Fiddlez wrote: » If you want a more PVP oriented game, BDO, WoW with PVP server. Crowfall, Eve, Mortal, Albion,New World. Are all more PVP oriented then Ashes. They all offer incentives to PVP in the open world or offer 0 penalty for killing players. BDO has much lesser penalties then AoC.
Fiddlez wrote: » PvX is simply a term that says it's designed with a number of at play styles in mind rather then prioritizing one over another. In AoC they are trying to intertwine them. You are getting caught up in the Open World PVP part but missing the entire point and seem to have blinders on. The open world isnt for PVP it's to add risk to adventure. Risk vs Reward. Why do you think the penalties are so harsh, harsher then any other MMO with the criminal system? It's a pretty important distinction.
Raven016 wrote: » I think there are more PvE than PvP players on the market. And people leave games where they do not feel competent and others keep killing them. To bring PvEers into an environment they cannot survive will not retain them long. But they'll not join in the 1st place, especially if they hear the game is PvP or PvX.
Fiddlez wrote: » Garrtok wrote: » It is very much a pvp game. Anyone who can not deal with pvp at all, shouldn't play aoc. "Who cannot deal with PVP at all" People are not binary. There's a spectrum of players on multiple levels. Yea, if you hate PVP on any level AoC is definitely not for you. Doesn't make it a PVP game. Why does it have to be PVP or PVE? Are people not more complicated then two acronyms?
Garrtok wrote: » It is very much a pvp game. Anyone who can not deal with pvp at all, shouldn't play aoc.
Garrtok wrote: » Fiddlez wrote: » Garrtok wrote: » It is very much a pvp game. Anyone who can not deal with pvp at all, shouldn't play aoc. "Who cannot deal with PVP at all" People are not binary. There's a spectrum of players on multiple levels. Yea, if you hate PVP on any level AoC is definitely not for you. Doesn't make it a PVP game. Why does it have to be PVP or PVE? Are people not more complicated then two acronyms? That's not the point. PVP is part of the experience, so as long as you hate pvp it's simply not a game for you. For aoc you have to be open to both. Just wanting PVE without pvp is binary
Dygz wrote: » Fiddlez wrote: » Maybe we are just watching/reading different content. To be fair Theory forge is included in that, you 3 and your guests talk a lot about those 3 topics fairly frequently. Maybe I am watching you guys too much? Is that possible? All three were of our recent guests have been curious about why I suddenly switched to not being interested in playing Ashes. Seems like people who have not been around since Kickstarter and our first interviews with Steven are oblivious to the recent changes in the game design and the recent focus on Risk v Reward and the value of adrenaline rush rather than talking about Meaningful Conflict. So…they ask… and we explain how things have changed. That is different than us asking why the game now has The Open Seas or why there is now an obsession with Risk v Reward. .
Fiddlez wrote: » Maybe we are just watching/reading different content. To be fair Theory forge is included in that, you 3 and your guests talk a lot about those 3 topics fairly frequently. Maybe I am watching you guys too much? Is that possible?
Dygz wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » I think there are more PvE than PvP players on the market. And people leave games where they do not feel competent and others keep killing them. To bring PvEers into an environment they cannot survive will not retain them long. But they'll not join in the 1st place, especially if they hear the game is PvP or PvX. I mean... PvPers seem to always present the issue as not being competent or being killed by other players. I don't care who wins the non-consensual PvP encounter. I'm still going to be pissed off that I had to PvP when I was not in the mood to PvP - even if I win the battle. Has nothing to do with whether or not I can survive the PvP encounter. I'm not going to play an MMORPG that is too PvP-centric. I might play a game that is "PvX". Depends on what is meant by PvX.
Isth3reno1else wrote: » Garrtok wrote: » Fiddlez wrote: » Garrtok wrote: » It is very much a pvp game. Anyone who can not deal with pvp at all, shouldn't play aoc. "Who cannot deal with PVP at all" People are not binary. There's a spectrum of players on multiple levels. Yea, if you hate PVP on any level AoC is definitely not for you. Doesn't make it a PVP game. Why does it have to be PVP or PVE? Are people not more complicated then two acronyms? That's not the point. PVP is part of the experience, so as long as you hate pvp it's simply not a game for you. For aoc you have to be open to both. Just wanting PVE without pvp is binary How can you say it's not the point and then say the same thing he said?
Isth3reno1else wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Fiddlez wrote: » Maybe we are just watching/reading different content. To be fair Theory forge is included in that, you 3 and your guests talk a lot about those 3 topics fairly frequently. Maybe I am watching you guys too much? Is that possible? All three were of our recent guests have been curious about why I suddenly switched to not being interested in playing Ashes. Seems like people who have not been around since Kickstarter and our first interviews with Steven are oblivious to the recent changes in the game design and the recent focus on Risk v Reward and the value of adrenaline rush rather than talking about Meaningful Conflict. So…they ask… and we explain how things have changed. That is different than us asking why the game now has The Open Seas or why there is now an obsession with Risk v Reward. . What do you mean by recent? I've been into ashes since 2020 and have seen a lot of risk vs reward discussions.
Sinder wrote: » You make it sound as though any pvp brushing against you when you're not in the mood is a disgusting thing.
Sinder wrote: » By logging in you're consenting to pvp. If you don't feel like pvp, play another game and come back when you do.
Sinder wrote: » The overarching theme of risk is going to always be there, you could log in and transport a caravan and not see another player. Or it could be the complete opposite and you lose your caravan to an ambush and then go out to gather more supplies and get shived by a rogue hiding in a bush. And then when you go to do a quest and recover your XP debt die again to some unrelated angry necromancer.
Garrtok wrote: » That's not the point. PVP is part of the experience, so as long as you hate pvp it's simply not a game for you. For aoc you have to be open to both. Just wanting PVE without pvp is binary
Isth3reno1else wrote: » tl;dr It will be nice to discuss the game as a whole without having to apply a moniker to the specific avenue of the game you're enjoying. It's just the game.
Dygz wrote: » Fiddlez wrote: » If you want a more PVP oriented game, BDO, WoW with PVP server. Crowfall, Eve, Mortal, Albion,New World. Are all more PVP oriented then Ashes. They all offer incentives to PVP in the open world or offer 0 penalty for killing players. BDO has much lesser penalties then AoC. I don't agree that they are more PvP-oriented than the current Ashes design. Especially not New World - I always have PvP turned off. Same for when I play BDO. I have never encountered PvP in those games. Fiddlez wrote: » PvX is simply a term that says it's designed with a number of at play styles in mind rather then prioritizing one over another. In AoC they are trying to intertwine them. You are getting caught up in the Open World PVP part but missing the entire point and seem to have blinders on. The open world isnt for PVP it's to add risk to adventure. Risk vs Reward. Why do you think the penalties are so harsh, harsher then any other MMO with the criminal system? It's a pretty important distinction. I disagree. PvX - as Steven uses the term - seems to be Lineage II with a more symbiotic relationship between PvP and PvE. And... I would already consider Lineage II to be a PvP-centric MMORPG. Just as I consider EvE to be a PvP-centric MMORPG. So... again... PvX has little-to-no meaning. But... we don't even agree on which MMORPGs are PvP MMORPGs, so... it's unlikely we will agree on what a PvX MMORPG is.
Dygz wrote: » Isth3reno1else wrote: » tl;dr It will be nice to discuss the game as a whole without having to apply a moniker to the specific avenue of the game you're enjoying. It's just the game. RPGs have different playstyles. MMORPGs typically strive to support a variety of RPG playstyles, so... There will always be categories of player styles - because that's what Humans love to do: categorize things.
Dygz wrote: » Sinder wrote: » You make it sound as though any pvp brushing against you when you're not in the mood is a disgusting thing. I don't make it sound that way. That may be what you add in your own head to what I've actually said. It is true that I find non-consensual PvP to be repugnant. Which is why it should at least be punished with Corruption. As it is on the Mainland. Sinder wrote: » By logging in you're consenting to pvp. If you don't feel like pvp, play another game and come back when you do. This is one of the primary contentions between gamers who play MMORPGs on PvP servers and players who play MMORPGs on PvE-Only servers. It's why players who play on PvE-Only servers want to know first, why they would want to play on the same servers as PvPers. Because the issue for PvPers is PK griefing, while the issue for players who won't play on PvP servers is non-consensual PvP. And it's unlikely that devs can get players concerned about non-consensual PvP to play on the same servers as gamers who don't respect the concept of non-consensual PvP. So... you are correct... the moment The Open Seas was added as a permanent zone with auto-consent (Corruption-free) FFA PvP, Ashes became a game I am no longer interested to play. Sinder wrote: » The overarching theme of risk is going to always be there, you could log in and transport a caravan and not see another player. Or it could be the complete opposite and you lose your caravan to an ambush and then go out to gather more supplies and get shived by a rogue hiding in a bush. And then when you go to do a quest and recover your XP debt die again to some unrelated angry necromancer. Again, though... why is risk only associated with PvP? Caravans should have plenty of risk that does not come from conflict with other players. I have no issues with Caravans because a Caravan is not a permanent zone with FFA PvP. Caravans, inherently, are PvP objectives. And I enjoy objective-based PvP. Especially when I can choose when to have PvP encounters. Which is the case for Ashes. I don't know why you broached this as an example of something I have any issue with. My issue with Steven's new obsession with Risk v Reward and PvP/PvX is his desire for us to be contemplating Economic Warfare whenever we are choosing which type of bag to bring with us to pick some flowers. I enjoy cake sometimes. If I go to a wedding, I expect that there will be cake. I expect that I will eat some cake. One might also say that agreeing to go to a wedding means I auto-consent to eating a slice of wedding cake. I am OK with all of that. When I have had my fill of eating cake, I am fine with other people enjoying cake around me. I am not OK with other people forcing me to eat cake when I decline to eat a piece of cake. Especially so after I have already had a piece of cake. I'm not going to go to a wedding where people are forced to eat cake when they are not in the mood to eat cake. And, I'm also going to be reluctant to go to wedding where every single activity is somehow symbiotically tied to being forced to eat cake. If I go to the dance floor, I need to be thinking about how that is going to affect the possibility of me being forced to eat cake. If I go to the drink bar, I have to contemplate how that's going to affect the possibility of me being forced to eat cake. If I check out the room with all the gifts, I have to contemplate how that's going to affect the possibility of me being forced to eat cake. And, yes, I find non-consensual cake eating to be repugnant. I'm not going to go to wedding like that. And... I'm not going to play an MMORPG with auto-consent PvP. So, I think... at the end of the day... we agree.
Fiddlez wrote: » To be fair I don't think I've really seen any conflict outside of PVP that matters.
Dygz wrote: » L2 penalties may have been far less aggressive, but... When I asked Steven to name some MMORPGs that are a murderbox - because he frequently said that Ashes is designed to not be a murderbox - he said he doesn't play MMORPG murderboxes, but L2 could sometimes be a murderbox in certain situations. Which is why Corruption is harsher than Karma. The addition of the Open Seas overly compensates for the additional harshness of Corruption compared to Karma. Also, I think the PvP/PvE relationship is intended to be more symbiotic in Ashes than it is reciprocal in L2? I haven't played L2, so... L2 players will have to confirm that for me. A symbiotic relationship would be too much PvP for me. Because I am rarely in the mood for PvP, so... I don't want to have to be thinking about PvP most of the time I play. That is too "PvP-centric" for me. PvX could mean "just as much PvP as there is PvE". That's what I understood it to mean for the first 5 years after Ashes Kickstarter. Pax Dei might be PvX by that definition. What Steven seems to mean by PvX is that, as much as possible, PvP and PvE are inextricably fused: a symbiotic relationship, rather than a reciprocal relationship.
