I'll join an RP guild on an RP server ^^
I might end up their top PvPer as I have no RP skills in RL. But I like to watch them doing their stuff.
As soon as there's a community chosen RP server, there's gonna be at least one guild of people who'll be willing to fuck everyone over. At which point Steven would have to set some fairly particular rules as to what constitutes griefing in the game, cause I'm sure those PKers will find a way to justify their killings within the game's design.
How many players / servers do you think AoC should have, 6-12 months after release? What number should Steven aim to get?
I think Steverino is aiming to have 10-20 players per server, given that is the limit for tier 3 mounts which essentially require either a low server population or for a handful of individuals to turn the rest of the players into their wageless slaves so the handful can reap the benefits, i assume stevies goal is to have 1000 servers each with 10-20 players, since forcing wageless slavery on your players so a handful might benefit is anti-human/evil
I'll join an RP guild on an RP server ^^
I might end up their top PvPer as I have no RP skills in RL. But I like to watch them doing their stuff.
As soon as there's a community chosen RP server, there's gonna be at least one guild of people who'll be willing to fuck everyone over. At which point Steven would have to set some fairly particular rules as to what constitutes griefing in the game, cause I'm sure those PKers will find a way to justify their killings within the game's design.
How many players / servers do you think AoC should have, 6-12 months after release? What number should Steven aim to get?
12 months after release (maybe 18), my assumption is 4 NA, 4 EU, an AUS server that has been merged with at least one other region (probably SEA), and is likely to be merged with another at some point, a BR server and that is about it.
So, 10 servers is kind of the cap I see the game being at that point.
Thus, 200k players.
If they achieve this, I'd consider the game to be successful.
I doubt there are many other people out there that would put their neck out and give an actual number as to what they think.
ok. If those are instances which do not allow PvP then is a PvX game.
Can a corrupt player clean his corruption fighting NPCs there? Would make no sense to be possible (as game mechanic, not lore) but I am curious.
As Dolyem pointed out, your definition of pvx is not the same as Steven's. But no, I doubt red players will be able to enter instances, because those would probably require npc interactions and reds can't do that.
Steven is not the reference in everything. He cannot create new meaning to commonly used words by people on the planet. Thanks for pointing out Dolyem post. We posted at same time and I would have missed it.
is PvX only if I can do Monday, Wednesday and Friday only PvE, without any risk of PvP.
Fighting NPCs having to look constantly around if anyone comes to take my resources makes it a PvP game.
I'm not entirely sure you even read what I wrote.
The title of your thread is "AOC is NOT a PVP game"
I checked your post and it does not contain the conditions to make it a PvX game.
I skipped the part where you said "I played Wayfinder ..."
Which part specifically explains that is PvX and not PvP?
I told you what I expect: to be able to have PvP sessions and PvE sessions.
Will the player be able to have PvE without any risk of being interrupted by PvP somewhere?
PvX requires you to participate in both PvP and PvE to progress. Not one or the other, both. So naturally, when fighting mobs in the wild, you will be required to look over your shoulder and be weary of other players.
There was a discussion not long ago talking about how practically all "PvP" MMORPGs are really just PvX, where PvP would have either no PvE or not require PvE at all.
That is what I call a PvP game or a PvP game experience. But not a good one considering the corruption and loot mechanics. Steven tries to attract PvE players to his game but he will be surprised to see that his trick will not work. Players who like PvE will stay with PvE games even if they want PvP sometime. And players who want PvE sometime will find themselves doing it by force if they become corrupt or will be forced to do objective PvP only when playing on land. True PvP-ers will be forced to go into the ocean where they have no nodes.
I don't think that's true at all. It's a spectrum most likely. Not only one or the other. If AoC provides a better PVE experience then who's to say what they will do?
I think this type of game is closer to a Conflict or Social MMORPG game. It might take a bit longer but I would almost guarantee that PVE players will have more fun in this then a game primarily designed around PVE. Sorry but Steven is 1000% right. Risk simply creates a better experience. You can have no risk but just like anything else, there's a cost to it.
I think players will enjoy being part of a world rather then what's being offered now. Where the players and zones bring an actual value to your playing experience.
If you are describing specific elements sure. If you said Ashes was a PVP game then that wouldn't really explain anything at all. This is not a binary thing.
Calling Ashes a PvP game would do a better job of describing it than calling it a PvE game, and calling it a PvX game means nothing.
This is perhaps the key point to me. PvX is meaningless - it is a marketing term designed to not turn people away from the game. It doesn't actually describe anything.
PvE describes a game where you can expect to not be attacked by other players, at least not unexpectedly.
PvP describes a game where you can expect to be attacked by other players.
Sure, calling Ashes PvP doesn't describe the game in detail, but it is the start of that description. None of the other terms can be considered the start of such a description.
It's definitely not a PVP game though. It's primarily PVE. Just like WoW most of your PVP experience will be in an organized opt in system. Otherwise be prepared for long hauls of PVE. I doubt Arenas or Caravans will create enough experience to really offer consistent enough progression. Most likely not seeing very much PVP in the world. The PVP players will be coming for the Sieges,Naval,Caravan. Because of the Combatant phase there should be open world too but that's almost entirely opt in. You might as well under those parameters describe Any game with PVP as a PVP game but clearly you would be doing a disservice.
Why do you think when describing it you are restricted to terms that people understand or are familiar with? I used to have to explain what an MMO was. If I need to explain what PVX is or a Conflict MMORPG is then that seems pretty simple.
If someone was familiar with Skyrim would you tell them that Diablo 4 is also a RPG and reccomend it? Just like those two you will be required to go in to further depth to describe what exactly it is. Isometric action RPG with a focus on gear progression meaning primarily combat based progression "....I could just say RPG by your logic as a start but that would do absolutely nothing for the other person and would be closer to misleading.
ok. If those are instances which do not allow PvP then is a PvX game.
Can a corrupt player clean his corruption fighting NPCs there? Would make no sense to be possible (as game mechanic, not lore) but I am curious.
As Dolyem pointed out, your definition of pvx is not the same as Steven's. But no, I doubt red players will be able to enter instances, because those would probably require npc interactions and reds can't do that.
Steven is not the reference in everything. He cannot create new meaning to commonly used words by people on the planet. Thanks for pointing out Dolyem post. We posted at same time and I would have missed it.
is PvX only if I can do Monday, Wednesday and Friday only PvE, without any risk of PvP.
Fighting NPCs having to look constantly around if anyone comes to take my resources makes it a PvP game.
I'm not entirely sure you even read what I wrote.
The title of your thread is "AOC is NOT a PVP game"
I checked your post and it does not contain the conditions to make it a PvX game.
I skipped the part where you said "I played Wayfinder ..."
Which part specifically explains that is PvX and not PvP?
I told you what I expect: to be able to have PvP sessions and PvE sessions.
Will the player be able to have PvE without any risk of being interrupted by PvP somewhere?
PvX requires you to participate in both PvP and PvE to progress. Not one or the other, both. So naturally, when fighting mobs in the wild, you will be required to look over your shoulder and be weary of other players.
There was a discussion not long ago talking about how practically all "PvP" MMORPGs are really just PvX, where PvP would have either no PvE or not require PvE at all.
That is what I call a PvP game or a PvP game experience. But not a good one considering the corruption and loot mechanics. Steven tries to attract PvE players to his game but he will be surprised to see that his trick will not work. Players who like PvE will stay with PvE games even if they want PvP sometime. And players who want PvE sometime will find themselves doing it by force if they become corrupt or will be forced to do objective PvP only when playing on land. True PvP-ers will be forced to go into the ocean where they have no nodes.
I don't think that's true at all. It's a spectrum most likely. Not only one or the other. If AoC provides a better PVE experience then who's to say what they will do?
I think this type of game is closer to a Conflict or Social MMORPG game. It might take a bit longer but I would almost guarantee that PVE players will have more fun in this then a game primarily designed around PVE. Sorry but Steven is 1000% right. Risk simply creates a better experience. You can have no risk but just like anything else, there's a cost to it.
I think players will enjoy being part of a world rather then what's being offered now. Where the players and zones bring an actual value to your playing experience.
I think you are right. The social aspect is the main goal of the game, what Steven tries to achieve.
That would happen in any game where you have a siege mechanic. Someone with initiative will contact attackers and tell them 'Hey, don't siege us, let's talk about it and make an alliance and attack together that other city.'
Developing a node will be much harder without corruption or with a lenient one because citizens of a node will fight eachother and only large guilds would be able to be free of inner conflicts.
Maybe thanks to this social aspect, some nodes will have enough inner peaceful regions closer to PvE while at borders there will be a PvP war area.
wow is the same. you can just do battlegrounds and arena and ignore pve completely, or do dungeons and raids and ignore pvp completely. and of course, you can do both. but wow is basically 2 different games accessed using the same client and interface.
The point isn't about trick questions, or semantics, it is about clear, easy communication of fundamentals of a game.
agree, except the "game designers" in this forum cant even define the same things they are talking about unless they provide a subjective definition, which isnt the actual definition.
In this case, if people are talking about a PvP MMORPG as a general term, then literally everyone on these forums should understand that any MMORPG in which it is possible to attack another player in the open world fits in to this definition.
people cant even say what an rpg is in this forum xDDDDDDD, but i agree, they should know. but reality is they dont.
wow is the same. you can just do battlegrounds and arena and ignore pve completely, or do dungeons and raids and ignore pvp completely. and of course, you can do both. but wow is basically 2 different games accessed using the same client and interface.
The point isn't about trick questions, or semantics, it is about clear, easy communication of fundamentals of a game.
agree, except the "game designers" in this forum cant even define the same things they are talking about unless they provide a subjective definition, which isnt the actual definition.
In this case, if people are talking about a PvP MMORPG as a general term, then literally everyone on these forums should understand that any MMORPG in which it is possible to attack another player in the open world fits in to this definition.
people cant even say what an rpg is in this forum
People, or person?
My understanding on this debate - that I have mostly kept out of - is that one person is basically getting character RPG mixed up with the more general term RPG.
Steven tries to attract PvE players to his game but he will be surprised to see that his trick will not work. Players who like PvE will stay with PvE games even if they want PvP sometime. And players who want PvE sometime will find themselves doing it by force if they become corrupt or will be forced to do objective PvP only when playing on land.
True PvP-ers will be forced to go into the ocean where they have no nodes.
Prior to 2022, when Steven was not acting as Lead Game Designer, Steven and the former EQ/EQ who were Ashes Lead devs pitched a game that was more conducive to PvE players who like PvP sometimes.
About a year ago, it became clearer that Steven is mostly catering to Lineage II players.
I think Lineage II players would say that Lineage II has a lot of PvE players.
I also think Lineage II PvPers consider themselves to be "true PvPers".
Meanwhile the rest of us don’t consider L2 them true PvP.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Steven tries to attract PvE players to his game but he will be surprised to see that his trick will not work. Players who like PvE will stay with PvE games even if they want PvP sometime. And players who want PvE sometime will find themselves doing it by force if they become corrupt or will be forced to do objective PvP only when playing on land.
True PvP-ers will be forced to go into the ocean where they have no nodes.
Prior to 2022, when Steven was not acting as Lead Game Designer, Steven and the former EQ/EQ who were Ashes Lead devs pitched a game that was more conducive to PvE players who like PvP sometimes.
About a year ago, it became clearer that Steven is mostly catering to Lineage II players.
I think Lineage II players would say that Lineage II has a lot of PvE players.
I also think Lineage II PvPers consider themselves to be "true PvPers".
Meanwhile the rest of us don’t consider L2 them true PvP.
still more true pvp than gw
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Meanwhile the rest of us don’t consider L2 them true PvP.
I don't know who "us" is exactly, but...
Since, Steven is an L2 PvPer creating a game primarily for L2 PvPers, what you think "true PvPer" entails is moot.
Steven tries to attract PvE players to his game but he will be surprised to see that his trick will not work. Players who like PvE will stay with PvE games even if they want PvP sometime. And players who want PvE sometime will find themselves doing it by force if they become corrupt or will be forced to do objective PvP only when playing on land.
True PvP-ers will be forced to go into the ocean where they have no nodes.
Prior to 2022, when Steven was not acting as Lead Game Designer, Steven and the former EQ/EQ who were Ashes Lead devs pitched a game that was more conducive to PvE players who like PvP sometimes.
About a year ago, it became clearer that Steven is mostly catering to Lineage II players.
I think Lineage II players would say that Lineage II has a lot of PvE players.
I also think Lineage II PvPers consider themselves to be "true PvPers".
Meanwhile the rest of us don’t consider L2 them true PvP.
still more true pvp than gw
Open World full loot PvP bout as truest as it gets.
Meanwhile the rest of us don’t consider L2 them true PvP.
I don't know who "us" is exactly, but...
Since, Steven is an L2 PvPer creating a game primarily for L2 PvPers, what you think "true PvPer" entails is moot.
Wasn’t he the leader of a very very large guild? Zerg even.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Leader of a large guild. Yes.
Zerg guild? I have not paid that much attention.
Steven tries to attract PvE players to his game but he will be surprised to see that his trick will not work. Players who like PvE will stay with PvE games even if they want PvP sometime. And players who want PvE sometime will find themselves doing it by force if they become corrupt or will be forced to do objective PvP only when playing on land.
True PvP-ers will be forced to go into the ocean where they have no nodes.
Prior to 2022, when Steven was not acting as Lead Game Designer, Steven and the former EQ/EQ who were Ashes Lead devs pitched a game that was more conducive to PvE players who like PvP sometimes.
About a year ago, it became clearer that Steven is mostly catering to Lineage II players.
I think Lineage II players would say that Lineage II has a lot of PvE players.
I also think Lineage II PvPers consider themselves to be "true PvPers".
Meanwhile the rest of us don’t consider L2 them true PvP.
still more true pvp than gw
Open World full loot PvP bout as truest as it gets.
you mean do 2000 hours of pve, so that you can have 50 weapons in your storage, then you die and you just grab another one, making dying basically pointless. then when you are low on weapons, you just pve for another 10 hours so that you can do 1 hour of dying? sounds more like a pve game to me xD
do you realize when l2 started you could die and lose everything? and getting gear was really really really hard. you didnt even have money to buy something on the store. getting drops was an utopian dream and every time you killed a mob you lost money? you basically had to make alts to do money quests and stop your progression on your main, or you needed alt dwarfs to make money. on top of that, it would take months to get to max or do anything (a year or more if you were a solo casual). you couldnt really go out of town without a party or that was suicide. and you had to do all that while pvping?
every where you went, there was pvp (unless you played in korea hahahaha). dying a couple of times and going back to town means you lost a week of exp. you had to walk everywhere, so you risk getting ganked at any time at any point.
full foot means nothing when its easily replaceable xD
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
oh yeah that too. you could be max level and go back to level 1 from dying enough times. also, you have death penalty which lowers your stats and the only way to remove it is to buy a (somewhat expensive for new players) scroll from the npc shops.
i have deleveled characters from 74 to 40 on purpose for a specific strategy, took a couple of hours. but yeah its possible, unlikely that you go down that manyleveles, but its possible. dying in pvp and losing days worth of exp is worse than dropping your weapon in albion and then going to your storage and pick another one from the 50 you have there.
also, in l2, through pvp, people could literally block you from progressing. they could close an area and you are just not coming in, period. there was loot and quests that you would simply not get until they decided to leave, or if you could buy them from someone willing to sell (the loot, you were still fked for the quests).
Steven tries to attract PvE players to his game but he will be surprised to see that his trick will not work. Players who like PvE will stay with PvE games even if they want PvP sometime. And players who want PvE sometime will find themselves doing it by force if they become corrupt or will be forced to do objective PvP only when playing on land.
True PvP-ers will be forced to go into the ocean where they have no nodes.
Prior to 2022, when Steven was not acting as Lead Game Designer, Steven and the former EQ/EQ who were Ashes Lead devs pitched a game that was more conducive to PvE players who like PvP sometimes.
About a year ago, it became clearer that Steven is mostly catering to Lineage II players.
I think Lineage II players would say that Lineage II has a lot of PvE players.
I also think Lineage II PvPers consider themselves to be "true PvPers".
Meanwhile the rest of us don’t consider L2 them true PvP.
still more true pvp than gw
Open World full loot PvP bout as truest as it gets.
you mean do 2000 hours of pve, so that you can have 50 weapons in your storage, then you die and you just grab another one, making dying basically pointless. then when you are low on weapons, you just pve for another 10 hours so that you can do 1 hour of dying? sounds more like a pve game to me xD
do you realize when l2 started you could die and lose everything? and getting gear was really really really hard. you didnt even have money to buy something on the store. getting drops was an utopian dream and every time you killed a mob you lost money? you basically had to make alts to do money quests and stop your progression on your main, or you needed alt dwarfs to make money. on top of that, it would take months to get to max or do anything (a year or more if you were a solo casual). you couldnt really go out of town without a party or that was suicide. and you had to do all that while pvping?
every where you went, there was pvp (unless you played in korea hahahaha). dying a couple of times and going back to town means you lost a week of exp. you had to walk everywhere, so you risk getting ganked at any time at any point.
full foot means nothing when its easily replaceable xD
Darkfall didn’t take 2000 hours, neither did Asherons Call.
If you are describing specific elements sure. If you said Ashes was a PVP game then that wouldn't really explain anything at all. This is not a binary thing.
Calling Ashes a PvP game would do a better job of describing it than calling it a PvE game, and calling it a PvX game means nothing.
This is perhaps the key point to me. PvX is meaningless - it is a marketing term designed to not turn people away from the game. It doesn't actually describe anything.
PvE describes a game where you can expect to not be attacked by other players, at least not unexpectedly.
PvP describes a game where you can expect to be attacked by other players.
Sure, calling Ashes PvP doesn't describe the game in detail, but it is the start of that description. None of the other terms can be considered the start of such a description.
So your logic is there's only two ways to describe an MMORPG? Does that apply to every genre? Anything outside of the most basic explanation is illogical?
If you want to over simplify it because anything else would be too much for a person to understand then me and you are clearly on different sides of this coin. If you want to group Skyrim with Diablo 4 or If you want to group Battlefield 2042 with Tarkov as a "PVP shooter" well I am not sure what to tell you. Those are all very different from each other and that's about as logical as you can get.
If you want to let people think Crowfall and AoC will attract similar players because they are PVP MMORPGS then you are out to lunch, sorry to say. There's just no way that I see how over simplifying it helps anything.
Steven isn't chasing a PVP Experience.like Crowfall. He is chasing social conflict through both PVP and PVE. It's equally a PVP and PVE and is very different from PVP games like Eve, Crowfall, Mortal Online. And also very different from primarily PVE games like BDO,WoW and Guild Wars 2 etc
If you want to over simplify everything then you but I don't see how in any regard that it helps a game that you should be wanting to promote. You think PVP and PVE has some divine meaning behind them? Your entire logic is exactly why you should not use PVP or PVE. People will have their own expectations of what they will mean to them. AoC is trying to be different even from L2 and Archeage. I can't wrap my head around why individuals need to get hung up and simply this game that it becomes confusing.
When I tell someone what AoC is I describe as a PvX game with a heavy focus on creating a social experience and conflict. Clearly if they don't know what that means I would have to explain just like I had to 20 years ago when they asked what an MMORPG is.
3
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Your description of a PvX game tells MMORPG players nothing.
Lots of MMORPGs have social experiences and PvP conflict. Even WoW and EQ.
Steven tries to attract PvE players to his game but he will be surprised to see that his trick will not work. Players who like PvE will stay with PvE games even if they want PvP sometime. And players who want PvE sometime will find themselves doing it by force if they become corrupt or will be forced to do objective PvP only when playing on land.
True PvP-ers will be forced to go into the ocean where they have no nodes.
Prior to 2022, when Steven was not acting as Lead Game Designer, Steven and the former EQ/EQ who were Ashes Lead devs pitched a game that was more conducive to PvE players who like PvP sometimes.
About a year ago, it became clearer that Steven is mostly catering to Lineage II players.
I think Lineage II players would say that Lineage II has a lot of PvE players.
I also think Lineage II PvPers consider themselves to be "true PvPers".
The only change I see is the Naval side of PVP. You are assuming he is catering to L2 players but I dont see it at all, even coming from the original kick starter.
The crazy part is I have a career based in business and I needed a lot more evidence before I decided to support AoC. Little bit of FOMO there because there's some packs in 2020 that I really want. Either way I have been following it from the Kickstarter announcement.
Point being is it's been pretty clear vision of what he is trying to make. I seriously doubt Steven just makes every decision and doesn't listen to his team at all. Thr Naval side of things could have come from internal dialogue or testing. Maybe someone should ask him why the change and if he is firm on it?
So your logic is there's only two ways to describe an MMORPG? Does that apply to every genre? Anything outside of the most basic explanation is illogical?
No.
As I said, there is scope for more discussion - and the notion of saying an MMORPG as being either PvE or PvP is the beginning of that discussion.
As to whether that applies to every genre, I don't know or care, I am talking about MMORPG's on the forum for an unreleased MMORPG.
If you want to talk about Skyrim, Diablo, Battlefield or Tarkov, have at it - I'm not participating in a discussion on those games though.
If you want to let people think Crowfall and AoC will attract similar players because they are PVP MMORPGS then you are out to lunch, sorry to say.
Yeah, but I am not saying that.
I never once said that "PvP" or "PvE" is a complete description of what a given MMORPG is - it is simply a starting point. Interestingly, you consider the term "PvX" to also only be a starting point, as evidenced here;
When I tell someone what AoC is I describe as a PvX game with a heavy focus on creating a social experience and conflict.
The problem is, that could describle The Sims Online back in 2002. The game was absolutely socially focused, and definately had conflict.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The only change I see is the Naval side of PVP. You are assuming he is catering to L2 players but I dont see it at all, even coming from the original kick starter.
Most significant change is The Open Seas.
And, there is also an increasing obsession with Risk v Reward and the value of adrenaline rush rather than Meaningful Conflict.
I'm not assuming that Steven is catering to Lineage II players. It's Ok if you don't see it.
The crazy part is I have a career based in business and I needed a lot more evidence before I decided to support AoC. Little bit of FOMO there because there's some packs in 2020 that I really want. Either way I have been following it from the Kickstarter announcement.
Point being is it's been pretty clear vision of what he is trying to make. I seriously doubt Steven just makes every decision and doesn't listen to his team at all. Thr Naval side of things could have come from internal dialogue or testing. Maybe someone should ask him why the change and if he is firm on it?
I don't know what you can mean by clear vision based on what I've already written.
The Open Seas is a significant change. Steven admits that it is a significant change.
The reason behind the change is moot. It's a great addition for gamers who love PvP. I hope he is firm on it so he doesn't waste time trying to undo all the work already invested in it.
Steven does not recognize his pivot from Meaningful Conflict to an obsession with Risk v Reward and adrenaline rush. Which, again, is moot.
Ashes is not made for everyone.
It's just become more clear in the last year or so who Ashes is not made for.
I'll join an RP guild on an RP server ^^
I might end up their top PvPer as I have no RP skills in RL. But I like to watch them doing their stuff.
As soon as there's a community chosen RP server, there's gonna be at least one guild of people who'll be willing to fuck everyone over. At which point Steven would have to set some fairly particular rules as to what constitutes griefing in the game, cause I'm sure those PKers will find a way to justify their killings within the game's design.
How many players / servers do you think AoC should have, 6-12 months after release? What number should Steven aim to get?
12 months after release (maybe 18), my assumption is 4 NA, 4 EU, an AUS server that has been merged with at least one other region (probably SEA), and is likely to be merged with another at some point, a BR server and that is about it.
So, 10 servers is kind of the cap I see the game being at that point.
Thus, 200k players.
If they achieve this, I'd consider the game to be successful.
I doubt there are many other people out there that would put their neck out and give an actual number as to what they think.
For loyal players half of that number would be ok too.
For Steven would probably be a concern.
The only change I see is the Naval side of PVP. You are assuming he is catering to L2 players but I dont see it at all, even coming from the original kick starter.
Most significant change is The Open Seas.
And, there is also an increasing obsession with Risk v Reward and the value of adrenaline rush rather than Meaningful Conflict.
I'm not assuming that Steven is catering to Lineage II players. It's Ok if you don't see it.
The crazy part is I have a career based in business and I needed a lot more evidence before I decided to support AoC. Little bit of FOMO there because there's some packs in 2020 that I really want. Either way I have been following it from the Kickstarter announcement.
Point being is it's been pretty clear vision of what he is trying to make. I seriously doubt Steven just makes every decision and doesn't listen to his team at all. Thr Naval side of things could have come from internal dialogue or testing. Maybe someone should ask him why the change and if he is firm on it?
I don't know what you can mean by clear vision based on what I've already written.
The Open Seas is a significant change. Steven admits that it is a significant change.
The reason behind the change is moot. It's a great addition for gamers who love PvP. I hope he is firm on it so he doesn't waste time trying to undo all the work already invested in it.
Steven does not recognize his pivot from Meaningful Conflict to an obsession with Risk v Reward and adrenaline rush. Which, again, is moot.
Ashes is not made for everyone.
It's just become more clear in the last year or so who Ashes is not made for.
Where you see obsession I see meaningful conflict.
When I said crazy I was being partially sarcastic
Significant change doesn't mean change in vision. It can be both. Maybe with the previous changes it made Naval war pretty much non-existent. I am willing to bet that previously there would have been 0 PVP in the water, so a full PVE iteration and THAT would go against the entire vision of the game. There wouldn't have been any sort of conflict or risk,player interaction. I don't think people get how harsh the penalties are for corruption. I agree with them but they are definitely harsh and will definitely make.players think twice. They thought twice about it in UO and L2 and Archeage, this is more.
Naval will be FAR more limited in players/ expensive and time consuming. My point being that you talk about a change in vision but maybe that was your vision and not his.
If you are describing specific elements sure. If you said Ashes was a PVP game then that wouldn't really explain anything at all. This is not a binary thing.
Calling Ashes a PvP game would do a better job of describing it than calling it a PvE game, and calling it a PvX game means nothing.
This is perhaps the key point to me. PvX is meaningless - it is a marketing term designed to not turn people away from the game. It doesn't actually describe anything.
PvE describes a game where you can expect to not be attacked by other players, at least not unexpectedly.
PvP describes a game where you can expect to be attacked by other players.
Sure, calling Ashes PvP doesn't describe the game in detail, but it is the start of that description. None of the other terms can be considered the start of such a description.
So your logic is there's only two ways to describe an MMORPG? Does that apply to every genre? Anything outside of the most basic explanation is illogical?
If you want to over simplify it because anything else would be too much for a person to understand then me and you are clearly on different sides of this coin. If you want to group Skyrim with Diablo 4 or If you want to group Battlefield 2042 with Tarkov as a "PVP shooter" well I am not sure what to tell you. Those are all very different from each other and that's about as logical as you can get.
If you want to let people think Crowfall and AoC will attract similar players because they are PVP MMORPGS then you are out to lunch, sorry to say. There's just no way that I see how over simplifying it helps anything.
Steven isn't chasing a PVP Experience.like Crowfall. He is chasing social conflict through both PVP and PVE. It's equally a PVP and PVE and is very different from PVP games like Eve, Crowfall, Mortal Online. And also very different from primarily PVE games like BDO,WoW and Guild Wars 2 etc
If you want to over simplify everything then you but I don't see how in any regard that it helps a game that you should be wanting to promote. You think PVP and PVE has some divine meaning behind them? Your entire logic is exactly why you should not use PVP or PVE. People will have their own expectations of what they will mean to them. AoC is trying to be different even from L2 and Archeage. I can't wrap my head around why individuals need to get hung up and simply this game that it becomes confusing.
When I tell someone what AoC is I describe as a PvX game with a heavy focus on creating a social experience and conflict. Clearly if they don't know what that means I would have to explain just like I had to 20 years ago when they asked what an MMORPG is.
since when is BDO a PvE game? You must not have played real BDO
BDO is solidly PvX, fighting for grind spots, fighting node wars or guild wars, fighting over world bosses, killing someones horse, etc are all PvP?
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I don't think people get how harsh the penalties are for corruption. I agree with them but they are definitely harsh and will definitely make.players think twice. They thought twice about it in UO and L2 and Archeage, this is more.
OK. And... what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Naval will be FAR more limited in players/ expensive and time consuming. My point being that you talk about a change in vision but maybe that was your vision and not his.
I'm pretty sure that I have not been talking about a change in "vision".
I did not make the change that added a permanent (Corruption-free) FFA PvP zone.
Comments
I think Steverino is aiming to have 10-20 players per server, given that is the limit for tier 3 mounts which essentially require either a low server population or for a handful of individuals to turn the rest of the players into their wageless slaves so the handful can reap the benefits, i assume stevies goal is to have 1000 servers each with 10-20 players, since forcing wageless slavery on your players so a handful might benefit is anti-human/evil
I didn't expected this answer.
You can take half of my loot.
12 months after release (maybe 18), my assumption is 4 NA, 4 EU, an AUS server that has been merged with at least one other region (probably SEA), and is likely to be merged with another at some point, a BR server and that is about it.
So, 10 servers is kind of the cap I see the game being at that point.
Thus, 200k players.
If they achieve this, I'd consider the game to be successful.
I doubt there are many other people out there that would put their neck out and give an actual number as to what they think.
I don't think that's true at all. It's a spectrum most likely. Not only one or the other. If AoC provides a better PVE experience then who's to say what they will do?
I think this type of game is closer to a Conflict or Social MMORPG game. It might take a bit longer but I would almost guarantee that PVE players will have more fun in this then a game primarily designed around PVE. Sorry but Steven is 1000% right. Risk simply creates a better experience. You can have no risk but just like anything else, there's a cost to it.
I think players will enjoy being part of a world rather then what's being offered now. Where the players and zones bring an actual value to your playing experience.
It's definitely not a PVP game though. It's primarily PVE. Just like WoW most of your PVP experience will be in an organized opt in system. Otherwise be prepared for long hauls of PVE. I doubt Arenas or Caravans will create enough experience to really offer consistent enough progression. Most likely not seeing very much PVP in the world. The PVP players will be coming for the Sieges,Naval,Caravan. Because of the Combatant phase there should be open world too but that's almost entirely opt in. You might as well under those parameters describe Any game with PVP as a PVP game but clearly you would be doing a disservice.
Why do you think when describing it you are restricted to terms that people understand or are familiar with? I used to have to explain what an MMO was. If I need to explain what PVX is or a Conflict MMORPG is then that seems pretty simple.
If someone was familiar with Skyrim would you tell them that Diablo 4 is also a RPG and reccomend it? Just like those two you will be required to go in to further depth to describe what exactly it is. Isometric action RPG with a focus on gear progression meaning primarily combat based progression "....I could just say RPG by your logic as a start but that would do absolutely nothing for the other person and would be closer to misleading.
I think you are right. The social aspect is the main goal of the game, what Steven tries to achieve.
That would happen in any game where you have a siege mechanic. Someone with initiative will contact attackers and tell them 'Hey, don't siege us, let's talk about it and make an alliance and attack together that other city.'
Developing a node will be much harder without corruption or with a lenient one because citizens of a node will fight eachother and only large guilds would be able to be free of inner conflicts.
Maybe thanks to this social aspect, some nodes will have enough inner peaceful regions closer to PvE while at borders there will be a PvP war area.
As I said, in the wide context of "games", Ashes isn't overly PvP. One need look at CS:GO for a more PvP game.
In the context of MMORPG's, however, Ashes is very PvP oriented.
If you like, feel free to go around correcting everyone that calls Ashes a PvP game by saying it is a PvP MMORPG.
people cant even say what an rpg is in this forum xDDDDDDD, but i agree, they should know. but reality is they dont.
My understanding on this debate - that I have mostly kept out of - is that one person is basically getting character RPG mixed up with the more general term RPG.
Meanwhile the rest of us don’t consider L2 them true PvP.
Really just depends on the funds he can generate to keep the servers up.
still more true pvp than gw
Since, Steven is an L2 PvPer creating a game primarily for L2 PvPers, what you think "true PvPer" entails is moot.
Open World full loot PvP bout as truest as it gets.
Wasn’t he the leader of a very very large guild? Zerg even.
Zerg guild? I have not paid that much attention.
you mean do 2000 hours of pve, so that you can have 50 weapons in your storage, then you die and you just grab another one, making dying basically pointless. then when you are low on weapons, you just pve for another 10 hours so that you can do 1 hour of dying? sounds more like a pve game to me xD
do you realize when l2 started you could die and lose everything? and getting gear was really really really hard. you didnt even have money to buy something on the store. getting drops was an utopian dream and every time you killed a mob you lost money? you basically had to make alts to do money quests and stop your progression on your main, or you needed alt dwarfs to make money. on top of that, it would take months to get to max or do anything (a year or more if you were a solo casual). you couldnt really go out of town without a party or that was suicide. and you had to do all that while pvping?
every where you went, there was pvp (unless you played in korea hahahaha). dying a couple of times and going back to town means you lost a week of exp. you had to walk everywhere, so you risk getting ganked at any time at any point.
full foot means nothing when its easily replaceable xD
oh yeah that too. you could be max level and go back to level 1 from dying enough times. also, you have death penalty which lowers your stats and the only way to remove it is to buy a (somewhat expensive for new players) scroll from the npc shops.
i have deleveled characters from 74 to 40 on purpose for a specific strategy, took a couple of hours. but yeah its possible, unlikely that you go down that manyleveles, but its possible. dying in pvp and losing days worth of exp is worse than dropping your weapon in albion and then going to your storage and pick another one from the 50 you have there.
also, in l2, through pvp, people could literally block you from progressing. they could close an area and you are just not coming in, period. there was loot and quests that you would simply not get until they decided to leave, or if you could buy them from someone willing to sell (the loot, you were still fked for the quests).
Darkfall didn’t take 2000 hours, neither did Asherons Call.
So your logic is there's only two ways to describe an MMORPG? Does that apply to every genre? Anything outside of the most basic explanation is illogical?
If you want to over simplify it because anything else would be too much for a person to understand then me and you are clearly on different sides of this coin. If you want to group Skyrim with Diablo 4 or If you want to group Battlefield 2042 with Tarkov as a "PVP shooter" well I am not sure what to tell you. Those are all very different from each other and that's about as logical as you can get.
If you want to let people think Crowfall and AoC will attract similar players because they are PVP MMORPGS then you are out to lunch, sorry to say. There's just no way that I see how over simplifying it helps anything.
Steven isn't chasing a PVP Experience.like Crowfall. He is chasing social conflict through both PVP and PVE. It's equally a PVP and PVE and is very different from PVP games like Eve, Crowfall, Mortal Online. And also very different from primarily PVE games like BDO,WoW and Guild Wars 2 etc
If you want to over simplify everything then you but I don't see how in any regard that it helps a game that you should be wanting to promote. You think PVP and PVE has some divine meaning behind them? Your entire logic is exactly why you should not use PVP or PVE. People will have their own expectations of what they will mean to them. AoC is trying to be different even from L2 and Archeage. I can't wrap my head around why individuals need to get hung up and simply this game that it becomes confusing.
When I tell someone what AoC is I describe as a PvX game with a heavy focus on creating a social experience and conflict. Clearly if they don't know what that means I would have to explain just like I had to 20 years ago when they asked what an MMORPG is.
Lots of MMORPGs have social experiences and PvP conflict. Even WoW and EQ.
The only change I see is the Naval side of PVP. You are assuming he is catering to L2 players but I dont see it at all, even coming from the original kick starter.
The crazy part is I have a career based in business and I needed a lot more evidence before I decided to support AoC. Little bit of FOMO there because there's some packs in 2020 that I really want. Either way I have been following it from the Kickstarter announcement.
Point being is it's been pretty clear vision of what he is trying to make. I seriously doubt Steven just makes every decision and doesn't listen to his team at all. Thr Naval side of things could have come from internal dialogue or testing. Maybe someone should ask him why the change and if he is firm on it?
As I said, there is scope for more discussion - and the notion of saying an MMORPG as being either PvE or PvP is the beginning of that discussion.
As to whether that applies to every genre, I don't know or care, I am talking about MMORPG's on the forum for an unreleased MMORPG.
If you want to talk about Skyrim, Diablo, Battlefield or Tarkov, have at it - I'm not participating in a discussion on those games though. Yeah, but I am not saying that.
I never once said that "PvP" or "PvE" is a complete description of what a given MMORPG is - it is simply a starting point. Interestingly, you consider the term "PvX" to also only be a starting point, as evidenced here; The problem is, that could describle The Sims Online back in 2002. The game was absolutely socially focused, and definately had conflict.
And, there is also an increasing obsession with Risk v Reward and the value of adrenaline rush rather than Meaningful Conflict.
I'm not assuming that Steven is catering to Lineage II players. It's Ok if you don't see it.
What's crazy about that?
I don't know what you can mean by clear vision based on what I've already written.
The Open Seas is a significant change. Steven admits that it is a significant change.
The reason behind the change is moot. It's a great addition for gamers who love PvP. I hope he is firm on it so he doesn't waste time trying to undo all the work already invested in it.
Steven does not recognize his pivot from Meaningful Conflict to an obsession with Risk v Reward and adrenaline rush. Which, again, is moot.
Ashes is not made for everyone.
It's just become more clear in the last year or so who Ashes is not made for.
For loyal players half of that number would be ok too.
For Steven would probably be a concern.
Where you see obsession I see meaningful conflict.
When I said crazy I was being partially sarcastic
Significant change doesn't mean change in vision. It can be both. Maybe with the previous changes it made Naval war pretty much non-existent. I am willing to bet that previously there would have been 0 PVP in the water, so a full PVE iteration and THAT would go against the entire vision of the game. There wouldn't have been any sort of conflict or risk,player interaction. I don't think people get how harsh the penalties are for corruption. I agree with them but they are definitely harsh and will definitely make.players think twice. They thought twice about it in UO and L2 and Archeage, this is more.
Naval will be FAR more limited in players/ expensive and time consuming. My point being that you talk about a change in vision but maybe that was your vision and not his.
since when is BDO a PvE game? You must not have played real BDO
BDO is solidly PvX, fighting for grind spots, fighting node wars or guild wars, fighting over world bosses, killing someones horse, etc are all PvP?
Who said there was a change in vision - and why would that be relevant?
May be. But, that is irrelevant.
OK. And... what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
I'm pretty sure that I have not been talking about a change in "vision".
I did not make the change that added a permanent (Corruption-free) FFA PvP zone.