Its not that bad of an idea to balance pvp one the individual's abilities and not the grp size / diversity. why is that so controversial ?
you are right. thats not bad. but remember, dont copy the result, copy the strategy. just because that worked in one game, it doesnt mean it will work in another game.
i really want the game to succeed in their quest to putting pvp first but combat is all that matter's.
when i hear the devs talk caravan / nodes / world boss it makes me think they dont have their priorities straight.
Its not that bad of an idea to balance pvp one the individual's abilities and not the grp size / diversity. why is that so controversial ?
Making correct choices is an aspect of a persons abilities.
In a persistent world, any decision you make affects everything that happens in the future. That is kind of the point. Your decisions at launch still impact you years later. The notion that an individual players abilities only come in to play when they meet someone out in the open and start githing is just outright wrong - it is a horrendously bad take.
Your path to fighting that individual began the moment you created your first character. Fighting that character is a part of your path towards fighting the next character you fight.
I don't get why this is so hard to understand.
If you and I meet in the game and we are each in situations that make it impossible for you to beat me, I have already displayed my abilities to you, and I won this fight long before it even began. That is every much a display of a players abilities in a persistent world game as someone going in to a normalized arena and beating someone else is a display of a players abilities.
i really want the game to succeed in their quest to putting pvp first but combat is all that matter's.
when i hear the devs talk caravan / nodes / world boss it makes me think they dont have their priorities straight.
Intrepid does not try to put PvP first though. They try to create a game in which PvE and PvP occur naturally because of the way the game is designed.
i really want the game to succeed in their quest to putting pvp first but combat is all that matter's.
when i hear the devs talk caravan / nodes / world boss it makes me think they dont have their priorities straight.
Intrepid does not try to put PvP first though. They try to create a game in which PvE and PvP occur naturally because of the way the game is designed.
i feel its a huge mistake knowing how boss fights work. i dont see any way of balancing both at the same time. makes 0 sense to me.
i really want the game to succeed in their quest to putting pvp first but combat is all that matter's.
when i hear the devs talk caravan / nodes / world boss it makes me think they dont have their priorities straight.
You gotta learn some coding and watch a few YouTube’s on game development.
I agree that combat is the keystone to a game, but keystones are installed last as they hold the rest of the stones together.
It’s fine to be concerned about combat not being good, but first you need to understand the difference between combat and class design. It seems like you may be confusing the two.
i really want the game to succeed in their quest to putting pvp first but combat is all that matter's.
when i hear the devs talk caravan / nodes / world boss it makes me think they dont have their priorities straight.
Intrepid does not try to put PvP first though. They try to create a game in which PvE and PvP occur naturally because of the way the game is designed.
i feel its a huge mistake knowing how boss fights work. i dont see any way of balancing both at the same time. makes 0 sense to me.
That's perfectly fine for you feel that, but that doesn't change the fact that Intrepids goal is not to create a PvP-prioritizing MMORPG according to what they say.
Regarding your point on the boss battles: PvX doesn't mean everything has to be 50-50 it means that both are inevitable parts of the game. Some things will see more PvP conflicts, other will see more PvE conflicts.
i really want the game to succeed in their quest to putting pvp first but combat is all that matter's.
when i hear the devs talk caravan / nodes / world boss it makes me think they dont have their priorities straight.
Intrepid does not try to put PvP first though. They try to create a game in which PvE and PvP occur naturally because of the way the game is designed.
i feel its a huge mistake knowing how boss fights work. i dont see any way of balancing both at the same time. makes 0 sense to me.
imagine if only there were people in the world who studied game design and built games...
just because you cant see how it would work, doesnt mean others cant
the art of talking with out ever addressing the issue.
again, find me a link between boss fights with one shot mechanics / huge AOEs / limited space / limited time and open world pvp fun ?
I’m gonna help you out since you didn’t quite catch the analogy. The current combat system is a placeholder, combat will be addressed towards the end of A2.
You have no idea what is going to happen with the combat system and class design, neither does anyone else who’s not an Intrepid employee.
My theory is that permanently flagged PvP area in the the ocean was added to allow making the land safer.
But a lot of PvP will happen via caravan fights, guild wars, node wars, castle events every weekend... There will be a lot of it.
fine roll with it, and enjoy static PvE like PvP. Yall put way to much faith in that system so that you can enjoy the release sooner. look at throw of liberty, they postponed their release because the combat was terrible, best move they ever made.
fine roll with it, and enjoy static PvE like PvP. Yall put way to much faith in that system so that you can enjoy the release sooner. look at throw of liberty, they postponed their release because the combat was terrible, best move they ever made.
You’ve been told what Intrepids plan for combat are, there will be more iterations in late A2.
You’re not the first to worry about combat and you certainly won’t be the last, but waiting on A2 is where your feedback will be most impactful.
Ashes isn’t rushing release, but if there’s more shit you’d like to pull out your ass no one’s going to stop you.
fine roll with it, and enjoy static PvE like PvP. Yall put way to much faith in that system so that you can enjoy the release sooner. look at throw of liberty, they postponed their release because the combat was terrible, best move they ever made.
I know some want the game balanced more toward free sannbox PvP or more toward safe theme-park PvE.
Both extremes will be pushed away by the way AoC will be balanced.
If I will not like the game, I will play something else.
As @Raven016 said, if the game doesn't suit your taste there is always the option to play something else.
For me personally the notion that PvE and PvP in Ashes wil be static or that one would support that because of a faster release is so completely missing the mark, its hardly worth trying to making any further comment on.
If you lost confidence in Intrepid because of their design decisions then that's how it is. Time to move.
As @Raven016 said, if the game doesn't suit your taste there is always the option to play something else.
For me personally the notion that PvE and PvP in Ashes wil be static or that one would support that because of a faster release is so completely missing the mark, its hardly worth trying to making any further comment on.
If you lost confidence in Intrepid because of their design decisions then that's how it is. Time to move.
never did i mention ashes of creation but rather history repeating itself trying to mix pvp and pve and failing every single time.
at least have something to say before posting ur nonsense to stay on the internet for ever.
telling people to quit the game is just passive aggressive and ridiculously lazy.
As @Raven016 said, if the game doesn't suit your taste there is always the option to play something else.
For me personally the notion that PvE and PvP in Ashes wil be static or that one would support that because of a faster release is so completely missing the mark, its hardly worth trying to making any further comment on.
If you lost confidence in Intrepid because of their design decisions then that's how it is. Time to move.
never did i mention ashes of creation but rather history repeating itself trying to mix pvp and pve and failing every single time.
Didn't read thread comments but from UO, ShadowBane, Crowfall days etc...... if you got no Healer in grp you need to ambush and take out their healer first
I don't get it. You say you did not mention Ashes but how can this not be about Ashes when it is 1) on the forum for this upcoming game and 2) about PvE and PvP existing alongside each other which is exactly what Intrepid aims for?
On the second point about "it failed every single time": I'm not sure if we have the same idea about what constitutes failure, but I have yet to see the Alpha to determine whether PvP and PvE are really as impossible to mix as you suggest. From what I am aware of PvP servers were not the majority in WoW but even there they existed and held their own quite well, even for a smaller audience - with the only real difference being that PvP was possible at all times but it did not render PvE impossible or pointless. For Ashes of Creation in particular I don't see why the PvX would be doomed to fail when none makes long term sense without the other.
In the end, the Alpha 2 is way too close for me to feel the need to draw unnecessary early conclusions either way. Intrepid so far has done a good job at presenting their systems to the majoritys liking and we will be able to test that all out soon enough and give feedback when something turns out to be unsustainable or not working as intended.
I don't get it. You say you did not mention Ashes but how can this not be about Ashes when it is 1) on the forum for this upcoming game and 2) about PvE and PvP existing alongside each other which is exactly what Intrepid aims for?
On the second point about "it failed every single time": I'm not sure if we have the same idea about what constitutes failure, but I have yet to see the Alpha to determine whether PvP and PvE are really as impossible to mix as you suggest. From what I am aware of PvP servers were not the majority in WoW but even there they existed and held their own quite well, even for a smaller audience - with the only real difference being that PvP was possible at all times but it did not render PvE impossible or pointless. For Ashes of Creation in particular I don't see why the PvX would be doomed to fail when none makes long term sense without the other.
In the end, the Alpha 2 is way too close for me to feel the need to draw unnecessary early conclusions either way. Intrepid so far has done a good job at presenting their systems to the majoritys liking and we will be able to test that all out soon enough and give feedback when something turns out to be unsustainable or not working as intended.
yes you are a child and a lot of things go right above ur head, no need to spam the forums with empty blocks of text.
I don't get it. You say you did not mention Ashes but how can this not be about Ashes when it is 1) on the forum for this upcoming game and 2) about PvE and PvP existing alongside each other which is exactly what Intrepid aims for?
On the second point about "it failed every single time": I'm not sure if we have the same idea about what constitutes failure, but I have yet to see the Alpha to determine whether PvP and PvE are really as impossible to mix as you suggest. From what I am aware of PvP servers were not the majority in WoW but even there they existed and held their own quite well, even for a smaller audience - with the only real difference being that PvP was possible at all times but it did not render PvE impossible or pointless. For Ashes of Creation in particular I don't see why the PvX would be doomed to fail when none makes long term sense without the other.
In the end, the Alpha 2 is way too close for me to feel the need to draw unnecessary early conclusions either way. Intrepid so far has done a good job at presenting their systems to the majoritys liking and we will be able to test that all out soon enough and give feedback when something turns out to be unsustainable or not working as intended.
yes you are a child and a lot of things go right above ur head, no need to spam the forums with empty blocks of text.
You are being toxic and people are actually trying to have a disccusion.
to take DaOC's example why do we end up with 2 healers per group every single time ? because they are crazy over tuned for PvE.
I think you missed the point of my comments.
The healers in daoc where not overpowered that is why you had to have more than one healer in a pvp situation or your group was at a serious disadvantage.
Your argument seems to have been that because healers can heal though a boss PvE fight and keep the group alive, then players have no chance vs a group with a healer in PvP.
Continuing to use Daoc as an example that is simply not how that game worked at all. You needed or wanted more healers for PvP than PvE because fighting players is harder and their damage is better directed and can be very sudden on a weaker player.
True, there are lots of things I don't understand, one of which is this:
How does it help your point to ignore the content of my question and perspective and instead try name calling?
to take DaOC's example why do we end up with 2 healers per group every single time ? because they are crazy over tuned for PvE.
I think you missed the point of my comments.
The healers in daoc where not overpowered that is why you had to have more than one healer in a pvp situation or your group was at a serious disadvantage.
Your argument seems to have been that because healers can heal though a boss PvE fight and keep the group alive, then players have no chance vs a group with a healer in PvP.
Continuing to use Daoc as an example that is simply not how that game worked at all. You needed or wanted more healers for PvP than PvE because fighting players is harder and their damage is better directed and can be very sudden on a weaker player.
daoc was a a complete accident on how it became so good. unfortunately modern games are never going to look like it ever again. healer nowadays can park in the back of the fight and spam their heals with out any fear of hard CC.
also what do you mean healers no OP ? their is 13 class per realm and 1 of them get pick'd twice every single time ?
simply put; they end up mandatory. a grp with a healer cannot lose in pvp againt a grp with out one.
i'm active on new world and the current meta is anti heal proc on everything.
it was true in dark age of camelot 20 years ago and it's still an issue today.
love you, cant wait for the alpha.
Trying to understand how the whole point of playing cleric is somehow a balance issue
simply put; they end up mandatory. a grp with a healer cannot lose in pvp againt a grp with out one.
i'm active on new world and the current meta is anti heal proc on everything.
it was true in dark age of camelot 20 years ago and it's still an issue today.
love you, cant wait for the alpha.
Trying to understand how the whole point of playing cleric is somehow a balance issue
we not talking about ashes balance, read my comments or go back to sleep.
I think it’s an issue when healers become better tanks than tanks in PvP. I’m playing new world and know exactly what you’re talking about.
However I think the solution is to not worry about pve being that this is a pvx game. The way to really keep it fun and challenging is provide EFFECTIVE anti-heal in class kits. They mentioned the fighter may have some. This likely plays into the rock paper scissors mechanic. I hope the tank and bard supports get a lot of anti heal and that the anti heal is quite effective.
To reference your current example in new world 3v3 arenas if one team has a healer and the other doesn’t, it’s simply not fun (assuming it’s a good healer) and the healer is tankier than tanks. If defiles/anti heal debuffs are common and effective I think it’s fine and going this route is better than making healers less effective as it won’t affect pure pve situations.
I think it makes sense that a party with a healer would beat a party without a healer, assuming the skill is equal. A long time ago, Intrepid said that a proper party would be one of each primary archetype because of the utility they bring to the party. Of course a healer is more important for pvp, as a tank would be important for pve content. However other archetypes will have utility that will also be important (we don't know what, there is still a lot of testing and feedback to give).
Defenitely I can agree with this. A group with a healer is just more effective and smarter to do. This is how it should be. As long as a game has effective anti-heal its fine
Comments
you are right. thats not bad. but remember, dont copy the result, copy the strategy. just because that worked in one game, it doesnt mean it will work in another game.
different games go into different directions.
when i hear the devs talk caravan / nodes / world boss it makes me think they dont have their priorities straight.
Making correct choices is an aspect of a persons abilities.
In a persistent world, any decision you make affects everything that happens in the future. That is kind of the point. Your decisions at launch still impact you years later. The notion that an individual players abilities only come in to play when they meet someone out in the open and start githing is just outright wrong - it is a horrendously bad take.
Your path to fighting that individual began the moment you created your first character. Fighting that character is a part of your path towards fighting the next character you fight.
I don't get why this is so hard to understand.
If you and I meet in the game and we are each in situations that make it impossible for you to beat me, I have already displayed my abilities to you, and I won this fight long before it even began. That is every much a display of a players abilities in a persistent world game as someone going in to a normalized arena and beating someone else is a display of a players abilities.
Intrepid does not try to put PvP first though. They try to create a game in which PvE and PvP occur naturally because of the way the game is designed.
i feel its a huge mistake knowing how boss fights work. i dont see any way of balancing both at the same time. makes 0 sense to me.
You gotta learn some coding and watch a few YouTube’s on game development.
I agree that combat is the keystone to a game, but keystones are installed last as they hold the rest of the stones together.
It’s fine to be concerned about combat not being good, but first you need to understand the difference between combat and class design. It seems like you may be confusing the two.
again, find me a link between boss fights with one shot mechanics / huge AOEs / limited space / limited time and open world pvp fun ?
That's perfectly fine for you feel that, but that doesn't change the fact that Intrepids goal is not to create a PvP-prioritizing MMORPG according to what they say.
Regarding your point on the boss battles: PvX doesn't mean everything has to be 50-50 it means that both are inevitable parts of the game. Some things will see more PvP conflicts, other will see more PvE conflicts.
imagine if only there were people in the world who studied game design and built games...
just because you cant see how it would work, doesnt mean others cant
I’m gonna help you out since you didn’t quite catch the analogy. The current combat system is a placeholder, combat will be addressed towards the end of A2.
You have no idea what is going to happen with the combat system and class design, neither does anyone else who’s not an Intrepid employee.
That’s it, that’s the answer.
But a lot of PvP will happen via caravan fights, guild wars, node wars, castle events every weekend... There will be a lot of it.
You’ve been told what Intrepids plan for combat are, there will be more iterations in late A2.
You’re not the first to worry about combat and you certainly won’t be the last, but waiting on A2 is where your feedback will be most impactful.
Ashes isn’t rushing release, but if there’s more shit you’d like to pull out your ass no one’s going to stop you.
Both extremes will be pushed away by the way AoC will be balanced.
If I will not like the game, I will play something else.
For me personally the notion that PvE and PvP in Ashes wil be static or that one would support that because of a faster release is so completely missing the mark, its hardly worth trying to making any further comment on.
If you lost confidence in Intrepid because of their design decisions then that's how it is. Time to move.
never did i mention ashes of creation but rather history repeating itself trying to mix pvp and pve and failing every single time.
at least have something to say before posting ur nonsense to stay on the internet for ever.
telling people to quit the game is just passive aggressive and ridiculously lazy.
(timestamp 44:35)
... I think we should not worry AoC will have the same fate.
The risk exists of course.
But that's why we will go through the long Alpha 2 phase.
On the second point about "it failed every single time": I'm not sure if we have the same idea about what constitutes failure, but I have yet to see the Alpha to determine whether PvP and PvE are really as impossible to mix as you suggest. From what I am aware of PvP servers were not the majority in WoW but even there they existed and held their own quite well, even for a smaller audience - with the only real difference being that PvP was possible at all times but it did not render PvE impossible or pointless. For Ashes of Creation in particular I don't see why the PvX would be doomed to fail when none makes long term sense without the other.
In the end, the Alpha 2 is way too close for me to feel the need to draw unnecessary early conclusions either way. Intrepid so far has done a good job at presenting their systems to the majoritys liking and we will be able to test that all out soon enough and give feedback when something turns out to be unsustainable or not working as intended.
yes you are a child and a lot of things go right above ur head, no need to spam the forums with empty blocks of text.
You are being toxic and people are actually trying to have a disccusion.
I think you missed the point of my comments.
The healers in daoc where not overpowered that is why you had to have more than one healer in a pvp situation or your group was at a serious disadvantage.
Your argument seems to have been that because healers can heal though a boss PvE fight and keep the group alive, then players have no chance vs a group with a healer in PvP.
Continuing to use Daoc as an example that is simply not how that game worked at all. You needed or wanted more healers for PvP than PvE because fighting players is harder and their damage is better directed and can be very sudden on a weaker player.
How does it help your point to ignore the content of my question and perspective and instead try name calling?
daoc was a a complete accident on how it became so good. unfortunately modern games are never going to look like it ever again. healer nowadays can park in the back of the fight and spam their heals with out any fear of hard CC.
also what do you mean healers no OP ? their is 13 class per realm and 1 of them get pick'd twice every single time ?
Trying to understand how the whole point of playing cleric is somehow a balance issue
we not talking about ashes balance, read my comments or go back to sleep.
However I think the solution is to not worry about pve being that this is a pvx game. The way to really keep it fun and challenging is provide EFFECTIVE anti-heal in class kits. They mentioned the fighter may have some. This likely plays into the rock paper scissors mechanic. I hope the tank and bard supports get a lot of anti heal and that the anti heal is quite effective.
To reference your current example in new world 3v3 arenas if one team has a healer and the other doesn’t, it’s simply not fun (assuming it’s a good healer) and the healer is tankier than tanks. If defiles/anti heal debuffs are common and effective I think it’s fine and going this route is better than making healers less effective as it won’t affect pure pve situations.
Defenitely I can agree with this. A group with a healer is just more effective and smarter to do. This is how it should be. As long as a game has effective anti-heal its fine