P0GG0 wrote: » 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.
Kilion wrote: » 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.
P0GG0 wrote: » Kilion wrote: » 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.
Kilion wrote: » 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.
P0GG0 wrote: » thanks. Kilion wrote: » 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.
P0GG0 wrote: » 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.
Blood_Raven wrote: » P0GG0 wrote: » 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.
P0GG0 wrote: » 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.
TheHighPriest wrote: » P0GG0 wrote: » 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
McShave wrote: » 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).
