Do I want PvE only servers? No. I enjoy the risks that come with the PvP Systems in mind. Will I need a group of friends to play with because (even though I'm complimented for living in the Caravan stream) I'm a big scaredy cat when it comes to PvP? Absolutely!
All in all, I'm just trying to say that I think PvX can be considered more of a spectrum...
Love to see this. IMO this is exactly what PvX is all about, and people being all absolutist about their position (pvp vs pve) doesn't serve this game, or any of us, at all.
Personally I'm much further on the pvp side of the spectrum, but an MMO is all about being part of a broad, multi-faceted world, and I like the fact that our different motives + objectives serve as a natural basis for a functioning economy. That's proper PvX.
I think factoring all of us in makes for an interesting world in Verra haha. We are very excited to see the differences between servers and nodes alone because of this.
To me pvx means you have content for all types of playstyles. Pve purist content supported through corruption system, pvp purist through opt-in systems like arenas, and a combination of pvp and pve content in combatant flagged areas or highly contested zones that utilize strategic benefits for going corrupt. I think the main thing ashes needs to do is to have enough content for each type of playstyle to rival alternative games that appeal to each type of player, so they have a reason to play Ashes instead of another game. From there the draw of Ashes is the deeper layers of choice, risk reward (or meaningful conflict), reactivity, social interaction, and story elements that other games of a similar style might not offer, which would be the competitive advantage in my opinion.
1
Options
chibibreeMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I think the main thing ashes needs to do is to have enough content for each type of playstyle to rival alternative games that appeal to each type of player, so they have a reason to play Ashes instead of another game.
This definitely resonates with me haha. I am excited to see what other systems they design. And how they implement the ones they have already mentioned. So far, I'm loving what I see. It feels very alive and interconnected.
Yeah, I think the problem is that players perceive it as a problem when there is any content not specifically designed around them, regardless of whether or not it actually affects the amount of content they will have available to them for how they play. I guess they see it as more potential content that could have potentially been for them but isn't actually for them, regardless of whether or not there is sufficient content for them to enjoy in reality. (Things like combatant flagged oceans pushing away pve purists, regardless of how much pve purist content is available in corruption enabled zones.)
I tried to understand why this is a while back, by asking what is the difference between choosing to play another game and missing out on that content vs not being able to play a portion of Ashes and missing out on that content? There isn't a difference really, some people would willingly choose to miss out on an experience they might enjoy in Ashes just because "there are parts of the game that aren't for me" and they want "the entire game to be about me"- then people complain about that and you get weird responses like "Hey, Ashes just isn't for you and that's okay" even if it actually is made for you to be able to enjoy lol.
I think this is kind of a toxic attitude, or maybe just a lack of understanding, and I think "players with this mindset" is really where the "Ashes isn't made for you" comment can really come into play because you can't really satisfy these kinds of players.
Yeah, I think the problem is that players perceive it as a problem when there is any content not specifically designed around them, regardless of whether or not it actually affects the amount of content they will have available to them for how they play.
I don't think this is the case at all.
The reason being - this game is trying to mostly appeal to existing MMORPG players, and existing MMORPG players are used to the fact that every MMORPG has content that isn't going to be for them.
The people this game is aimed at are used to looking at what the game does have for them, not what the game does have that is not for them.
The difference is - in most MMORPG's, you can simply ignore the content that isn't for you, and run the content that is. Ashes doesn't seem to be giving players quite the same ability to do this as other games in the genre, and so players are being forced to look at the game as a whole, rather than just looking at the content that is for them.
This is less a "toxic attitude", and more a direct result of the game design Intrepid are going for.
In a game like WoW or ESO, if PvP isn't your thing, you can just not do it. In Ashes, if you play, you need to fully understand the corruption system, have at least a basic idea of the RPS notion in regards to classes and remain aware that PvP potential is always there. You can not just ignore all of that like you can in WoW or ESO.
In WoW, if crafting isn't your thing, you can just ignore it completely. In Ashes, you will at least need to be familiar enough with crafting to know what crafter you are looking for to make the item you want, and will need to have a basic understanding of the. You can't just ignore crafting - even if you do not directly participate yourself.
This also applies to PvP players - they need to be able to PvE in Ashes, they can't just ignore it like they can in many other games (Archeage, for example).
I'm not saying that is a thing Intrepid need to change, I'm saying that people talking about how others are looking at this game need to understand this before labeling them toxic. Looking at a game like Ashes and seeing content that is not you but that you would be forced to engage with and not liking - that is not toxic at all, it is a logical way to determin if this game is for you or not.
The reason being - this game is trying to mostly appeal to existing MMORPG players, and existing MMORPG players are used to the fact that every MMORPG has content that isn't going to be for them.
The people this game is aimed at are used to looking at what the game does have for them, not what the game does have that is not for them.
Well, im not necesarily saying all people who dislike the design feel this way, but there is definitely a sub-set of players who do think that way, from my experience talking with them.
The difference is - in most MMORPG's, you can simply ignore the content that isn't for you, and run the content that is. Ashes doesn't seem to be giving players quite the same ability to do this as other games in the genre, and so players are being forced to look at the game as a whole, rather than just looking at the content that is for them.
This is less a "toxic attitude", and more a direct result of the game design Intrepid are going for.
In a game like WoW or ESO, if PvP isn't your thing, you can just not do it. In Ashes, if you play, you need to fully understand the corruption system, have at least a basic idea of the RPS notion in regards to classes and remain aware that PvP potential is always there. You can not just ignore all of that like you can in WoW or ESO.
In WoW, if crafting isn't your thing, you can just ignore it completely. In Ashes, you will at least need to be familiar enough with crafting to know what crafter you are looking for to make the item you want, and will need to have a basic understanding of the. You can't just ignore crafting - even if you do not directly participate yourself.
This also applies to PvP players - they need to be able to PvE in Ashes, they can't just ignore it like they can in many other games (Archeage, for example).
I hear what your saying but I don't really agree. Theoretically you could just ignore all that stuff right away if you want and only engage with lower level content where that knowledge would be less of a requirement, which goes back to my original point about supporting each playstyle with enough content.
As for the content that requires that extra knowledge, I wouldn't really call that "forcing a specific playstyle upon you" at least in the long term. I would consider that more as a part of the learning curve in the short term, since you could certainly ignore a lot of that stuff in the long run once you have a grasp on how things work.
If there is content that you need to have a more wholistic approach towards, then once again it goes back to my original point since that would just be some of the pvp+pve content in the game.
I hear what your saying but I don't really agree. Theoretically you could just ignore all that stuff right away if you want and only engage with lower level content where that knowledge would be less of a requirement
We have no reason to assume crafting and PvP won't be factors at level 5.
Even if we did, are you seriously expdcting someone to leave their current MMO to only engage in lower level content in Ashes? The suggestion is unrealistic, and as such imo shouldn't have been made in the first place.
---
I think you misunderstood what I was saying about knowledge of PvP.
The game will force PvP on to everyone. We all know this. In order to succeed at anything in the game, you need to have a working knowledge of PvP, and need to work at getting better at it
This is as opposed to a game like WoW or ESO where players that don't like PvP can ignore it completely.
The knowledge aspect of what I was talking about in relation to PvP is in always needing to know what is happening, always knowing the meta, knowing the popular builds etc - you can't play Ashes in any way that would see a player pick Ashes over any other game.
That last part is the key here. People have other games they can play - and is most cases are playing. Ashes needs to appeal to people MORE than other games.
The game will force PvP on to everyone. We all know this. In order to succeed at anything in the game, you need to have a working knowledge of PvP, and need to work at getting better at it
I totally disagree with this.
1) The corruption system is clearly intended to give us the best of all worlds. PvX is not spin, they've clearly thought long and hard about this. How well it works, we'll see. Personally I have total confidence in what I've seen from Intrepid so far.
2) We don't "all know" anything. The game, quite literally, doesn't exist! It's a totally subjective viewpoint.
Even if it was absolute fact (it isn't); we're all just curious, optimistic and here to discuss, learn etc.
The suggestion is unrealistic, and as such imo shouldn't have been made in the first place.
This is a forum, for people excited about an upcoming game set in a high fantasy setting. Let's relax and not shut people down. I want to see more threads here not less!
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited March 25
PvX is meaningless hype.
Ashes is a PvP-centric MMORPG. Like Lineage II, ArcheAge and EvE.
It's basically playing on a PvP server in EQ/EQ2/WoW.
PvX is meaningless hype.
Ashes is a PvP-centric MMORPG. Like Lineage II, ArcheAge and EvE.
It's basically playing on a PvP server in EQ/EQ2/WoW.
One thing it's definitely not is like a PvP server in WoW. I play for PvP and practically lived in the most PvP active zone on a PvP server (STV).
You could kill anyone at any level at any time, in almost any zone, as often as you like... with zero consequences.
I kinda loved it but these corruption mechanics will make Ashes totally different.
2
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited March 25
I didn't say that it's exactly like a PvP-server in WoW.
The Ashes servers are in-between WoW PvP servers and PvP-Optional servers.
And I always move from PvP-Optional servers to PvE-Only servers.
Because, even though I like PvP sometimes, WoW PvP-Optional servers have too much PvP for me.
(I typically don't enjoy playing on the same servers as PvPers.)
@Aszkalon As we don't yet know anything about what attributes PVP Progression may provide, I'm assuming + PVP defense would be available. This simple bonus could give you the sustain you need to contest resources where you are unwelcome, or time to flee for your life.
I believe high value resources, will be contested, even objects of Node Wars.
Also believe everyone should seek PVP Progression as part of our gameplay, and who would it serve better day to day than gatherers?
PvX is meaningless hype.
Ashes is a PvP-centric MMORPG. Like Lineage II, ArcheAge and EvE.
It's basically playing on a PvP server in EQ/EQ2/WoW.
You sound pretty certain about it. Comments like this will put people off the game, even when they happen to be total rubbish.
*meh*
People can make their own decisions based on what Steven has said about the game - now that he is being more clear about who the game is designed for - and who it's not designed for.
They will also make their own decisions once people begin streaming Alpha 2.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
@Aszkalon As we don't yet know anything about what attributes PVP Progression may provide, I'm assuming + PVP defense would be available. This simple bonus could give you the sustain you need to contest resources where you are unwelcome, or time to flee for your life.
I believe high value resources, will be contested, even objects of Node Wars.
Also believe everyone should seek PVP Progression as part of our gameplay, and who would it serve better day to day than gatherers?
As far as I know, there is no +PvP Defense because Ashes is supposed to be PvX.
There is no really difference between PvE Gear and PvP Gear.
In Alpha I, there were ways to adjust your Gear and Passive Skills to mitigate specific attacks players were using.
We have no reason to assume crafting and PvP won't be factors at level 5.
Thats why I said theoretically, we also have no reason to assume it will be necessary at this point (to my knowledge at least). And since i'm not the one pointing out flaws in the current design I think the burden is on those who are complaining to not make that assumption.
Even if we did, are you seriously expdcting someone to leave their current MMO to only engage in lower level content in Ashes? The suggestion is unrealistic, and as such imo shouldn't have been made in the first place.
I mean it sounds silly, but it really does just depend on how much stuff there is to do in Ashes. There could end up being more lower level content than another entire game has. Either way, its not really relevant to my point that if there was enough content for those kinds of players then it would be a valid suggestion, especially in a non-static environment that should help things feel fresh (part of the competitive advantage over alternatives).
I think you misunderstood what I was saying about knowledge of PvP.
The game will force PvP on to everyone. We all know this. In order to succeed at anything in the game, you need to have a working knowledge of PvP, and need to work at getting better at it
This is as opposed to a game like WoW or ESO where players that don't like PvP can ignore it completely.
The knowledge aspect of what I was talking about in relation to PvP is in always needing to know what is happening, always knowing the meta, knowing the popular builds etc - you can't play Ashes in any way that would see a player pick Ashes over any other game.
That last part is the key here. People have other games they can play - and is most cases are playing. Ashes needs to appeal to people MORE than other games.
Yeah, at this point either im not understanding 100% or the other way around. Thats basically the first thing you already said and I responded to. Other than rare scenarios, Ashes' goal is that you are only really forced into pvp in the flagged areas, or where its worth it to go corrupt. I understand that this includes situations where undesirable content is forced, but thats not the point. The point was that there should be plenty of content for the situations where pvp isn't forced (or at least heavily discouraged) such as in the corruption enabled areas. The devs should aim for providing plenty of content for the more purist playstyles of any kind, be it crafters, gatherers, etc., where they have some content to enjoy where they can focus specifically on how they want to play, and overlapping knowledge of other systems either isn't as necessary or is just kind of a learning curve to playing how they want, rather than a forced long-term playstyle. Again, there will be cases where it is necessary to have a more wholistic approach to the game but thats not the point. The competitive advantage over alternative games would come through a large amount of purist content, and better execution on the design pillars of ashes. Hopefully that adresses what you are talking about, otherwise im not sure what you mean.
This is a forum, for people excited about an upcoming game set in a high fantasy setting. Let's relax and not shut people down. I want to see more threads here not less!
So, in your attempt to get me to not shut people down (which is not what I was doing), you are shutting me down.
Nice one there bud.
Now let's look at the rest of your post...
The corruption system is clearly intended to give us the best of all worlds.
No, it isn't. It is early intended to give us a balance between the two.
The best PvE is when the encounters are tuned to only just be possible to kill by the maximum number of players at the height of their potential character power. This content type is not possible in a situation where corruption based PvP is present.
As such, by its very existence, corruption (and its associated PvP) means the best PvE possible won't be present, and as such the notion of "best of all worlds" simply can't happen in Ashes.
PvP is similar. The best PvP is when both sides are wanting to fight for the sake of fighting. The fact rhat corruption has to exist in Ashes means rhat this isn't the expectation - as there is no need for corruption if everyone always wants to fight.
Now, perhaps when you said corruption is intended to give us the best of both you actually meant it is intended to balance the two. People say the wrong thing sometimes. However, the notion that corruption exists to give us the best of both PvP and PvE is - as above - demonstrably incorrect.
PvX is not spin, they've clearly thought long and hard about this.
PvX is a meaningless term.
If you disagree, define it - then see which games out there I can point out to you actually fit in to that definition.
As to Intrpid having thought long and hard - Steven has no real context for good PvE. Every game he talks about having played is notable for how bad the PvE actually is (specifically L2 and Archeage).
That is why we have a game with "PvX" that isn't really considering the PvE aspect at all, at least from the perspective of people from games with good PvE.
Ashes design is PvX where there is both PvE and PvP, but from the perspective of someone that only knows shit PvE.
We don't "all know" anything. The game, quite literally, doesn't exist! It's a totally subjective viewpoint.
Even if it was absolute fact (it isn't); we're all just curious, optimistic and here to discuss, learn etc.
We know plenty.
Some people (I assume you), look at the solid information we get - what little of it there is - and proclaim we know very little about the game.
Other people (myself included) listen to what Intrepid say their intentions for the game are - and state we know a good amount about the game.
For example, we have no idea how severe corruption penalties will be. None at all. However, we do know that Intrepid designed the system with levers in place so they can alter the corruption settings (server by server, if needed) to ensure that there will always be some people gaining corruption, but not too many - as that is their stated intention with the system.
So, we know they have the intention for at least some people to gain corruption, and we know they have the tools to make sure that happens. As such, without even knowing the exact penalties for corruption, we know what the effects will be.
We have no reason to assume crafting and PvP won't be factors at level 5.
Thats why I said theoretically, we also have no reason to assume it will be necessary at this point (to my knowledge at least). And since i'm not the one pointing out flaws in the current design I think the burden is on those who are complaining to not make that assumption.
I think you have this backwards.
We know crafting will be incredibly important in Ashes - I assume you are not debating this.
If you are suggesting that gear via crafting and the existance of PvP will not be factors at low levels, then it is you that has the burden of proof here. You are the one suggesting the games first few levels will play as a totally different game to the rest of the leveling process, as well as the end game.
Even if we did, are you seriously expdcting someone to leave their current MMO to only engage in lower level content in Ashes? The suggestion is unrealistic, and as such imo shouldn't have been made in the first place.
I mean it sounds silly, but it really does just depend on how much stuff there is to do in Ashes. There could end up being more lower level content than another entire game has. Either way, its not really relevant to my point that if there was enough content for those kinds of players then it would be a valid suggestion, especially in a non-static environment that should help things feel fresh (part of the competitive advantage over alternatives).
When discussing the game in a manner where we are talking about how the game is likely to be, saying things like "There could end up being more lower level content than another entire game has." isn't helpful.
The chances of this happening are near zero - near enough to be completely ignored. If Intrepid planned on having that much content for those levels, then they would have talked about that already, as that would be a MAJOR part of the game.
However, since we are talking about pulling MMORPG players from other games, this whole thing of yours still isn't going to work. MMORPG players are not going to leave one game they are already playing and have social connections in for another game that has 50 levels, but only 5 levels worth of content they want to play.
Such people will always stay in the game they are already in.
I think you misunderstood what I was saying about knowledge of PvP.
The game will force PvP on to everyone. We all know this. In order to succeed at anything in the game, you need to have a working knowledge of PvP, and need to work at getting better at it
This is as opposed to a game like WoW or ESO where players that don't like PvP can ignore it completely.
The knowledge aspect of what I was talking about in relation to PvP is in always needing to know what is happening, always knowing the meta, knowing the popular builds etc - you can't play Ashes in any way that would see a player pick Ashes over any other game.
That last part is the key here. People have other games they can play - and is most cases are playing. Ashes needs to appeal to people MORE than other games.
The point was that there should be plenty of content for the situations where pvp isn't forced (or at least heavily discouraged)
I think this is the part you aren't getting.
Sure, plenty of content. We have no indication at all that Ashes will have this, and indeed we have an indication from Steven that it won't. It is Stevens intention that players need to fight for everything, including content.
The thing there is once again the context of what we are talking about. If we are talking about convincing players from other games to come to Ashes, then they won't be content with running the lesser content here. They will want to run the better content - more challenge, more fun, more rewards.
The more challenge, more fun and more reward the content has, the more worthwhile it is to gain corruption.
Thus, the very activity that people want to do in Ashes, the thing you say could attract them, that very same activity is the thing that will cause them to be attacked.
This is just a basic fact of open world PvP in MMORPG's - the better the content you are doing, the more likely you are to be attacked.
If you are saying that players can come from other games to Ashes and run content that won't see them targetted by other players, you are saying that you think players will leave other games to run basic trash content here - that is not a reasonable expectation to have of people.
If you are suggesting that gear via crafting and the existance of PvP will not be factors at low levels, then it is you that has the burden of proof here. You are the one suggesting the games first few levels will play as a totally different game to the rest of the leveling process, as well as the end game.
My perception of Steven's comments leads me to believe this might be the case. (Might not, but also might, so I don't think its quite fair to assume anything at this point). Based on his explanations of end game, and the general design approach, such as things like "extra play loops getting introduced as you progress" or being "easy to learn but hard to master", makes me think the game will introduce individual mechanic/system play loop options for players at lower levels of progression, and ramp up in complexity as the learn the game and seek more challenging content as nodes level up, in more emergent/interconnected ways.
When discussing the game in a manner where we are talking about how the game is likely to be, saying things like "There could end up being more lower level content than another entire game has." isn't helpful.
Yes, I understand this won't go anywhere until the premise is agreed upon.
The chances of this happening are near zero - near enough to be completely ignored. If Intrepid planned on having that much content for those levels, then they would have talked about that already, as that would be a MAJOR part of the game.
However, since we are talking about pulling MMORPG players from other games, this whole thing of yours still isn't going to work. MMORPG players are not going to leave one game they are already playing and have social connections in for another game that has 50 levels, but only 5 levels worth of content they want to play.
Such people will always stay in the game they are already in.
I disagree on this, "5 levels" could mean 2 completely different experiences for different games.
And with the entire world the size that verra is and having accessible lower level content through the node system, it is completely reasonable to think there will be a very large amount of low level content in Ashes.
The reason to disconnect from those social connections is gonna be a tough sell regardless, but having that large amount of content and a hopefully better execution on the design pillars would be a decent incentive imo.
The thing there is once again the context of what we are talking about. If we are talking about convincing players from other games to come to Ashes, then they won't be content with running the lesser content here. They will want to run the better content - more challenge, more fun, more rewards.
The more challenge, more fun and more reward the content has, the more worthwhile it is to gain corruption.
Thus, the very activity that people want to do in Ashes, the thing you say could attract them, that very same activity is the thing that will cause them to be attacked.
Yeah, again this point is dependent on the premise of this discussion. If there was enough content for purist playstyles then there could be enough challenging content for them as well (even if its not the most challenging content in the overall game as a whole), which could be represented in lower levels of progression compared to other games.
My perception of Steven's comments leads me to believe this might be the case.
I mean, he has in the past talked about PvP at and around the gate, stating that the fairly significant increase in corruption you get for killing a lower level player is the main deterrent for camping gates.
This should tell us all that PvP at very low levels is a thing.
If you believe you have heard Steven say different, you are imagining it.
I disagree on this, "5 levels" could mean 2 completely different experiences for different games.
In the context of a game with 50 levels - no.
The first five levels of any MMORPG are there to introduce the fundamental building blocks of the game in question. They are essentially a tutorial - and if you are trying to create a slightly different game from the standard of the genre, this is an actual requirement.
To think that this tutorial period of the game could contain enough enjoyable content to convince players to leave other MMORPG's just makes no sense.
As to the amount of content the game will have for low level players - the entire world will initially be populated for low level players, but it won't be actual content in terms of enjoyable, challenging fights. It will all be base population (what is generally referred to as trash).
This is what you are arguing people will leave other MMO's to come and run - people leaving an existing MMO to run 5 levels of trash content over and over again (what else will people do when they out live the content you say is for them?).
You had a thought. On cross examination, the thought was proven to be lacking. It's time to drop the thought now.
You had a thought. On cross examination, the thought was proven to be lacking. It's time to drop the thought now.
I will if i feel convinced. Im not convinced at this point in time.
I mean, he has in the past talked about PvP at and around the gate, stating that the fairly significant increase in corruption you get for killing a lower level player is the main deterrent for camping gates.
This should tell us all that PvP at very low levels is a thing.
If you believe you have heard Steven say different, you are imagining it.
That doesn't contradict my point. Pvp would fall under either the corruption enabled areas or the opt-in/combatant flagged areas, which I already talked about. In your example it sounds like a corruption enabled area, meaning the goal is to prevent forced pvp from happening in those starting areas, unless it is consensual like a duel or something, or if the person is an idiot and gains corruption or no reason, which should be pretty rare based on upcoming alpha 2 testing and other deterents such as stat dampening. Consensual pvp on the other hand is a valid play loop option just like any other system that should be available early on. So, we are back to square one and the original premise which is why im not convinced.
In the context of a game with 50 levels - no.
The first five levels of any MMORPG are there to introduce the fundamental building blocks of the game in question. They are essentially a tutorial - and if you are trying to create a slightly different game from the standard of the genre, this is an actual requirement.
To think that this tutorial period of the game could contain enough enjoyable content to convince players to leave other MMORPG's just makes no sense.
As to the amount of content the game will have for low level players - the entire world will initially be populated for low level players, but it won't be actual content in terms of enjoyable, challenging fights. It will all be base population (what is generally referred to as trash).
This is what you are arguing people will leave other MMO's to come and run - people leaving an existing MMO to run 5 levels of trash content over and over again (what else will people do when they out live the content you say is for them?).
Yeah I agree, your basically agreeing with me now that you can have purist gameplay early on, when you previously said "theres not reason to assume this will be the case", it can't be both ways (unless I misunderstood your point).
You can call it "a tutorial" and thats true, but that doesnt actually mean anything in the context of what we are talking about. Theres no hard rule about how "tutorials" are designed and function. The "tutorial" could be an entire game in itself (such as the entire world of verra at lower level node progression) as a way of preparing players for higher level node interactions. And "the context of 50 levels" means nothing in regards to this, because even if it a small percentage of overall content, it could still be more content relative to other games based on the amount of content that could theoretically exist in verra as a whole. But again, your steering this in the direction of "how much content will Aoc have based on what we know" which has no bearing on my original point of "what Ashes needs to do to provide a compelling pvx environment that appeals to different players and incentivize them to play Ashes over other games."
I mean, theres actually more of a reason to believe this will be the case than what you are proposing, based on my earlier references about the play loops ramping in complexity as players progress, and also the game going out of its way to appeal to casual/novice players per other Steven quotes, meaning by default, there will be content designed around those types of players to enjoy. This is supported by other comments about "having more content in the game than what players can actually do", and other design aspects around providing casual players with strong ways to impact the world even at their lower levels of progression. At this point I see your stance as more unreasonable until you can address these aspects.
I also feel like you are ignoring my point about players being able to specialize even at end game, due to the knowledge of other systems being more of a learning curve, than a forced long term playstyle. You should be able to be a crafter for end-game content, through supporting other players with other playstyles to deal with the interconnected and emergent nature of the more complex content. Yes, you might need to know about pvp or other things, but its not like you are forced to actually be a pvper to help support other end-game pvpers through crafting. Meaning that would open up even more content opportunities than what is just available early on, if you want to specialize and still progress to more difficult content.
For you to also claim that the more simplistic/"tutorialized" content will not be enjoyable is bizarre. Its only simplistic in the context of comparing that content to the more complex systems in Ashes, but the whole reason for them existing in the first place is as you said, to teach players the individual mechanics/systems, and (in my perception) to provide more purist playstyle/content options. For people who enjoy that type of playstyle, it won't be "too simplistic or just a tutorial" because those players are who would be targeted by that content. Another goal of Ashes is "for players to be having fun throughout the whole game" as another Intrepid comment stated, meaning that even the more specialized content is supposed to be fun (again, execution on design pillars is relevant to competitive advantage), but that content can also be dual purposed as preperatory for end game interconnected content. So, that puts us yet again back to my original point about having enough content to appeal to a variety of purist playstyles (even if you want to call that a "tutorial") and executing on the design pillars to appeal to players over other alternative game options.
The other potential point of disconnect between us is that you might be basing things on the current design, rather than the vision, which the design has the potential to change after testing, as you know.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Yeah, at this point either im not understanding 100% or the other way around. Thats basically the first thing you already said and I responded to. Other than rare scenarios, Ashes' goal is that you are only really forced into pvp in the flagged areas, or where its worth it to go corrupt.
Uh. No.
On land players can punish forced PvP by remaining Green and giving their attackers Corruption.
Additionally, the Open Seas is auto-flag PvP.
Uh. No.
On land players can punish forced PvP by remaining Green and giving their attackers Corruption.
Additionally, the Open Seas is auto-flag PvP.
What lol? I think you need to re-read what I said, because nothing I said implies differently than what you just stated. You basically just rearanged my sentence and said "uh no". Im not even sure how to respond to that or where the disagreement is.
I said-
"Other than rare scenarios, Ashes' goal is that you are only really forced into pvp in the flagged areas, or where its worth it to go corrupt."
The flagged areas such as the one you mentioned (auto flag open seas) forces pvp, which is exactly what I said.
Yes, you can punish attackers with corruption, hense me saying that flagged areas are one of the ways that pvp is forced, due to said corruption detering forced pvp in those corruption enabled areas.
The rare scenarios where you can have forced pvp even when corruption is a deterrent, is through players making a self-detrimental choice to do so regardless of corruption punishment, which I said is intended to not happen often through testing, and deterred through stat dampening when occuring repeatedly.
The forced pvp that occurs "when its worth it to go corrupt" means you will generally not have forced pvp due to corruption, unless that corruption is strategically worth it, such as highly contested areas.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited March 26
You said "you are only really forced into pvp in the flagged areas", like the Open Seas.
There is plenty of forced PvP on land as well. It's just that on land, forced PvP can be punished with Corruption.
I consider your concept of "when it's worth it to go Corrupt" to be meaningless. Especially from a PvEer perspective.
You said "you are only really forced into pvp in the flagged areas", like the Open Seas.
There is plenty of forced PvP on land as well. It's just that on land, forced PvP can be punished with Corruption.
I consider your concept of "when it's worth it to go Corrupt" to be meaningless. Especially from a PvEer perspective.
I see, the significance of the "when its worth it to go corrupt" is that most of the time it won't be, which is supposed to preserve your pve playstyle in corruption enabled zones. So basically other than rare cases, the only time you should really be experiencing forced pvp is if you choose to engage in auto-flagged areas, or if you choose to go engage with contested end-game content, where pvp is basically an expected part of the pvx challenge making it worth it to go corrupt for those end game rewards. (Pvx meaning content designed for emergent pvp+pve gameplay, while also having content options for either pvp or pve purists)
My original point was that these things existing shouldn't matter to you, due to the ability for you to opt-out of these kinds of experiences, providing there is enough content for a pve purist to engage with in the rest of the game, with content designed around this playstyle and not around those more complex/interconnected experiences that require more wholistic playstyle approaches, gameplay knowledge, and experience.
So the idea of corruption discouraging forced pvp other than strategically beneficial scenarios shouldn't be "meaningless" to you and your playstyle if there is a healthy portion of the game where corruption supports you as a player, unless your stance is that "there shouldn't be content that exists in the game that isn't designed around me, or I won't play the game", even if there is actually a large amount of content that is designed around you. These are basically less conspicuous opt-in systems that are basically seperate games and can be played as such.
You said "you are only really forced into pvp in the flagged areas", like the Open Seas.
There is plenty of forced PvP on land as well. It's just that on land, forced PvP can be punished with Corruption.
I consider your concept of "when it's worth it to go Corrupt" to be meaningless. Especially from a PvEer perspective.
I see, the significance of the "when its worth it to go corrupt" is that most of the time it won't be, which is supposed to preserve your pve playstyle in corruption enabled zones. So basically other than rare cases, the only time you should really be experiencing forced pvp is if you choose to engage in auto-flagged areas, or if you choose to go engage with contested end-game content, where pvp is basically an expected part of the pvx challenge making it worth it to go corrupt for those end game rewards. (Pvx meaning content designed for emergent pvp+pve gameplay, while also having content options for either pvp or pve purists)
My original point was that these things existing shouldn't matter to you, due to the ability for you to opt-out of these kinds of experiences, providing there is enough content for a pve purist to engage with in the rest of the game, with content designed around this playstyle and not around those more complex/interconnected experiences that require more wholistic playstyle approaches, gameplay knowledge, and experience.
So the idea of corruption discouraging forced pvp other than strategically beneficial scenarios shouldn't be "meaningless" to you and your playstyle if there is a healthy portion of the game where corruption supports you as a player, unless your stance is that "there shouldn't be content that exists in the game that isn't designed around me, or I won't play the game", even if there is actually a large amount of content that is designed around you. These are basically less conspicuous opt-in systems that are basically seperate games and can be played as such.
And so we find ourselves with another person with the perspective that for some reason Ashes disincentivizes going Red for short periods.
We have no reason to assume this though, that I'm aware of.
For any given single player, there is no clear reason to assume that said player won't choose to go Red at least once a day in order to take resources from someone else, is there? The only 'reason to assume that' would be to think to oneself 'well that would probably be bad for the game'.
Because if it would somehow not be bad for the game in terms of retention or something, there's no real reason not to tune Corruption that way.
So lemme put that simpler. I plan to go Red twice a day, work it off or take the risk, and clear my PK count often. What stops me? And if someone felt frustrated that they could be killed 16 times a day (twice for each of my group members) in that case, what should they do?
And so we find ourselves with another person with the perspective that for some reason Ashes disincentivizes going Red for short periods.
We have no reason to assume this though, that I'm aware of.
yeah, im not really basing too much on how thing sare now, but what the intent is for post-alpha 2 once things get fleshed out.
So lemme put that simpler. I plan to go Red twice a day, work it off or take the risk, and clear my PK count often. What stops me? And if someone felt frustrated that they could be killed 16 times a day (twice for each of my group members) in that case, what should they do?
My thoughts are "possibly nothing", which might still be okay, depending on how many players use that strategy, how inconvenient it is, how much of a time sink it is to use those workarounds.
Inconvenince could mitigate those types of players enough to make those scenarios few and far between, to help preserve the pve purist experience as much as possible.
The other assumption is that most player won't play that way due to the guiding hand of the overall design discouraging that strategy, potentially making it a lot less of a problem throughout the majority of the playerbase.
That is a combination of my current perception and some faith in the vision, testing, and iteration process admittedly.
I guess my point is that if 99% of the time corruption allows pve purists to do there thing, then thats a pretty good balancing act considering the scope of the game and potential diversity in the audience it could draw in and support, in theory.
As far as the "what can the pve player do" instead of relying on corruption- obviously it is less desirable for them to have to take the matter into their own hands to play how they want, but if they really want to push that 99% closer to 100%, then there are actions that can be taken to avoid problem players through travel and social aspects, such as the commonly mentioned "get a bodyguard" or "relocate to another peaceful node". These are not ideal solutions but could be leveraged if its just wants to boosts the odds that much more in their favor.
For any given single player, there is no clear reason to assume that said player won't choose to go Red at least once a day in order to take resources from someone else, is there?
So lemme put that simpler. I plan to go Red twice a day, work it off or take the risk, and clear my PK count often. What stops me?
Yeah possibly nothing if you're willing to take the hit (exp, PK, risk of dropping stuff).
I hope it is relatively easy to reduce PK count. The idea of corruption scaling up with kills over a character's lifetime is a bit off-putting for me.
Quote from the wiki: "A quest may be utilized to reduce the player kill (PK) count of a corrupt player in order for them to accumulate less corruption score in the future"
And so we find ourselves with another person with the perspective that for some reason Ashes disincentivizes going Red for short periods.
We have no reason to assume this though, that I'm aware of.
yeah, im not really basing too much on how thing sare now, but what the intent is for post-alpha 2 once things get fleshed out.
So lemme put that simpler. I plan to go Red twice a day, work it off or take the risk, and clear my PK count often. What stops me? And if someone felt frustrated that they could be killed 16 times a day (twice for each of my group members) in that case, what should they do?
My thoughts are "possibly nothing", which might still be okay, depending on how many players use that strategy, how inconvenient it is, how much of a time sink it is to use those workarounds.
Inconvenince could mitigate those types of players enough to make those scenarios few and far between, to help preserve the pve purist experience as much as possible.
The other assumption is that most player won't play that way due to the guiding hand of the overall design discouraging that strategy, potentially making it a lot less of a problem throughout the majority of the playerbase.
That is a combination of my current perception and some faith in the vision, testing, and iteration process admittedly.
I guess my point is that if 99% of the time corruption allows pve purists to do there thing, then thats a pretty good balancing act considering the scope of the game and potential diversity in the audience it could draw in and support, in theory.
Okay, but in the end, if 99% of the time corruption allowed PvE purists to do their thing, I would consider it a very bad thing, and in fact I'd also say it was terrible for the balance of what Ashes is supposed to be.
At that point 'soft friction' would be quite largely erased, or put in the favor of those who don't fight back, I think. If you come into a room/area that my group is using to fight mobs or gather materials, and my group leader demands you leave, and you just go 'nah I'll do what I want'...
If the negotiating power is on the 'staunch NonCombatant' side of this equation, I don't think Ashes would work. Not even 'not work for me' or 'not be fun for me'. I think the game's entire design stops working.
Comments
I think factoring all of us in makes for an interesting world in Verra haha. We are very excited to see the differences between servers and nodes alone because of this.
This definitely resonates with me haha. I am excited to see what other systems they design. And how they implement the ones they have already mentioned. So far, I'm loving what I see. It feels very alive and interconnected.
I tried to understand why this is a while back, by asking what is the difference between choosing to play another game and missing out on that content vs not being able to play a portion of Ashes and missing out on that content? There isn't a difference really, some people would willingly choose to miss out on an experience they might enjoy in Ashes just because "there are parts of the game that aren't for me" and they want "the entire game to be about me"- then people complain about that and you get weird responses like "Hey, Ashes just isn't for you and that's okay" even if it actually is made for you to be able to enjoy lol.
I think this is kind of a toxic attitude, or maybe just a lack of understanding, and I think "players with this mindset" is really where the "Ashes isn't made for you" comment can really come into play because you can't really satisfy these kinds of players.
I don't think this is the case at all.
The reason being - this game is trying to mostly appeal to existing MMORPG players, and existing MMORPG players are used to the fact that every MMORPG has content that isn't going to be for them.
The people this game is aimed at are used to looking at what the game does have for them, not what the game does have that is not for them.
The difference is - in most MMORPG's, you can simply ignore the content that isn't for you, and run the content that is. Ashes doesn't seem to be giving players quite the same ability to do this as other games in the genre, and so players are being forced to look at the game as a whole, rather than just looking at the content that is for them.
This is less a "toxic attitude", and more a direct result of the game design Intrepid are going for.
In a game like WoW or ESO, if PvP isn't your thing, you can just not do it. In Ashes, if you play, you need to fully understand the corruption system, have at least a basic idea of the RPS notion in regards to classes and remain aware that PvP potential is always there. You can not just ignore all of that like you can in WoW or ESO.
In WoW, if crafting isn't your thing, you can just ignore it completely. In Ashes, you will at least need to be familiar enough with crafting to know what crafter you are looking for to make the item you want, and will need to have a basic understanding of the. You can't just ignore crafting - even if you do not directly participate yourself.
This also applies to PvP players - they need to be able to PvE in Ashes, they can't just ignore it like they can in many other games (Archeage, for example).
I'm not saying that is a thing Intrepid need to change, I'm saying that people talking about how others are looking at this game need to understand this before labeling them toxic. Looking at a game like Ashes and seeing content that is not you but that you would be forced to engage with and not liking - that is not toxic at all, it is a logical way to determin if this game is for you or not.
Well, im not necesarily saying all people who dislike the design feel this way, but there is definitely a sub-set of players who do think that way, from my experience talking with them.
I hear what your saying but I don't really agree. Theoretically you could just ignore all that stuff right away if you want and only engage with lower level content where that knowledge would be less of a requirement, which goes back to my original point about supporting each playstyle with enough content.
As for the content that requires that extra knowledge, I wouldn't really call that "forcing a specific playstyle upon you" at least in the long term. I would consider that more as a part of the learning curve in the short term, since you could certainly ignore a lot of that stuff in the long run once you have a grasp on how things work.
If there is content that you need to have a more wholistic approach towards, then once again it goes back to my original point since that would just be some of the pvp+pve content in the game.
Even if we did, are you seriously expdcting someone to leave their current MMO to only engage in lower level content in Ashes? The suggestion is unrealistic, and as such imo shouldn't have been made in the first place.
---
I think you misunderstood what I was saying about knowledge of PvP.
The game will force PvP on to everyone. We all know this. In order to succeed at anything in the game, you need to have a working knowledge of PvP, and need to work at getting better at it
This is as opposed to a game like WoW or ESO where players that don't like PvP can ignore it completely.
The knowledge aspect of what I was talking about in relation to PvP is in always needing to know what is happening, always knowing the meta, knowing the popular builds etc - you can't play Ashes in any way that would see a player pick Ashes over any other game.
That last part is the key here. People have other games they can play - and is most cases are playing. Ashes needs to appeal to people MORE than other games.
I totally disagree with this.
1) The corruption system is clearly intended to give us the best of all worlds. PvX is not spin, they've clearly thought long and hard about this. How well it works, we'll see. Personally I have total confidence in what I've seen from Intrepid so far.
2) We don't "all know" anything. The game, quite literally, doesn't exist! It's a totally subjective viewpoint.
Even if it was absolute fact (it isn't); we're all just curious, optimistic and here to discuss, learn etc.
This is a forum, for people excited about an upcoming game set in a high fantasy setting. Let's relax and not shut people down. I want to see more threads here not less!
Ashes is a PvP-centric MMORPG. Like Lineage II, ArcheAge and EvE.
It's basically playing on a PvP server in EQ/EQ2/WoW.
One thing it's definitely not is like a PvP server in WoW. I play for PvP and practically lived in the most PvP active zone on a PvP server (STV).
You could kill anyone at any level at any time, in almost any zone, as often as you like... with zero consequences.
I kinda loved it but these corruption mechanics will make Ashes totally different.
The Ashes servers are in-between WoW PvP servers and PvP-Optional servers.
And I always move from PvP-Optional servers to PvE-Only servers.
Because, even though I like PvP sometimes, WoW PvP-Optional servers have too much PvP for me.
(I typically don't enjoy playing on the same servers as PvPers.)
You sound pretty certain about it. Comments like this will put people off the game, even when they happen to be total rubbish.
I believe high value resources, will be contested, even objects of Node Wars.
Also believe everyone should seek PVP Progression as part of our gameplay, and who would it serve better day to day than gatherers?
Ahhh, good Times. 😁 . 😆
Thanks for making me remember it. Here is a longer Version.
People can make their own decisions based on what Steven has said about the game - now that he is being more clear about who the game is designed for - and who it's not designed for.
They will also make their own decisions once people begin streaming Alpha 2.
There is no really difference between PvE Gear and PvP Gear.
In Alpha I, there were ways to adjust your Gear and Passive Skills to mitigate specific attacks players were using.
Thats why I said theoretically, we also have no reason to assume it will be necessary at this point (to my knowledge at least). And since i'm not the one pointing out flaws in the current design I think the burden is on those who are complaining to not make that assumption.
I mean it sounds silly, but it really does just depend on how much stuff there is to do in Ashes. There could end up being more lower level content than another entire game has. Either way, its not really relevant to my point that if there was enough content for those kinds of players then it would be a valid suggestion, especially in a non-static environment that should help things feel fresh (part of the competitive advantage over alternatives).
Yeah, at this point either im not understanding 100% or the other way around. Thats basically the first thing you already said and I responded to. Other than rare scenarios, Ashes' goal is that you are only really forced into pvp in the flagged areas, or where its worth it to go corrupt. I understand that this includes situations where undesirable content is forced, but thats not the point. The point was that there should be plenty of content for the situations where pvp isn't forced (or at least heavily discouraged) such as in the corruption enabled areas. The devs should aim for providing plenty of content for the more purist playstyles of any kind, be it crafters, gatherers, etc., where they have some content to enjoy where they can focus specifically on how they want to play, and overlapping knowledge of other systems either isn't as necessary or is just kind of a learning curve to playing how they want, rather than a forced long-term playstyle. Again, there will be cases where it is necessary to have a more wholistic approach to the game but thats not the point. The competitive advantage over alternative games would come through a large amount of purist content, and better execution on the design pillars of ashes. Hopefully that adresses what you are talking about, otherwise im not sure what you mean.
So, in your attempt to get me to not shut people down (which is not what I was doing), you are shutting me down.
Nice one there bud.
Now let's look at the rest of your post...
No, it isn't. It is early intended to give us a balance between the two.
The best PvE is when the encounters are tuned to only just be possible to kill by the maximum number of players at the height of their potential character power. This content type is not possible in a situation where corruption based PvP is present.
As such, by its very existence, corruption (and its associated PvP) means the best PvE possible won't be present, and as such the notion of "best of all worlds" simply can't happen in Ashes.
PvP is similar. The best PvP is when both sides are wanting to fight for the sake of fighting. The fact rhat corruption has to exist in Ashes means rhat this isn't the expectation - as there is no need for corruption if everyone always wants to fight.
Now, perhaps when you said corruption is intended to give us the best of both you actually meant it is intended to balance the two. People say the wrong thing sometimes. However, the notion that corruption exists to give us the best of both PvP and PvE is - as above - demonstrably incorrect.
PvX is a meaningless term.
If you disagree, define it - then see which games out there I can point out to you actually fit in to that definition.
As to Intrpid having thought long and hard - Steven has no real context for good PvE. Every game he talks about having played is notable for how bad the PvE actually is (specifically L2 and Archeage).
That is why we have a game with "PvX" that isn't really considering the PvE aspect at all, at least from the perspective of people from games with good PvE.
Ashes design is PvX where there is both PvE and PvP, but from the perspective of someone that only knows shit PvE.
We know plenty.
Some people (I assume you), look at the solid information we get - what little of it there is - and proclaim we know very little about the game.
Other people (myself included) listen to what Intrepid say their intentions for the game are - and state we know a good amount about the game.
For example, we have no idea how severe corruption penalties will be. None at all. However, we do know that Intrepid designed the system with levers in place so they can alter the corruption settings (server by server, if needed) to ensure that there will always be some people gaining corruption, but not too many - as that is their stated intention with the system.
So, we know they have the intention for at least some people to gain corruption, and we know they have the tools to make sure that happens. As such, without even knowing the exact penalties for corruption, we know what the effects will be.
We know crafting will be incredibly important in Ashes - I assume you are not debating this.
If you are suggesting that gear via crafting and the existance of PvP will not be factors at low levels, then it is you that has the burden of proof here. You are the one suggesting the games first few levels will play as a totally different game to the rest of the leveling process, as well as the end game. When discussing the game in a manner where we are talking about how the game is likely to be, saying things like "There could end up being more lower level content than another entire game has." isn't helpful.
The chances of this happening are near zero - near enough to be completely ignored. If Intrepid planned on having that much content for those levels, then they would have talked about that already, as that would be a MAJOR part of the game.
However, since we are talking about pulling MMORPG players from other games, this whole thing of yours still isn't going to work. MMORPG players are not going to leave one game they are already playing and have social connections in for another game that has 50 levels, but only 5 levels worth of content they want to play.
Such people will always stay in the game they are already in. I think this is the part you aren't getting.
Sure, plenty of content. We have no indication at all that Ashes will have this, and indeed we have an indication from Steven that it won't. It is Stevens intention that players need to fight for everything, including content.
The thing there is once again the context of what we are talking about. If we are talking about convincing players from other games to come to Ashes, then they won't be content with running the lesser content here. They will want to run the better content - more challenge, more fun, more rewards.
The more challenge, more fun and more reward the content has, the more worthwhile it is to gain corruption.
Thus, the very activity that people want to do in Ashes, the thing you say could attract them, that very same activity is the thing that will cause them to be attacked.
This is just a basic fact of open world PvP in MMORPG's - the better the content you are doing, the more likely you are to be attacked.
If you are saying that players can come from other games to Ashes and run content that won't see them targetted by other players, you are saying that you think players will leave other games to run basic trash content here - that is not a reasonable expectation to have of people.
My perception of Steven's comments leads me to believe this might be the case. (Might not, but also might, so I don't think its quite fair to assume anything at this point). Based on his explanations of end game, and the general design approach, such as things like "extra play loops getting introduced as you progress" or being "easy to learn but hard to master", makes me think the game will introduce individual mechanic/system play loop options for players at lower levels of progression, and ramp up in complexity as the learn the game and seek more challenging content as nodes level up, in more emergent/interconnected ways.
Yes, I understand this won't go anywhere until the premise is agreed upon.
I disagree on this, "5 levels" could mean 2 completely different experiences for different games.
And with the entire world the size that verra is and having accessible lower level content through the node system, it is completely reasonable to think there will be a very large amount of low level content in Ashes.
The reason to disconnect from those social connections is gonna be a tough sell regardless, but having that large amount of content and a hopefully better execution on the design pillars would be a decent incentive imo.
Yeah, again this point is dependent on the premise of this discussion. If there was enough content for purist playstyles then there could be enough challenging content for them as well (even if its not the most challenging content in the overall game as a whole), which could be represented in lower levels of progression compared to other games.
This should tell us all that PvP at very low levels is a thing.
If you believe you have heard Steven say different, you are imagining it.
In the context of a game with 50 levels - no.
The first five levels of any MMORPG are there to introduce the fundamental building blocks of the game in question. They are essentially a tutorial - and if you are trying to create a slightly different game from the standard of the genre, this is an actual requirement.
To think that this tutorial period of the game could contain enough enjoyable content to convince players to leave other MMORPG's just makes no sense.
As to the amount of content the game will have for low level players - the entire world will initially be populated for low level players, but it won't be actual content in terms of enjoyable, challenging fights. It will all be base population (what is generally referred to as trash).
This is what you are arguing people will leave other MMO's to come and run - people leaving an existing MMO to run 5 levels of trash content over and over again (what else will people do when they out live the content you say is for them?).
You had a thought. On cross examination, the thought was proven to be lacking. It's time to drop the thought now.
I will if i feel convinced. Im not convinced at this point in time.
That doesn't contradict my point. Pvp would fall under either the corruption enabled areas or the opt-in/combatant flagged areas, which I already talked about. In your example it sounds like a corruption enabled area, meaning the goal is to prevent forced pvp from happening in those starting areas, unless it is consensual like a duel or something, or if the person is an idiot and gains corruption or no reason, which should be pretty rare based on upcoming alpha 2 testing and other deterents such as stat dampening. Consensual pvp on the other hand is a valid play loop option just like any other system that should be available early on. So, we are back to square one and the original premise which is why im not convinced.
Yeah I agree, your basically agreeing with me now that you can have purist gameplay early on, when you previously said "theres not reason to assume this will be the case", it can't be both ways (unless I misunderstood your point).
You can call it "a tutorial" and thats true, but that doesnt actually mean anything in the context of what we are talking about. Theres no hard rule about how "tutorials" are designed and function. The "tutorial" could be an entire game in itself (such as the entire world of verra at lower level node progression) as a way of preparing players for higher level node interactions. And "the context of 50 levels" means nothing in regards to this, because even if it a small percentage of overall content, it could still be more content relative to other games based on the amount of content that could theoretically exist in verra as a whole. But again, your steering this in the direction of "how much content will Aoc have based on what we know" which has no bearing on my original point of "what Ashes needs to do to provide a compelling pvx environment that appeals to different players and incentivize them to play Ashes over other games."
I mean, theres actually more of a reason to believe this will be the case than what you are proposing, based on my earlier references about the play loops ramping in complexity as players progress, and also the game going out of its way to appeal to casual/novice players per other Steven quotes, meaning by default, there will be content designed around those types of players to enjoy. This is supported by other comments about "having more content in the game than what players can actually do", and other design aspects around providing casual players with strong ways to impact the world even at their lower levels of progression. At this point I see your stance as more unreasonable until you can address these aspects.
I also feel like you are ignoring my point about players being able to specialize even at end game, due to the knowledge of other systems being more of a learning curve, than a forced long term playstyle. You should be able to be a crafter for end-game content, through supporting other players with other playstyles to deal with the interconnected and emergent nature of the more complex content. Yes, you might need to know about pvp or other things, but its not like you are forced to actually be a pvper to help support other end-game pvpers through crafting. Meaning that would open up even more content opportunities than what is just available early on, if you want to specialize and still progress to more difficult content.
For you to also claim that the more simplistic/"tutorialized" content will not be enjoyable is bizarre. Its only simplistic in the context of comparing that content to the more complex systems in Ashes, but the whole reason for them existing in the first place is as you said, to teach players the individual mechanics/systems, and (in my perception) to provide more purist playstyle/content options. For people who enjoy that type of playstyle, it won't be "too simplistic or just a tutorial" because those players are who would be targeted by that content. Another goal of Ashes is "for players to be having fun throughout the whole game" as another Intrepid comment stated, meaning that even the more specialized content is supposed to be fun (again, execution on design pillars is relevant to competitive advantage), but that content can also be dual purposed as preperatory for end game interconnected content. So, that puts us yet again back to my original point about having enough content to appeal to a variety of purist playstyles (even if you want to call that a "tutorial") and executing on the design pillars to appeal to players over other alternative game options.
The other potential point of disconnect between us is that you might be basing things on the current design, rather than the vision, which the design has the potential to change after testing, as you know.
On land players can punish forced PvP by remaining Green and giving their attackers Corruption.
Additionally, the Open Seas is auto-flag PvP.
What lol? I think you need to re-read what I said, because nothing I said implies differently than what you just stated. You basically just rearanged my sentence and said "uh no". Im not even sure how to respond to that or where the disagreement is.
I said-
"Other than rare scenarios, Ashes' goal is that you are only really forced into pvp in the flagged areas, or where its worth it to go corrupt."
The flagged areas such as the one you mentioned (auto flag open seas) forces pvp, which is exactly what I said.
Yes, you can punish attackers with corruption, hense me saying that flagged areas are one of the ways that pvp is forced, due to said corruption detering forced pvp in those corruption enabled areas.
The rare scenarios where you can have forced pvp even when corruption is a deterrent, is through players making a self-detrimental choice to do so regardless of corruption punishment, which I said is intended to not happen often through testing, and deterred through stat dampening when occuring repeatedly.
The forced pvp that occurs "when its worth it to go corrupt" means you will generally not have forced pvp due to corruption, unless that corruption is strategically worth it, such as highly contested areas.
There is plenty of forced PvP on land as well. It's just that on land, forced PvP can be punished with Corruption.
I consider your concept of "when it's worth it to go Corrupt" to be meaningless. Especially from a PvEer perspective.
I see, the significance of the "when its worth it to go corrupt" is that most of the time it won't be, which is supposed to preserve your pve playstyle in corruption enabled zones. So basically other than rare cases, the only time you should really be experiencing forced pvp is if you choose to engage in auto-flagged areas, or if you choose to go engage with contested end-game content, where pvp is basically an expected part of the pvx challenge making it worth it to go corrupt for those end game rewards. (Pvx meaning content designed for emergent pvp+pve gameplay, while also having content options for either pvp or pve purists)
My original point was that these things existing shouldn't matter to you, due to the ability for you to opt-out of these kinds of experiences, providing there is enough content for a pve purist to engage with in the rest of the game, with content designed around this playstyle and not around those more complex/interconnected experiences that require more wholistic playstyle approaches, gameplay knowledge, and experience.
So the idea of corruption discouraging forced pvp other than strategically beneficial scenarios shouldn't be "meaningless" to you and your playstyle if there is a healthy portion of the game where corruption supports you as a player, unless your stance is that "there shouldn't be content that exists in the game that isn't designed around me, or I won't play the game", even if there is actually a large amount of content that is designed around you. These are basically less conspicuous opt-in systems that are basically seperate games and can be played as such.
And so we find ourselves with another person with the perspective that for some reason Ashes disincentivizes going Red for short periods.
We have no reason to assume this though, that I'm aware of.
For any given single player, there is no clear reason to assume that said player won't choose to go Red at least once a day in order to take resources from someone else, is there? The only 'reason to assume that' would be to think to oneself 'well that would probably be bad for the game'.
Because if it would somehow not be bad for the game in terms of retention or something, there's no real reason not to tune Corruption that way.
So lemme put that simpler. I plan to go Red twice a day, work it off or take the risk, and clear my PK count often. What stops me? And if someone felt frustrated that they could be killed 16 times a day (twice for each of my group members) in that case, what should they do?
yeah, im not really basing too much on how thing sare now, but what the intent is for post-alpha 2 once things get fleshed out.
My thoughts are "possibly nothing", which might still be okay, depending on how many players use that strategy, how inconvenient it is, how much of a time sink it is to use those workarounds.
Inconvenince could mitigate those types of players enough to make those scenarios few and far between, to help preserve the pve purist experience as much as possible.
The other assumption is that most player won't play that way due to the guiding hand of the overall design discouraging that strategy, potentially making it a lot less of a problem throughout the majority of the playerbase.
That is a combination of my current perception and some faith in the vision, testing, and iteration process admittedly.
I guess my point is that if 99% of the time corruption allows pve purists to do there thing, then thats a pretty good balancing act considering the scope of the game and potential diversity in the audience it could draw in and support, in theory.
As far as the "what can the pve player do" instead of relying on corruption- obviously it is less desirable for them to have to take the matter into their own hands to play how they want, but if they really want to push that 99% closer to 100%, then there are actions that can be taken to avoid problem players through travel and social aspects, such as the commonly mentioned "get a bodyguard" or "relocate to another peaceful node". These are not ideal solutions but could be leveraged if its just wants to boosts the odds that much more in their favor.
Yeah possibly nothing if you're willing to take the hit (exp, PK, risk of dropping stuff).
I hope it is relatively easy to reduce PK count. The idea of corruption scaling up with kills over a character's lifetime is a bit off-putting for me.
Quote from the wiki: "A quest may be utilized to reduce the player kill (PK) count of a corrupt player in order for them to accumulate less corruption score in the future"
Okay, but in the end, if 99% of the time corruption allowed PvE purists to do their thing, I would consider it a very bad thing, and in fact I'd also say it was terrible for the balance of what Ashes is supposed to be.
At that point 'soft friction' would be quite largely erased, or put in the favor of those who don't fight back, I think. If you come into a room/area that my group is using to fight mobs or gather materials, and my group leader demands you leave, and you just go 'nah I'll do what I want'...
If the negotiating power is on the 'staunch NonCombatant' side of this equation, I don't think Ashes would work. Not even 'not work for me' or 'not be fun for me'. I think the game's entire design stops working.