My PvX != Your PvX

Basis: I prefer PvE over PvP so, in my mind, I'd like to see more balance between the systems.

Is this a fantasy, yes. I know logically that PvX for Ashes consists of a blend, a mixture if you will, of both elements. Therefore, I think that when some of us say "Ashes isn't really PvX", what we mean is that it isn't what we would think PvX would be (Equal measure of both in my opinion).

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 where some of us like the (in my opinion) PvP heavy version of PvX and I'm sure there are some that prefer a more PvE heavy version of PvX.

I plan to play Ashes all the same, but I had seen this topic floating around and wanted to discuss it, or share my thoughts.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Ace1234

@Dygz

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.

Dygz

Ace1234 wrote: »

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.

Ace1234

@Azherae

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.

Ace1234

@Dygz

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"

Azherae

Ace1234 wrote: »

@Azherae

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'.

Dygz

Ace1234 wrote: »

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.

Ace1234 wrote: »

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.

Ace1234 wrote: »

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.

Dygz

Ace1234 wrote: »

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.

Dygz

Azherae wrote: »

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.

Noaani

Ace1234 wrote: »

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.

Point all those players out to me.

Otr

Noaani wrote: »

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.

You was looking for a parking slot today?

blat

@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?

Dygz

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 will be testing Alpha 2 and the Betas.

Otr

Dygz wrote: »

Goal will be to explore the entire map with the lowest Adventure Level possible and 0 Kills.

You will be our Starship Troopers reporter.

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

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'.

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?

Azherae

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

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'.

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.

blat

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)

Ludullu

blat wrote: »

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.

blat

NiKr wrote: »

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.

Ludullu

blat wrote: »

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.

Dygz

blat wrote: »

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.

Child Item