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.
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.
I think this depends on the context, for the more complex content in Ashes and higher levels of difficulty where you are expected to engage in a variety of play loops to tackle the more emergent challenges, then yes I agree, but that priviledge is afforded through the afforementioned strategic decision to go corrupt for great reward, or by simply opting in to those combatant flagged zones where this type of pvx content will be commonplace. I don't think there has to be "one or the other" types of playing. You can have content for all sorts of player groups as "many games within the game". The existence of these zones doesn't mean there also can't be content where it is okay for pve purists to just kind of so their thing knowing someone won't bother with them since it won't be worth it, but as soon as those pve purists step into the big boi areas then things can change.
So basically im saying "if a pve purist stays on corruption enabled land and is safe 99% of the time thats fine, but as soon as they go to a highly contested boss/area, or the combatant flagged zones, expect some friction and be open to new gameplay approaches if you want to succeed"
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.
I think this depends on the context, for the more complex content in Ashes and higher levels of difficulty where you are expected to engage in a variety of play loops to tackle the more emergent challenges, then yes I agree, but that priviledge is afforded through the afforementioned strategic decision to go corrupt for great reward, or by simply opting in to those combatant flagged zones where this type of pvx content will be commonplace. I don't think there has to be "one or the other" types of playing. You can have content for all sorts of player groups as "many games within the game". The existence of these zones doesn't mean there also can't be content where it is okay for pve purists to just kind of so their thing knowing someone won't bother with them since it won't be worth it, but as soon as those pve purists step into the big boi areas then things can change.
Do you... know a lot of 'PvE purists'?
Or rather, what exactly is it you think that they want to do? I'm having trouble reconciling 'what the PvE purists I know want from games' with what you're saying.
Or rather, what exactly is it you think that they want to do? I'm having trouble reconciling 'what the PvE purists I know want from games' with what you're saying.
No not really, other than the info I can gather from hearing their perspectives on here. Im just talking in theory, based on imagining how someone on the extreme end of the spectrum could be accomodated through potential design solutions, such as Dygz.
Someone who doesn't want to be forced to pvp when they aren't in the mood, basically, for this particular example.
Or rather, what exactly is it you think that they want to do? I'm having trouble reconciling 'what the PvE purists I know want from games' with what you're saying.
No not really, other than the info I can gather from hearing their perspectives on here. Im just talking in theory, based on imagining how someone on the extreme end of the spectrum could be accomodated through potential design solutions, such as Dygz.
Someone who doesn't want to be forced to pvp when they aren't in the mood, basically, for this particular example.
Got it. Well, for the 'general expansion of philosophy' for anyone else...
A PvE player who 'doesn't want to PvP' could just log off. Therefore, in order for this to be an issue, there has to be something in the game that they recognize is 'worth interacting with'.
If such a person chooses to play a game LIKE Ashes, where they want to take some action to change the world, for example, and they recognize that the world's change must contain different people with different objectives, they would have to accept that there is a potential point of conflict to be resolved.
All 'PvE purists' I know, would like a game where those conflicts don't arise to the point where they 'might as well just log off instead of trying to do anything', but where some interesting parts of the game are still available to them.
If something is interesting, there will be a potential for conflict for people who want access to it. This doesn't apply to the primary motivation for taking actions in Ashes that are likely to lead to corrupting you. Even Caravans don't fall into this (i.e. one could argue that the act of running a Caravan unopposed is not, in fact, interesting).
"In any case where Corruption is a very likely outcome, the conflict is most likely going to be 'one person wants to keep some stuff and the other person wants to take it'."
Sometimes that will be literal 'stuff' and sometimes it will be 'the chance to enjoy a specific type of content and be rewarded for the effort'.
Basically, Corruption doesn't work for the PvE purists I know because they want to 'play the game, and then have the playing of the game progress their goals', and the capacity to be ganked without having any noncombat negotiating power is against their wish. Corruption is offering that negotiating power, but it goes both ways as soon as we stop talking about 'stuff in your literal inventory'.
Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
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.
"Most of the time" is also meaningless.
I'm pretty sure players who abhor non-consensual PvP are not conerned that they will be attacked by other players during "most" of any game session.
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.
I am unconvinced by this claim. That may fit your personal PvP playstyle. Sure.
We will see how prevalent PvP is on land, but...
The Open Seas PvP is a deal-breaker for me regardless.
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.
Well - they don't matter to me because this design is somewhere in-between WoW PvP servers and WoW PvP-Optional servers. And I refuse to play on those servers.
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.
It's meaningless because I don't believe your claim that in general PvPers will choose not to initiate PvP because they fear Corruption. I expect many will not care much about Corruption and will be willing to take a Corruption hit more often than many PvEers are comfortable with.
And for me - it doesn't matter because The Open Seas makes Ashes a game I won't truly play.
I disagree that there is "a large amount of content designed around me".
Ashes is designed for gammers who have Steven's playstyle specifcally.
Ashes is not designed for players with my playstyle - especially since I don't particularly like playing on the same servers as PvPers. I would not really enjoy playing on the same servers as Steven or Margaret or much of the Ashes dev team because they are too competetive and too obsessed with "Risk v Reward" for my comfort or enjoyment.
I don't consider Corruption or The Open Seas to be Opt-In. Opt-In is when I can't be attacked by other players until I manually falg for that.
Sieges and Caravans I consider to be Opt-In PvP events.
Or rather, what exactly is it you think that they want to do? I'm having trouble reconciling 'what the PvE purists I know want from games' with what you're saying.
No not really, other than the info I can gather from hearing their perspectives on here. Im just talking in theory, based on imagining how someone on the extreme end of the spectrum could be accomodated through potential design solutions, such as Dygz.
Someone who doesn't want to be forced to pvp when they aren't in the mood, basically, for this particular example.
Give Dygz the power to transform the PvP encounter into an RP encounter, where the fight is role-played with cosmetics, emotes and chat.
I'd like to see the PvPers reactions when they are forced to RP.
I would send Dygs alone against the zerg and see them all engage in singing and dancing contests.
Every in-game sunrise and sunset, the ZoI where Dygz walks should become forced RP area for 20 minutes.
If such a person chooses to play a game LIKE Ashes, where they want to take some action to change the world, for example, and they recognize that the world's change must contain different people with different objectives, they would have to accept that there is a potential point of conflict to be resolved.
All 'PvE purists' I know, would like a game where those conflicts don't arise to the point where they 'might as well just log off instead of trying to do anything', but where some interesting parts of the game are still available to them.
If something is interesting, there will be a potential for conflict for people who want access to it. This doesn't apply to the primary motivation for taking actions in Ashes that are likely to lead to corrupting you. Even Caravans don't fall into this (i.e. one could argue that the act of running a Caravan unopposed is not, in fact, interesting).
"In any case where Corruption is a very likely outcome, the conflict is most likely going to be 'one person wants to keep some stuff and the other person wants to take it'."
Sometimes that will be literal 'stuff' and sometimes it will be 'the chance to enjoy a specific type of content and be rewarded for the effort'.
Basically, Corruption doesn't work for the PvE purists I know because they want to 'play the game, and then have the playing of the game progress their goals', and the capacity to be ganked without having any noncombat negotiating power is against their wish. Corruption is offering that negotiating power, but it goes both ways as soon as we stop talking about 'stuff in your literal inventory'.
To me that just sounds like you are saying that pvp players will go corrupt just for the sake of the open world pvp experience regardless of corruption punishment relating to inventory loss- and also that in order for pve purists to enjoy playing they need to be able to play how they want (playing the game the way they want being the primary goal, with "goals" being related to that play, hense basically a pve purist progression system, basically is how I intepret that.)
Within the context of areas that specifically rely on corruption to support the pve purist experience-
I don't think I understand how corruption doesn't accomodate these aspects. I addressed the forced pvp scenario already, regarding the players who just want to kill pve players for the fun of it, which should be discouraged through the inconvenience, the stat dampening, and small amount of players and time committment to doing so, along with the meta strategies discouraging this through bigger better pvp systems and proficiency in other systems encouraging less aggressive strategies, and the hopefully small percentage of the player base that should want to ignore these things. I also talked about how there needs to be enough content for these players so they can have those goals and progression relating to their preferred experience.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
No not really, other than the info I can gather from hearing their perspectives on here. Im just talking in theory, based on imagining how someone on the extreme end of the spectrum could be accomodated through potential design solutions, such as Dygz.
Someone who doesn't want to be forced to pvp when they aren't in the mood, basically, for this particular example.
I abhor non-consensual PvP.
I am not a PvE purist. I enjoy PvP sometimes.
Sieges and Caravan Battlegrounds are the types of PvP I prefer because those are Opt-In. I can be exploring that area while other players are battling and I can choose to not participate.
Punishing non-consensual/forced PvP with Corruption has the potential to be a viable compromise.
The Open Seas is a deal-breaker for me - and pushes the design over to PvP-centric. IMO.
You misinterpreted it, but it would take really long to explain why, I think.
I entered this conversation to point out one thing.
"For Corruption to not be an unbalanced 'weapon', it also can't be so harsh that a PvE-focused player can't be randomly killed for minimal reasons."
And therefore it follows that any claims that Corruption would also 'protect PvP averse players' or 'result in minimal deaths for those players' is at minimum, 'weird'.
To me, every time I hear anyone say 'There just won't be that much going Red in Ashes, don't worry about it', I hear that they believe that the game's world-change and political negotiations will not work. It will end up as shallow as prior games of the same kind.
I prefer to hear 'There will be a lot of going Red in Ashes, so if you don't like the idea that people will get away with that against you sometimes, here are some strategies you can use'. I'm not saying I've heard that yet (not even from Intrepid, beyond that vacuous 'well you should group up' which I personally think makes no sense).
Other games that have this 'concept' also have strategies you can use which also allow you to experience much of the game. I don't want a game where Corruption is a band-aid to cover up the fact that such strategies don't work or aren't available.
I don't care about the rest, Dygz isn't the target audience for this game. But I personally think Fantmx is, and I know many similar people. Quite a few of those people also don't want a game where the strategy for dealing with random attackers is 'it's ok, the game will hurt them after they kill you'.
I don't consider Corruption or The Open Seas to be Opt-In. Opt-In is when I can't be attacked by other players until I manually falg for that.
Sieges and Caravans I consider to be Opt-In PvP events.
Unless we agree on this point the stars won't align in the discussion. You choose to go to the seas, and choose to engage with contested content where the risk of corruption outweighs the benefits of the content. You choose to stay in areas where corruption keeps you safe 99% of the time, which is 99% of the time's worth of content you could be enjoying.
It's meaningless because I don't believe your claim that in general PvPers will choose not to initiate PvP because they fear Corruption. I expect many will not care much about Corruption and will be willing to take a Corruption hit more often than many PvEers are comfortable with.
And for me
I disagree, im not sure what your reasoning for this is. There are a lot of reasons why pvp players won't be forcing pvp on you due to corruption, and "most of the time" does matter, because you would be "opt-ing in to the times where it won't work", hense the notion about needing to agree on the first point.
it doesn't matter because The Open Seas makes Ashes a game I won't truly play.
I disagree that there is "a large amount of content designed around me".
If you felt comfortable on land then you would feel there is a lot more content available to you, and the open seas would matter less.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I also talked about how there needs to be enough content for these players so they can have those goals and progression relating to their preferred experience.
At this point, though, that is irrelevant - because there are other games that provide the preferred experience without the need to compromise at all with regards to PvP.
More fun to play games designed for my playstyle than play an MMORPG that is the antithesis of my Carebear playstyle.
You misinterpreted it, but it would take really long to explain why, I think.
Okay, my bad.
To me, every time I hear anyone say 'There just won't be that much going Red in Ashes, don't worry about it', I hear that they believe that the game's world-change and political negotiations will not work. It will end up as shallow as prior games of the same kind.
I prefer to hear 'There will be a lot of going Red in Ashes, so if you don't like the idea that people will get away with that against you sometimes, here are some strategies you can use'. I'm not saying I've heard that yet (not even from Intrepid, beyond that vacuous 'well you should group up' which I personally think makes no sense).
Well, I agree, but I see this as for more of an endgame type of experience where going red will be more common and players will "opt-in" to that challenge (such as highly contested content that the world is seeking and fighting for control over), compared to early game where the content isn't worth doing that for, and provides a more secure space for the pve players.
At this point, though, that is irrelevant - because there are other games that provide the preferred experience without the need to compromise at all with regards to PvP.
More fun to play games designed for my playstyle than play an MMORPG that is the antithesis of my Carebear playstyle.
Well, that was adressed in my original post, regarding the idea that if Ashes has a plethora amount of content for you to enjoy that rivals or exeeds other game options, and if Ashes executes better on the design pillars, then there is a reason for you to choose Ashes over another alternarive game, unless "the idea of content existing that is not for me turns me off from the game, regardless of whether I would enjoy a potentially larger quantity and higher quality content in the game that is for me"
You misinterpreted it, but it would take really long to explain why, I think.
Okay, my bad.
To me, every time I hear anyone say 'There just won't be that much going Red in Ashes, don't worry about it', I hear that they believe that the game's world-change and political negotiations will not work. It will end up as shallow as prior games of the same kind.
I prefer to hear 'There will be a lot of going Red in Ashes, so if you don't like the idea that people will get away with that against you sometimes, here are some strategies you can use'. I'm not saying I've heard that yet (not even from Intrepid, beyond that vacuous 'well you should group up' which I personally think makes no sense).
Well, I agree, but I see this as for more of an endgame type of experience where going red will be more common and players will "opt-in" to that challenge (such as highly contested content that the world is seeking and fighting for control over), compared to early game where the content isn't worth doing that for, and provides a more secure space for the pve players.
Ah, that part is my bias then.
I think that would suck, I generally don't like games where you can say 'early game, where the content isn't worth doing X for'.
Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
2
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Unless we agree on this point the stars won't align in the discussion. You choose to go to the seas, and choose to engage with contested content where the risk of corruption outweighs the benefits of the content. You choose to stay in areas where corruption keeps you safe 99% of the time, which is 99% of the time's worth of content you could be enjoying.
We will not align.
For the most part, The Open Seas is the antithesis of my playstyle and I won't play MMORPGs that have that includes that ruleset as the only server type.
I am an Explorer first and foremost, so... large regions of the map without Corruption is a dealebraker for me.
If the choice is don't explore the entire map or auto-consent to PvP if you explore this large region - I will instead choose to not play that game.
im not sure what your reasoning for this is. There are a lot of reasons why pvp players won't be forcing pvp on you due to corruption, and "most of the time" does matter, because you would be "opt-ing in to the times where it won't work", hense the notion about needing to agree on the first point.
"Most of the time" does not matter at all.
I play Hardcore Time: 8+ hours per day. I might choose to do a Siege or defend a Caravan for up to an hour per day. But if I do that and some other player "forces" me to PvP when I'm not in the mood for PvP, I will become enraged. And I don't play games to feel rage. Sure, if it's 5 minutes and we're done, that's fine. If it's 10 or 15 minutes I will be enraged. So... I don't play on servers that include non-consensual PvP.
Doesn't matter that 6.5 hours of an 8-hour games session would be PvP free.
When I'm not in the mood for PvP, some other player should not be able to force me to PvP for more than 5 minutes. And if it is possible... I'm not playing that game. Corruption would need to be a strong enough deterrent to ensure it's highly unlikely.
So.... I am not at all concerned about players attacking me for 7 hours straight during an 8-hour play session.
I'm concerned about players forcing me to PvP for more than 10 minutes out of that 7 hours when I'm not in the mood for PvP.
The Open Seas would not matter less because my primary goal when playing MMOPRGs is to spend hours exploring the enitre map - without being concerned at all about non-consesnual PvP. So... The Open Seas being auto-flag is an automatic deal-breaker.
So, again, it seems we will not agree on your first point.
If you felt comfortable on land then you would feel there is a lot more content available to you, and the open seas would matter less.
I would only feel comfortable on land if it were complete manual flag, like it is in New World.
Punishing people who force me to PvP is a potential compromise if that mechanic is active everywhere.
The Open Seas is a dealbreaker.
I was excited about the Meaningful Conflict Pillar which seems now to be a Jeffrey Bard concept. I am not a fan at all of the obsession with Risk v Reward - which seems to be a Steven's obsession.
And, since I'm non-competitive - I'm also not a fan of the Inventory design which is intended to motivate gamers to contemplate Economic Warfare whenever they leave their Node.
"A lot more content available to me" is a concept you have that I don't truly share.
Rather, overall, Ashes is not designed for my playstyle. It's designed almost exclusively for Steven's playstyle.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Well, that was adressed in my original post, regarding the idea that if Ashes has a plethora amount of content for you to enjoy that rivals or exeeds other game options, and if Ashes executes better on the design pillars, then there is a reason for you to choose Ashes over another alternarive game, unless "the idea of content existing that is not for me turns me off from the game, regardless of whether I would enjoy a potentially larger quantity and higher quality content in the game that is for me"
That's not really a thing, so your original post is moot.
Ashes is a PvP-centric MMORPG and I don't play PvP -centric MMORPGs because that does not comport with my playstyle.
There are plenty of other MMORPGs now that offer similar or alternative solutions to Endgame with a much lesser focus on PvP and Risk v Reward than Ashes. I will be playing those.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I think that would suck, I generally don't like games where you can say 'early game, where the content isn't worth doing X for'.
Exactly.
By design.... Ashes does not have an Endgame.
And adventuring in the elder game is not supposed to feel significantly different from adventuring in the early game.
Same types of challenges - just more complex and higher tier challenges.
In your example it sounds like a corruption enabled area, meaning the goal is to prevent forced pvp from happening in those starting areas
Perhaps the biggest problem with your theory is that this is not the point of corruption.
You could more accurately claim that corruption is a deterrent. It isn't there to stop you from attacking and killing others, it is there to force you to consider if it is worth it.
It's kind of like parking meters. They aren't there to prevent you parking in that location, they are there to provide a basic cost so that if you have an easy alternative, you'd take it.
If people want to attack others at the starting area (and people will want to), nothing is stopping them.
The stupid thing is, since it is the starting area, if they gain too muc corruption, all they need to do is delete the character and start again.
I will if i feel convinced. Im not convinced at this point in time.
Look at what it is you are doubling down on here.
If you want to believe your point that has now been reduced to "players will come to Ashes from other MMORPG's to repeatidly play the first 5 levels of the game", then let me know how that goes for you when the game is launched.
It's kind of like parking meters. They aren't there to prevent you parking in that location, they are there to provide a basic cost so that if you have an easy alternative, you'd take it.
@Dygz are you already 100% sure you won't want to play Ashes (due to open sea rules etc), or waiting to see how the Alpha 2 pans out?
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited March 26
Alpha 2 will have 0 impact on my interest to play Ashes.
I have friends who will be playing so I will hop in primarily to socialize with them.
And I will be doing the Ultimate Carebear playthrough:
Goal will be to explore the entire map with the lowest Adventure Level possible and 0 Kills.
So... I will be ignoring PvP and also not really pursuing any forms of progression.
But, the vast majority of my play time will be devoted to other games.
I think that would suck, I generally don't like games where you can say 'early game, where the content isn't worth doing X for'.
Would your bias apply if instead of "early/late" difference it was simply a "low/high value" one?
As in, there's pretty much always a few locations where no one PKs others because there's no point in it (obviously outside of career PKers who have their own balancing acts to deal with) and then there's locations where "you can truly be attacked at any moment" is a much higher probability, because both the content and the reward is of higher value so you could be killed not only for the spot but also for your loot.
I definitely agree that content of all lvls should have a part of it that's always worth killing for, but I also think that there should be parts that give players absolutely no damn reason to kill others, so the only ones who do PK in those spots are the "evil" PKers, who should be dealt with accordingly (I've laid out my BH suggestions in the past already).
This also brings up your point of "16 PKs a day from your group". Would you be doing those to secure content/loot or was that just an example to prove the point that there'd always be people who can't be stopped by the corruption system?
I think that would suck, I generally don't like games where you can say 'early game, where the content isn't worth doing X for'.
Would you bias apply if instead of "early/late" difference it was simply a "low/high value" one?
As in, there's pretty much always a few locations where no one PKs others because there's no point in it (obviously outside of career PKers who have their own balancing acts to deal with) and then there's locations where "you can truly be attacked at any moment" is a much higher probability, because both the content and the reward is of higher value so you could be killed not only for the spot but also for your loot.
I definitely agree that content of all lvls should have a part of it that's always worth killing for, but I also think that there should be parts that give players absolutely no damn reason to kill others, so the only ones who do PK in those spots are the "evil" PKers, who should be dealt with accordingly (I've laid out my BH suggestions in the past already).
This also brings up your point of "16 PKs a day from your group". Would you be doing those to secure content/loot or was that just an example to prove the point that there'd always be people who can't be stopped by the corruption system?
To secure the spot against people who 'feel entitled to have it but don't want to fight for it and just dare us to go corrupt'.
Fishing rights are serious business (and yes, if you are fishing in 'the spot', if the fishing is balanced anywhere near to fishing from BDO or FF, you're depleting our supply so we will also kill you for it).
I'm fine to an extent with 'spots where it isn't worth the effort/risk to PK', I guess. Not my thing, but I can see how one can design games like that. If it's necessary to give people a break, sure.
People do realise that corruption scales according to the level difference right?
In WoW the whingers always said it was all about the level (1 shotting greys is ridiculous, I agree).. but in Ashes we'll have corruption penalties AND those penalties amplified by level gap, which really should alleviate that problem massively.
So, you realise you can just fight back a lot of the time? Or use some skills to run?
Most pvpers are shit anyway. Drop some cc and move. Have a potion or two ready. And all is well.
(Not in every case obviously but a lot of the time)
So, you realise you can just fight back a lot of the time? Or use some skills to run?
Most pvpers are shit anyway. Drop some cc and move. Have a potion or two ready. And all is well.
You're looking at it from a pvper's pov. PvErs don't want to fight back, because that simply means that they're completely free to be attacked. And above all else, fighting back (or just even being hit) means that they can't do their preferred content.
Lvl difference in PKing is rarely mentioned because PK implies no response from the victim, so majority of conversations just operate under the "lvls equal and/or the attacker might even be weaker than the victim".
Ideally, everyone would just fight back, but unless there are completely no pure pvers in the game (what Dygz believes will happen) - we will have people who don't always fight back.
You're looking at it from a pvper's pov. PvErs don't want to fight back.... means that they can't do their preferred content.
Yeah I'm aware of this (Dygz etc) but is it really that bad? See I think the reverse could be said; that they're seeing it from a PvE perspective.
I almost exclusively play for PvP. I do PvE because every game forces me to (for the gear/gold needed to support my playstyle).
Ok I also enjoy the crafting/economy stuff but it's always with PvP in mind.
I still have to slay some primitive AI dragons more often than I'd choose to, because MMO worlds are rich and varied.
The threat of occasional pvp really doesn't seem that bad. PvEers are generally accommodated extremely well Vs "pure" PvPers.
The threat of occasional pvp really doesn't seem that bad. PvEers are generally accommodated extremely well Vs "pure" PvPers.
Which is exactly why they're used to looking at everything through that lens. Majority of pure pvers simply won't play Ashes, and quite a lot will try it for a month and leave as soon as they realize that they can really be attacked at any time.
Steven knows this, most people on the forum know this, and usually the pvp/pve discussions come back to the forum if there's some newcomers who come yelling "this game will be DOA if pvers are not catered to". And some times it's cases like this thread, where an older member just has a new thought about the topic, which then pulls in anyone who wants to vent about this stuff once again.
This is, like, a hundred's discussion of this topic in just the years that I've been on this forum. I'm sure there were even more of them before my time and will be even more after A2 launches, cause there'll always be some new pve eyes on the game, and some of those eyes will be entitled enough to claim that the game can't survive if pvers aren't treasures and instanced.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Yeah I'm aware of this (Dygz etc) but is it really that bad? See I think the reverse could be said; that they're seeing it from a PvE perspective.
It is not objectively bad.
It’s just a ruleset that does not fit my playstyle.
Of course, I’m seeing it from a PvE perspective.
That’s my point.
Ashes is designed for gamers, like Steven, who enjoy the PvP rulsets found in Lineage II, ArcheAge and EvE.
It’s not just pure PvEers who are not fans of this ruleset, though. There are plenty of MMORPG fans who enjoy PvP sometimes but abhor non-consensual PvP.
Comments
Agreed.
I think this depends on the context, for the more complex content in Ashes and higher levels of difficulty where you are expected to engage in a variety of play loops to tackle the more emergent challenges, then yes I agree, but that priviledge is afforded through the afforementioned strategic decision to go corrupt for great reward, or by simply opting in to those combatant flagged zones where this type of pvx content will be commonplace. I don't think there has to be "one or the other" types of playing. You can have content for all sorts of player groups as "many games within the game". The existence of these zones doesn't mean there also can't be content where it is okay for pve purists to just kind of so their thing knowing someone won't bother with them since it won't be worth it, but as soon as those pve purists step into the big boi areas then things can change.
So basically im saying "if a pve purist stays on corruption enabled land and is safe 99% of the time thats fine, but as soon as they go to a highly contested boss/area, or the combatant flagged zones, expect some friction and be open to new gameplay approaches if you want to succeed"
Do you... know a lot of 'PvE purists'?
Or rather, what exactly is it you think that they want to do? I'm having trouble reconciling 'what the PvE purists I know want from games' with what you're saying.
No not really, other than the info I can gather from hearing their perspectives on here. Im just talking in theory, based on imagining how someone on the extreme end of the spectrum could be accomodated through potential design solutions, such as Dygz.
Someone who doesn't want to be forced to pvp when they aren't in the mood, basically, for this particular example.
Got it. Well, for the 'general expansion of philosophy' for anyone else...
A PvE player who 'doesn't want to PvP' could just log off. Therefore, in order for this to be an issue, there has to be something in the game that they recognize is 'worth interacting with'.
All 'PvE purists' I know, would like a game where those conflicts don't arise to the point where they 'might as well just log off instead of trying to do anything', but where some interesting parts of the game are still available to them.
If something is interesting, there will be a potential for conflict for people who want access to it. This doesn't apply to the primary motivation for taking actions in Ashes that are likely to lead to corrupting you. Even Caravans don't fall into this (i.e. one could argue that the act of running a Caravan unopposed is not, in fact, interesting).
"In any case where Corruption is a very likely outcome, the conflict is most likely going to be 'one person wants to keep some stuff and the other person wants to take it'."
Sometimes that will be literal 'stuff' and sometimes it will be 'the chance to enjoy a specific type of content and be rewarded for the effort'.
Basically, Corruption doesn't work for the PvE purists I know because they want to 'play the game, and then have the playing of the game progress their goals', and the capacity to be ganked without having any noncombat negotiating power is against their wish. Corruption is offering that negotiating power, but it goes both ways as soon as we stop talking about 'stuff in your literal inventory'.
I'm pretty sure players who abhor non-consensual PvP are not conerned that they will be attacked by other players during "most" of any game session.
I am unconvinced by this claim. That may fit your personal PvP playstyle. Sure.
We will see how prevalent PvP is on land, but...
The Open Seas PvP is a deal-breaker for me regardless.
PvX is mostly a hype term to try to entice players who normally play on PvE-Only servers to try playing with PvPers.
Well - they don't matter to me because this design is somewhere in-between WoW PvP servers and WoW PvP-Optional servers. And I refuse to play on those servers.
It's meaningless because I don't believe your claim that in general PvPers will choose not to initiate PvP because they fear Corruption. I expect many will not care much about Corruption and will be willing to take a Corruption hit more often than many PvEers are comfortable with.
And for me - it doesn't matter because The Open Seas makes Ashes a game I won't truly play.
I disagree that there is "a large amount of content designed around me".
Ashes is designed for gammers who have Steven's playstyle specifcally.
Ashes is not designed for players with my playstyle - especially since I don't particularly like playing on the same servers as PvPers. I would not really enjoy playing on the same servers as Steven or Margaret or much of the Ashes dev team because they are too competetive and too obsessed with "Risk v Reward" for my comfort or enjoyment.
I don't consider Corruption or The Open Seas to be Opt-In. Opt-In is when I can't be attacked by other players until I manually falg for that.
Sieges and Caravans I consider to be Opt-In PvP events.
Give Dygz the power to transform the PvP encounter into an RP encounter, where the fight is role-played with cosmetics, emotes and chat.
I'd like to see the PvPers reactions when they are forced to RP.
I would send Dygs alone against the zerg and see them all engage in singing and dancing contests.
Every in-game sunrise and sunset, the ZoI where Dygz walks should become forced RP area for 20 minutes.
To me that just sounds like you are saying that pvp players will go corrupt just for the sake of the open world pvp experience regardless of corruption punishment relating to inventory loss- and also that in order for pve purists to enjoy playing they need to be able to play how they want (playing the game the way they want being the primary goal, with "goals" being related to that play, hense basically a pve purist progression system, basically is how I intepret that.)
Within the context of areas that specifically rely on corruption to support the pve purist experience-
I don't think I understand how corruption doesn't accomodate these aspects. I addressed the forced pvp scenario already, regarding the players who just want to kill pve players for the fun of it, which should be discouraged through the inconvenience, the stat dampening, and small amount of players and time committment to doing so, along with the meta strategies discouraging this through bigger better pvp systems and proficiency in other systems encouraging less aggressive strategies, and the hopefully small percentage of the player base that should want to ignore these things. I also talked about how there needs to be enough content for these players so they can have those goals and progression relating to their preferred experience.
I am not a PvE purist. I enjoy PvP sometimes.
Sieges and Caravan Battlegrounds are the types of PvP I prefer because those are Opt-In. I can be exploring that area while other players are battling and I can choose to not participate.
Punishing non-consensual/forced PvP with Corruption has the potential to be a viable compromise.
The Open Seas is a deal-breaker for me - and pushes the design over to PvP-centric. IMO.
I entered this conversation to point out one thing.
"For Corruption to not be an unbalanced 'weapon', it also can't be so harsh that a PvE-focused player can't be randomly killed for minimal reasons."
And therefore it follows that any claims that Corruption would also 'protect PvP averse players' or 'result in minimal deaths for those players' is at minimum, 'weird'.
To me, every time I hear anyone say 'There just won't be that much going Red in Ashes, don't worry about it', I hear that they believe that the game's world-change and political negotiations will not work. It will end up as shallow as prior games of the same kind.
I prefer to hear 'There will be a lot of going Red in Ashes, so if you don't like the idea that people will get away with that against you sometimes, here are some strategies you can use'. I'm not saying I've heard that yet (not even from Intrepid, beyond that vacuous 'well you should group up' which I personally think makes no sense).
Other games that have this 'concept' also have strategies you can use which also allow you to experience much of the game. I don't want a game where Corruption is a band-aid to cover up the fact that such strategies don't work or aren't available.
I don't care about the rest, Dygz isn't the target audience for this game. But I personally think Fantmx is, and I know many similar people. Quite a few of those people also don't want a game where the strategy for dealing with random attackers is 'it's ok, the game will hurt them after they kill you'.
Unless we agree on this point the stars won't align in the discussion. You choose to go to the seas, and choose to engage with contested content where the risk of corruption outweighs the benefits of the content. You choose to stay in areas where corruption keeps you safe 99% of the time, which is 99% of the time's worth of content you could be enjoying.
I disagree, im not sure what your reasoning for this is. There are a lot of reasons why pvp players won't be forcing pvp on you due to corruption, and "most of the time" does matter, because you would be "opt-ing in to the times where it won't work", hense the notion about needing to agree on the first point.
If you felt comfortable on land then you would feel there is a lot more content available to you, and the open seas would matter less.
More fun to play games designed for my playstyle than play an MMORPG that is the antithesis of my Carebear playstyle.
Okay, my bad.
Well, I agree, but I see this as for more of an endgame type of experience where going red will be more common and players will "opt-in" to that challenge (such as highly contested content that the world is seeking and fighting for control over), compared to early game where the content isn't worth doing that for, and provides a more secure space for the pve players.
Well, that was adressed in my original post, regarding the idea that if Ashes has a plethora amount of content for you to enjoy that rivals or exeeds other game options, and if Ashes executes better on the design pillars, then there is a reason for you to choose Ashes over another alternarive game, unless "the idea of content existing that is not for me turns me off from the game, regardless of whether I would enjoy a potentially larger quantity and higher quality content in the game that is for me"
Ah, that part is my bias then.
I think that would suck, I generally don't like games where you can say 'early game, where the content isn't worth doing X for'.
For the most part, The Open Seas is the antithesis of my playstyle and I won't play MMORPGs that have that includes that ruleset as the only server type.
I am an Explorer first and foremost, so... large regions of the map without Corruption is a dealebraker for me.
If the choice is don't explore the entire map or auto-consent to PvP if you explore this large region - I will instead choose to not play that game.
"Most of the time" does not matter at all.
I play Hardcore Time: 8+ hours per day. I might choose to do a Siege or defend a Caravan for up to an hour per day. But if I do that and some other player "forces" me to PvP when I'm not in the mood for PvP, I will become enraged. And I don't play games to feel rage. Sure, if it's 5 minutes and we're done, that's fine. If it's 10 or 15 minutes I will be enraged. So... I don't play on servers that include non-consensual PvP.
Doesn't matter that 6.5 hours of an 8-hour games session would be PvP free.
When I'm not in the mood for PvP, some other player should not be able to force me to PvP for more than 5 minutes. And if it is possible... I'm not playing that game. Corruption would need to be a strong enough deterrent to ensure it's highly unlikely.
So.... I am not at all concerned about players attacking me for 7 hours straight during an 8-hour play session.
I'm concerned about players forcing me to PvP for more than 10 minutes out of that 7 hours when I'm not in the mood for PvP.
The Open Seas would not matter less because my primary goal when playing MMOPRGs is to spend hours exploring the enitre map - without being concerned at all about non-consesnual PvP. So... The Open Seas being auto-flag is an automatic deal-breaker.
So, again, it seems we will not agree on your first point.
I would only feel comfortable on land if it were complete manual flag, like it is in New World.
Punishing people who force me to PvP is a potential compromise if that mechanic is active everywhere.
The Open Seas is a dealbreaker.
I was excited about the Meaningful Conflict Pillar which seems now to be a Jeffrey Bard concept. I am not a fan at all of the obsession with Risk v Reward - which seems to be a Steven's obsession.
And, since I'm non-competitive - I'm also not a fan of the Inventory design which is intended to motivate gamers to contemplate Economic Warfare whenever they leave their Node.
"A lot more content available to me" is a concept you have that I don't truly share.
Rather, overall, Ashes is not designed for my playstyle. It's designed almost exclusively for Steven's playstyle.
Ashes is a PvP-centric MMORPG and I don't play PvP -centric MMORPGs because that does not comport with my playstyle.
There are plenty of other MMORPGs now that offer similar or alternative solutions to Endgame with a much lesser focus on PvP and Risk v Reward than Ashes. I will be playing those.
By design.... Ashes does not have an Endgame.
And adventuring in the elder game is not supposed to feel significantly different from adventuring in the early game.
Same types of challenges - just more complex and higher tier challenges.
You could more accurately claim that corruption is a deterrent. It isn't there to stop you from attacking and killing others, it is there to force you to consider if it is worth it.
It's kind of like parking meters. They aren't there to prevent you parking in that location, they are there to provide a basic cost so that if you have an easy alternative, you'd take it.
If people want to attack others at the starting area (and people will want to), nothing is stopping them.
The stupid thing is, since it is the starting area, if they gain too muc corruption, all they need to do is delete the character and start again. Look at what it is you are doubling down on here.
If you want to believe your point that has now been reduced to "players will come to Ashes from other MMORPG's to repeatidly play the first 5 levels of the game", then let me know how that goes for you when the game is launched.
Point all those players out to me.
You was looking for a parking slot today?
I have friends who will be playing so I will hop in primarily to socialize with them.
And I will be doing the Ultimate Carebear playthrough:
Goal will be to explore the entire map with the lowest Adventure Level possible and 0 Kills.
So... I will be ignoring PvP and also not really pursuing any forms of progression.
But, the vast majority of my play time will be devoted to other games.
I will be testing Alpha 2 and the Betas.
As in, there's pretty much always a few locations where no one PKs others because there's no point in it (obviously outside of career PKers who have their own balancing acts to deal with) and then there's locations where "you can truly be attacked at any moment" is a much higher probability, because both the content and the reward is of higher value so you could be killed not only for the spot but also for your loot.
I definitely agree that content of all lvls should have a part of it that's always worth killing for, but I also think that there should be parts that give players absolutely no damn reason to kill others, so the only ones who do PK in those spots are the "evil" PKers, who should be dealt with accordingly (I've laid out my BH suggestions in the past already).
This also brings up your point of "16 PKs a day from your group". Would you be doing those to secure content/loot or was that just an example to prove the point that there'd always be people who can't be stopped by the corruption system?
To secure the spot against people who 'feel entitled to have it but don't want to fight for it and just dare us to go corrupt'.
Fishing rights are serious business (and yes, if you are fishing in 'the spot', if the fishing is balanced anywhere near to fishing from BDO or FF, you're depleting our supply so we will also kill you for it).
I'm fine to an extent with 'spots where it isn't worth the effort/risk to PK', I guess. Not my thing, but I can see how one can design games like that. If it's necessary to give people a break, sure.
In WoW the whingers always said it was all about the level (1 shotting greys is ridiculous, I agree).. but in Ashes we'll have corruption penalties AND those penalties amplified by level gap, which really should alleviate that problem massively.
So, you realise you can just fight back a lot of the time? Or use some skills to run?
Most pvpers are shit anyway. Drop some cc and move. Have a potion or two ready. And all is well.
(Not in every case obviously but a lot of the time)
Lvl difference in PKing is rarely mentioned because PK implies no response from the victim, so majority of conversations just operate under the "lvls equal and/or the attacker might even be weaker than the victim".
Ideally, everyone would just fight back, but unless there are completely no pure pvers in the game (what Dygz believes will happen) - we will have people who don't always fight back.
Yeah I'm aware of this (Dygz etc) but is it really that bad? See I think the reverse could be said; that they're seeing it from a PvE perspective.
I almost exclusively play for PvP. I do PvE because every game forces me to (for the gear/gold needed to support my playstyle).
Ok I also enjoy the crafting/economy stuff but it's always with PvP in mind.
I still have to slay some primitive AI dragons more often than I'd choose to, because MMO worlds are rich and varied.
The threat of occasional pvp really doesn't seem that bad. PvEers are generally accommodated extremely well Vs "pure" PvPers.
Steven knows this, most people on the forum know this, and usually the pvp/pve discussions come back to the forum if there's some newcomers who come yelling "this game will be DOA if pvers are not catered to". And some times it's cases like this thread, where an older member just has a new thought about the topic, which then pulls in anyone who wants to vent about this stuff once again.
This is, like, a hundred's discussion of this topic in just the years that I've been on this forum. I'm sure there were even more of them before my time and will be even more after A2 launches, cause there'll always be some new pve eyes on the game, and some of those eyes will be entitled enough to claim that the game can't survive if pvers aren't treasures and instanced.
It’s just a ruleset that does not fit my playstyle.
Of course, I’m seeing it from a PvE perspective.
That’s my point.
Ashes is designed for gamers, like Steven, who enjoy the PvP rulsets found in Lineage II, ArcheAge and EvE.
It’s not just pure PvEers who are not fans of this ruleset, though. There are plenty of MMORPG fans who enjoy PvP sometimes but abhor non-consensual PvP.