs were never really meant to be pvp" and that's where the opinion wars would begin, which I'm kinda getting tired of so whatever

By Dygz's standard no PVE-only player would play ashes or any game with owpvp at all because

Dolyem wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

I literally only ran end game pve content to gain gear for PvP in several MMORPGs... I know entire Rated PvP guilds who only ran PvE content when it had BiS gear for PvP. PvPers will almost always deal with the PvE content if it means them getting better at PvP. Other way around? Not so much.

Hell the entire concept of Twinking is based around running characters through PvE content repeatedly to JUST PvP.

This describes the entirety of L2 (and most likely majority of other "pvp-centric" mmos). You pve so that you can pvp better.

I think Dygz is just talking about the purest of pure "pvpers" who hate pve to such an extent that they wouldn't even want to level up if it required pve. Those are, imo, as small of a minority as the truest of true pvers, but there probably are people like that out there.

I don't think there's anything such as that in the MMORPG genre. That's like, fortnite. No PVE content, just players against players. But not even an MMO or RPG.

Yeah, he's just being pedantic because you put "only" after PVP, focusing entirely on the words without addressing what you really meant. As you've said, where is it even possible to do PVP-only in an mmo without gimping yourself horribly? PVPers typically don't have such a narrow sense of taste as to reject the notion of PVE entirely. MMO PVPers are ill-suited in not playing other games instead if they literally only care about PVP.

Raven016

insomnia wrote: »

Shabooey wrote: »

It's at 1:18:10 for those wanting to check it out.

The question is initially about how it links to artisan skills but Steven does broaden it out, so have a look and see what you think.

The link should start at the point of the question

It starts at 0:0 for me.
Somewhere else I noticed that these embedded player plugins remember where i left the video. I guess was an Ashen Forge video which started where I paused at previous view instead of the time indicated by the 2nd link.

Dolyem

insomnia wrote: »

They are talking about changing racials to backgrounds. It should be on the timestamp

https://youtu.be/3FxHjg0YgiM?t=4692

Interesting, it doesn't sound like it's completely out the door. I'd at least hope there is 1 so 2 race locked traits

Dygz

That is specifically about Racial abilities affecting the Artisan paths.
Steven is concerned about there being a Racial META for specific professions.

Timestamp is:
1:18:12

Dygz

Meztopheles wrote: »

By Dygz's standard no PVE-only player would play ashes or any game with owpvp at all

Actually, by my standards...
I really only reference gamers who typically play MMORPGs on PvP servers and players who typically play MMORPGs on PvE-Only servers.

People like Liniker and Dolyem, and maybe NiKr, will talk about gamers who play other forms of PvP games and people who play other forms of PvE games.

George_Black

Imagine losing intetest in a whole, deep mmo because races dont have passives.

Meztopheles

Dygz wrote: »

Meztopheles wrote: »

By Dygz's standard no PVE-only player would play ashes or any game with owpvp at all

Actually, by my standards...
I really only reference gamers who typically play MMORPGs on PvP servers and players who typically play MMORPGs on PvE-Only servers.

People like Liniker and Dolyem, and maybe NiKr, will talk about gamers who play other forms of PvP games and people who play other forms of PvE games.

That makes more sense but I didn't gather it from the other posts of yours that I read. Categorizing by server preference over PVE/PVP "only" makes more sense to be sure, but I don't think it's ideal. There's a difference between the individuals who would typically play a PVE server who would refuse to play in a game where being ganked is possible and those who would only view it as a slight detriment in an otherwise excellent PVE experience (If AOC actually ends up having that, it's too early to be sure but we can hope.)

I think it's true though that most people who only care about competing with others are better served by fighting games or arena shooters or MOBAS than an MMO, and people who want strictly PVE are better served by games like the upcoming Baldur's Gate 3. I'd imagine most MMO players either enjoy both to lesser or greater degrees or really care about playing with other people in a PVE context.

The potential of Ashes for me, and I'd imagine many others, lies in the promise (which it will hopefully come close to keeping) of bringing an interesting fantasy world to life and giving players as much agency as possible in that world. Even if one only cares about PVE, if the PVE is good and meaningful, is the occasional gank really going to ruin it? Obviously, this is from an optimistic viewpoint and I'm not unaware of the possibility of it being horrible if large groups decide to make everyone's life in the game miserable, but it looks too early to say that there's no possibility for good and meaningful PVE content (not saying you were saying that, I kinda just started ranting about the original post at this point).

insomnia

George_Black wrote: »

Imagine losing intetest in a whole, deep mmo because races dont have passives.

I said that over time i have cared less and less. I said it probaly killed it a little. 2 key words, probaly and little

Dygz

Meztopheles wrote: »

That makes more sense but I didn't gather it from the other posts of yours that I read. Categorizing by server preference over PVE/PVP "only" makes more sense to be sure, but I don't think it's ideal. There's a difference between the individuals who would typically play a PVE server who would refuse to play in a game where being ganked is possible and those who would only view it as a slight detriment in an otherwise excellent PVE experience (If AOC actually ends up having that, it's too early to be sure but we can hope.)

It's PvP server or PvE-Only server.
And I think I agree that there is a difference between people who would play refuse to play in a game where being ganked is possible and those who would play on a PvP server where the PvP is viewed as a slight detriment in an otherwise excellent PvE experience.
Because I am in the camp who typically plays on PvE-Only servers and who is willing to play on a PvP server if the PvP is only a slight detriment to my (PvE) game session goals.

Meztopheles wrote: »

I think it's true though that most people who only care about competing with others are better served by fighting games or arena shooters or MOBAS than an MMO, and people who want strictly PVE are better served by games like the upcoming Baldur's Gate 3. I'd imagine most MMO players either enjoy both to lesser or greater degrees or really care about playing with other people in a PVE context.

I find this to be irrelevant. Probably true, but irrelevant.
(Baldur's Gate 3 is not an MMO. I'll be playing WoW when I want to play an MMORPG with excellent PvE.)

Meztopheles wrote: »

The potential of Ashes for me, and I'd imagine many others, lies in the promise (which it will hopefully come close to keeping) of bringing an interesting fantasy world to life and giving players as much agency as possible in that world. Even if one only cares about PVE, if the PVE is good and meaningful, is the occasional gank really going to ruin it? Obviously, this is from an optimistic viewpoint and I'm not unaware of the possibility of it being horrible if large groups decide to make everyone's life in the game miserable, but it looks too early to say that there's no possibility for good and meaningful PVE content (not saying you were saying that, I kinda just started ranting about the original post at this point).

Depends on how occassional the gank is. Although, my issue is not ganking.
My issue is non-consensual PvP and other players disrupting my games session goals. I also have an issue with permanent open world zones that auto-flag (Corruption/Karma-free) FFA PvP.
And that overrides anything else in the game.
When I want to experience an MMORPG with excellent PvE, I will be playing some other MMORPG besides Ashes. I'll primarily just be playing Ashes when I want to hang out with friends and take a peek at what folks are doing.

Meztopheles

Dygz wrote: »

It's PvP server or PvE-Only server.
And I think I agree that there is a difference between people who would play refuse to play in a game where being ganked is possible and those who would play on a PvP server where the PvP is viewed as a slight detriment in an otherwise excellent PvE experience.
Because I am in the camp who typically plays on PvE-Only servers and who is willing to play on a PvP server if the PvP is only a slight detriment to my (PvE) game session goals.

I guess our only contention on this then relates to what we consider a good PVE experience. Given your mention of WoW below, they don't match at all. While my problems with WoW are more strictly related to combat than content, I don't enjoy the content in that game and consider the vast majority of my experience in it (admittedly extremely small) a waste of time. I think Ashes has the potential to have incomparably superior PVE with players affecting outcomes and better combat (this is all "hopefully"). That's much more interesting to me personally, but I can understand the difference in taste that would lead one to prefer WoW.

Dygz wrote: »

I find this to be irrelevant. Probably true, but irrelevant.
(Baldur's Gate 3 is not an MMO. I'll be playing WoW when I want to play an MMORPG with excellent PvE.)

I'm aware it's not an MMO, but PVE and PVP are not restricted to MMO's. I expect Baldur's Gate 3 to be a PVE experience that is leagues above anything WoW or frankly any current MMO has to offer. You can even play with friends, unlike most games which can boast the same.

My point with this is that the only advantage of MMO's is the possibility for the world to be inhabited and impacted by other players. Strictly talking about PVP/PVE, there are other better options. I like the PVX model because it allows for more of the "impact" part of that equation. It just has to be balanced so that it doesn't negatively affect the "inhabited" part.

Dygz wrote: »

Depends on how occassional the gank is. Although, my issue is not ganking.
My issue is non-consensual PvP and other players disrupting my games session goals. I also have an issue with permanent open world zones that auto-flag (Corruption/Karma-free) FFA PvP.
And that overrides anything else in the game.
When I want to experience an MMORPG with excellent PvE, I will be playing some other MMORPG besides Ashes. I'll primarily just be playing Ashes when I want to hang out with friends and take a peek at what folks are doing.

I somewhat agree with this. The ganking does need to be occasional to prevent the game from just being straight unfun for people behind on the level curve or who don't prefer ever-present PVP. Too much would be bad and they'll hopefully find a balance. I'm all for heavy punishments for people ganking low levels. I agree about "disrupting game session goals" though where we draw the line of what constitutes that may be different.

I don't personally have an issue with the auto-flag zones they plan to have and don't exactly understand why you would, much less it overriding anything else good in the game. I feel like the game likely isn't for you if that's a hard pass, which fair I guess, but yeah, all I can do is shrug on that one.

Dygz

Meztopheles wrote: »

While my problems with WoW are more strictly related to combat than content, I don't enjoy the content in that game and consider the vast majority of my experience in it (admittedly extremely small) a waste of time. I think Ashes has the potential to have incomparably superior PVE with players affecting outcomes and better combat (this is all "hopefully"). That's much more interesting to me personally, but I can understand the difference in taste that would lead one to prefer WoW.

With regard to exceptional PvE and WoW - I would have agreed with you prior to Dragonflight.
Dragonflight has solved the content issues I've had with WoW for the previous 12 years.
I was expecting Ashes (Nodes) to do that - especially if it had released before 2020. Or before Dragonflight.
Now I don't need to deal with PvP to get my MMORPG itch scratched.

Ashes can't have superior PvE because Steven's vision of PvX is that all of the PvE is firmly integrated as much as possible with PvP. As much as possible, Steven does not want PvP content or PvE content - he would have 100% PvX content if he could.
And that is more PvP and competition than I am interested in.

Meztopheles wrote: »

I'm aware it's not an MMO, but PVE and PVP are not restricted to MMO's. I expect Baldur's Gate 3 to be a PVE experience that is leagues above anything WoW or frankly any current MMO has to offer. You can even play with friends, unlike most games which can boast the same.

Genres that are not MMORPGs, specifically, are going to have different design goals.
And will be designed to scratch different itches.
Baldur's Gate 3 is great for scratching the small group multiplayer online RPG itch.
It is not going to be able to scratch the MMORPG itch.

Meztopheles wrote: »

My point with this is that the only advantage of MMO's is the possibility for the world to be inhabited and impacted by other players. Strictly talking about PVP/PVE, there are other better options. I like the PVX model because it allows for more of the "impact" part of that equation. It just has to be balanced so that it doesn't negatively affect the "inhabited" part.

I think "advantage" is not the correct word.
Other players affecting dynamic change on the world has a lot of appeal.
Meaningful PvP Conflict also has some appeal.
For me, a design that has an obsession with competition and Risk v Reward has negative appeal - and overrides any possible interest in the rest of the game.
Because I am a non-competitive, Casual Challenge carebear.

Meztopheles wrote: »

I somewhat agree with this. The ganking does need to be occasional to prevent the game from just being straight unfun for people behind on the level curve or who don't prefer ever-present PVP. Too much would be bad and they'll hopefully find a balance. I'm all for heavy punishments for people ganking low levels. I agree about "disrupting game session goals" though where we draw the line of what constitutes that may be different.

Yep.

Meztopheles wrote: »

I don't personally have an issue with the auto-flag zones they plan to have and don't exactly understand why you would, much less it overriding anything else good in the game. I feel like the game likely isn't for you if that's a hard pass, which fair I guess, but yeah, all I can do is shrug on that one.

Yep, different playstyles will have diferent perspectives. And different dealbreakers.
That's OK.
My Bartle Score is: Explorer 87; Socializer 73; Achiever 47; Killer 0

BlackBrony

But Ashes doesn't really have PvE. It has no real endgame PvE that would interest real PvE players that enjoy endgame content.
I've seen nothing like Rift's raid, something like Crucia where you kill a giant dragon with specific menchanics. It might be not super hardcore, but I haven't seen anything like that.

I mean, doing some gathering is hardly PvE.

Liniker

BlackBrony wrote: »

But Ashes doesn't really have PvE.

Dungeons & Raids both open world and instanced, POIs, Narrative events, world events with stuff like invasions etc, regional and world bosses, treasure hunting, Housing, 23 different professions across gathering crafting and processing,

Saying AoC has no PVE should be a bannable offense lol

George_Black

People confuse PvE with instanced raiding.
People confuse meaningful pvp with scripted pvp.

Just pointing this out so nobody else says something like "IS wasnt clear".

BlackBrony

Liniker wrote: »

BlackBrony wrote: »

But Ashes doesn't really have PvE.

Dungeons & Raids both open world and instanced, POIs, Narrative events, world events with stuff like invasions etc, regional and world bosses, treasure hunting, Housing, 23 different professions across gathering crafting and processing,

Saying AoC has no PVE should be a bannable offense lol

Bro, that's not PvE. That's filler content. It's like saying that Arenas 1v1 is PvP, and that's all you have.
That's the problem. You people think PvE is that, but it's not. It won't satisfy PvE players.
PvErs want to run dungeons and raids, not pick flowers.

Liniker

BlackBrony wrote: »

Bro, that's not PvE. That's filler content.

Yea I'd seek help if I were you, that's not normal

1sab3la

Liniker wrote: »

BlackBrony wrote: »

Bro, that's not PvE. That's filler content.

Yea I'd seek help if I were you, that's not normal

You always know who the group finder WoW players are

Noaani

Liniker wrote: »

BlackBrony wrote: »

But Ashes doesn't really have PvE.

Dungeons & Raids both open world and instanced, POIs, Narrative events, world events with stuff like invasions etc, regional and world bosses, treasure hunting, Housing, 23 different professions across gathering crafting and processing,

Saying AoC has no PVE should be a bannable offense lol

BlackBrony is perfectly right here.

What you are talking about here (or, more specifically, what we know Steven has planned) is PvE content to a PvP player, just as an arena is PvP content to a PvE player.

To a PvP player, Ashes probably has plenty of PvE content - arguably more than they would want. To a PvE player, that entire list (at least the first half of it - you seem to have devolved in to a list of "not PvP content" fairly quickly) is simply content deisgned to spark PvP.

As a simple question for you though, exactly how do you think POI's - something you list as being PvE content - will play?

I've been saying this for years - Ashes has no appeal at all to someone that is mostly interested in PvE but also enjoys PvP. You will need to be mostly interested in PvP to play this game long term as your primary game. That isn't inherently a bad thing - that is Stevens target market. You really shouldn't be trying to convince mostly PvE players of anything other than this, as all that will do is create a negative review storm around the game a few months after release when all of these players that are not actually catered to realize that they wasted their time and money.

Liniker

BlackBrony wrote: »

But Ashes doesn't really have PvE.

Noaani wrote: »

BlackBrony is perfectly right here.

https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/mental-illness

Noaani

Liniker wrote: »

BlackBrony wrote: »

But Ashes doesn't really have PvE.

Noaani wrote: »

BlackBrony is perfectly right here.

https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/mental-illness

Perhaps you should look through that website for narcissism - a condition in which, among other things, people think their perspective is the only perspective worth considering. Basially, it is a condition by which your own self importance is massively inflated, and all other people do not matter.

Based on Stevens guild in Archeage, that is actually something the two of you share.

We are telling you that from the perspective of someone with different priorities to your own, things look different than they do to you. You are disagreeing, which means you must be thinking that your perspective is the only one that matters.

Child Item