Anyway, I'm seriously asking. I can do it here, I can make a Splinter Thread, I can 'rein in my arrogance and perceive that people don't really care', I can 'accept that throwing thought-starters at people can't generally change their ingrained perceptions'...
If I can help almost anyone by summarizing my years of 'studying' I'm all for it, but I'd rather do it when I think it will actually help.
I normally read your take on things, if your looking for "at least 1 person who will try to understand my pov".
So PvE players who can sometime PvP, will have an environment where they PvP not to "dominate others" as you said, but with a better, more meaningful reason, to protect their node (and parent nodes if they like them).
They will become PvX players.
This is flawed reasoning relative to basic MMO sociology.
Believing in this is why 'PvP' MMOs usually fail no matter how clean they think their designs are. 'PvP' and 'PvX' MMOs, as a concept, are so deeply flawed at the fundamental level once they try to go past like, Regnum Online tier, that they tear themselves apart.
Survival games do it correctly. MMOs by their nature almost cannot. Please do not let Intrepid continue rolling along in their 'faith that people just need to give it a chance'. The flaws run deep.
Their objective of creating an environment with "risk" appeals to me.
These principles were described long time ago.
Now in the last moment after selling access to Alpha 2 is closed, makes no sense to try to change the design.
While players who played L2 have some advantage in predicting how corruption will work, in AoC this corruption can be balanced differently and I think there will be enough safety for players which gather resources which can be processed in level 3 and 4 nodes.
Only when you collect resources which must go to freeholds and level 5-6 nodes, the PvP aspect will have a greater weight and corruption will protect less.
But even for such rare resources, the game has the possibility to maintain a comfortable balance for PvEX players through divine nodes:
Divine node benefits
Divine nodes at Metropolis (stage 6) may unlock a procedurally built "mega catacomb" dungeon beneath it that connects to its divine vassal nodes. These may house unique bosses with unique drop tables.[9]
I don't know what the plan is with that mega catacomb but seems that the end game for the PvX players which typically would chose a PvE server is there, in those nodes.
That's why Steven wants to prevent players to control which nodes level up. I think we will see the Divine nodes leveling up faster.
Steven admitted that they cannot balance without Alpha 2.
They need to collect data and players who got the key will provide it.
Before the game is properly released, everyone will see if we have fun or not.
So PvE players who can sometime PvP, will have an environment where they PvP not to "dominate others" as you said, but with a better, more meaningful reason, to protect their node (and parent nodes if they like them).
They will become PvX players.
This is flawed reasoning relative to basic MMO sociology.
Believing in this is why 'PvP' MMOs usually fail no matter how clean they think their designs are. 'PvP' and 'PvX' MMOs, as a concept, are so deeply flawed at the fundamental level once they try to go past like, Regnum Online tier, that they tear themselves apart.
Survival games do it correctly. MMOs by their nature almost cannot. Please do not let Intrepid continue rolling along in their 'faith that people just need to give it a chance'. The flaws run deep.
Their objective of creating an environment with "risk" appeals to me.
These principles were described long time ago.
Now in the last moment after selling access to Alpha 2 is closed, makes no sense to try to change the design.
While players who played L2 have some advantage in predicting how corruption will work, in AoC this corruption can be balanced differently and I think there will be enough safety for players which gather resources which can be processed in level 3 and 4 nodes.
Only when you collect resources which must go to freeholds and level 5-6 nodes, the PvP aspect will have a greater weight and corruption will protect less.
But even for such rare resources, the game has the possibility to maintain a comfortable balance for PvEX players through divine nodes:
Divine node benefits
Divine nodes at Metropolis (stage 6) may unlock a procedurally built "mega catacomb" dungeon beneath it that connects to its divine vassal nodes. These may house unique bosses with unique drop tables.[9]
I don't know what the plan is with that mega catacomb but seems that the end game for the PvX players which typically would chose a PvE server is there, in those nodes.
That's why Steven wants to prevent players to control which nodes level up. I think we will see the Divine nodes leveling up faster.
Steven admitted that they cannot balance without Alpha 2.
They need to collect data and players who got the key will provide it.
Before the game is properly released, everyone will see if we have fun or not.
Which is all great for you, all I'm telling you is 'PvE players have a valid, understandable reason why this form of risk is not fun nor reasonable gameplay'. All I ever see from people who support Ashes is 'they need to give it a chance, they might be safer than they think'.
Safety is not the problem.
Anyways I made a Splinter thread, so I guess I'm done dragging out chibibree's.
Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Data shows that players who can grind through quests and collect achievements many years long, will do that. They are loyal because once they started they cannot stop.
Because Leveling via quests is not a grind.
Grinding is when you Level via the minimal xp that trickles in from killing individual mobs or gathering resources without any association to quests.
That playstyle is loyal because questing is the foundation of RPGs. And questing should be providing intriguing lore and narrative, in addition to bulk xp (and decent treasure).
AoC tries to be different, by emphasizing collaboration: even if you do not join a guild you will still be part of a node.
So PvE players who can sometime PvP, will have an environment where they PvP not to "dominate others" as you said, but with a better, more meaningful reason, to protect their node (and parent nodes if they like them).
They will become PvX players.
Ashes tries to put an end to Endgame by introducing new content as different Nodes rise and fall - and as new regimes govern Castles and Metros.
Ashes has a primary goal of frequently having massive 250 v 250 PvP combat battles - especially during Sieges.
"Collaboration" is an inherent by-product of 250 v 250 PvP combat battles, sure.
Also, yes…
When the 2nd design pillar was Meaningful Conflict via Sieges and Caravan runs and building and destroying Nodes… the emphasis was more on inherent collaboration.
That changed significantly after Jeffrey Butler left and Meaningful Conflict was replaced with Steven’s obsession with Risk v Reward. Where “Risk” actually means PvP combat.
Which is not necessarily about collaboration.
PvE players are players who typically play MMORPGs on PvE-Only servers - including players like me, who sometimes enjoys PvP.
I'd say the gamers you describe above are PvPers who also enjoy PvE. At best, they are PvXers.
But, PvX really just means that the PvPers who play Ashes will have to be OK with doing some PvE.
So... no. Very few PvEers will "become" PvXers.
There will be plenty of Lineage II, ArcheAge and EvE fans playing who have more of a focus on PvE to the degree that those who play those games consider them to be PvEers. Yes.
Data shows that players who can grind through quests and collect achievements many years long, will do that. They are loyal because once they started they cannot stop.
Because Leveling via quests is not a grind.
Grinding is when you Level via the minimal xp that trickles in from killing individual mobs or gathering resources without any association to quests.
That playstyle is loyal because questing is the foundation of RPGs. And questing should be providing intriguing lore and narrative, in addition to bulk xp (and decent treasure).
I disagree.
When I fight NPCs, I can enjoy the fight and I stay there as long as I want and I leave when I feel I need a change.
If somebody comes and tells me that actually there is a quest in that area and I should take it, I'll get less fun out of this because I'll get the feeling that Steven and the game is pushing me to do that and then it tells me when to stop. Or to not stop when I want to actually leave.
Story could be interesting but depends who writes it and how is presented.
I would prefer to be able to revisit all dialogues and notes at a later moment. Stopping to read is really not possible in MMOs when your group is racing through the dungeon.
AoC tries to be different, by emphasizing collaboration: even if you do not join a guild you will still be part of a node.
So PvE players who can sometime PvP, will have an environment where they PvP not to "dominate others" as you said, but with a better, more meaningful reason, to protect their node (and parent nodes if they like them).
They will become PvX players.
Ashes tries to put an end to Endgame by introducing new content as different Nodes rise and fall - and as new regimes govern Castles and Metros.
Ashes has a primary goal of frequently having massive 250 v 250 PvP combat battles - especially during Sieges.
"Collaboration" is an inherent by-product of 250 v 250 PvP combat battles, sure.
Also, yes…
When the 2nd design pillar was Meaningful Conflict via Sieges and Caravan runs and building and destroying Nodes… the emphasis was more on inherent collaboration.
That changed significantly after Jeffrey Butler left and Meaningful Conflict was replaced with Steven’s obsession with Risk v Reward. Where “Risk” actually means PvP combat.
Which is not necessarily about collaboration.
I am not sure what impact castle sieges will have. Could be that those will be optional activities which you do if you are interested. Node sieges however are far more important because you have stuff stored in those nodes or prices and trade routes change. And PvE content changes too.
I don't see how things changed after Jeffrey left.
The caravans and node sieges were present from the very beginning. The corruption too, and we don't know how will be balanced.
The only change might be the deep ocean. Is that what you mean? If yes, why is an important change for you?
Maybe even if the danger is high, game content could be low, without quests and stories.
The ocean being bigger, it is even safer for those who try to cross from one continent to the other, assuming ship speed is decent. Maybe cargo ships are slow, like the caravans but caravans are already outside the corruption system.
Before the deep ocean change there was nothing (just a small sea). Now there is something but not for PvE. So you lost nothing but you maybe gained more safety on land. You should see it as a positive change.
PvE players are players who typically play MMORPGs on PvE-Only servers - including players like me, who sometimes enjoys PvP.
I'd say the gamers you describe above are PvPers who also enjoy PvE. At best, they are PvXers.
But, PvX really just means that the PvPers who play Ashes will have to be OK with doing some PvE.
So... no. Very few PvEers will "become" PvXers.
There will be plenty of Lineage II, ArcheAge and EvE fans playing who have more of a focus on PvE to the degree that those who play those games consider them to be PvEers. Yes.
In what category do you place GW2 players?
That has no PvP or PvE servers. And has both PvP and PvE content easily accessible.
If some players do 5 days PvE and 2 days PvP, they would chose PvE servers on the MMO servers you play.
If they do 5 days PvP and 2 days PvE, they would chose PvP servers.
These players when they join AoC will have their preferred nodes and play style but will be able to do both PvP and PvE. And PvP in AoC might offer a superior experience due to the real impact onto the world.
I don't really place GW2 players in any category unless they play MMORPGs.
And then I would place them in a category based on which kind of servers they prefer to play on.
Why would GW2 players suddenly start playing Ashes when they haven't previously had any interest in playing MMORPGs?
GW2 has a lot of story and you can level up and configure your characters.
Why GW2 is not an RPG? And what it is then?
AoC seems similar but will have the classes which bring the holy trinity.
You mean the possibility to Role Play?
I don't remember seeing any role playing in gw2. They all do the PvE and PvP, the jumping puzzles and achievements.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited March 27
(I was distracted prepping equipment for UPS shipment... I read GTA at first. When I walked out of the elevator to drop the packages off in the mailroom, I thought - "Wait! I think that said GW2? Not GTA?")
LMFAO
"Lower level content/characters will have a system outright preventing PvP."
Didn't quite say that, I said 99% of the time corruption should prevent non-consensual pvp, so of course there will be a sub-set of more extreme players who get killed one time by a player who made a bad decision to go red, and the extreme player might quit the game.
No, that isn't what you said at all.
It may be what you meant to say, but it isn't what you said.
You said PvP won't be a factor at low levels.
However, even if we just assume you meant corruption would prevent non-consensual PvP 99% of the time at low levels, you are also still incorrect.
If your vision of a game where players from other MMO's come to play the first 5 levels turns out to be true (this is what you have said you think could happen), then those lower 5 levels would be a prime target for players to make alts and go off and PvP them. Corruption on a character you intend to delete in a few minutes really doesn't matter, so corruption is a non-factor.
Even without this low level haven you speak of, this is what people will do. The lower levels, at least on some servers, will be a bloodbath at launch - because corruption means nothing if you have nothing invested in the character.
I also feel it worth pointing out that the biggest issue people have with open PvP in MMORPG's is not being killed, it is being interrupted.
Corruption does literally nothing at all to prevent this - and so corruption does nothing at all to prevent the issue most players have with open PvP.
I made it very clear several times that this is not what I was saying,
Sure - but it is what you are saying requires.
You have said that you believe PvP wouldn't be a factor at low levels. You gave no reason for believing this, you just stated that is what you believe.
You also said people not wanting to requirement of understanding the details of PvP could come from other games to Ashes to run content that doesn't involve that understanding - which we have already established as you believing to be the case at low levels (you have made no claim that you think there will be PvP free aspects of the game anywhere else, just low levels, for some reason).
So, the logical requirement for the above to happen is that players find more interesting, enjoyable content in Ashes low level content than in the entierity of the MMORPG they are playing.
Thus, if what you say is to happen, that list of things I said earlier all need to be true. You don't need to claim to believe any one of them specifically, you just need to maintain your claim that players could come to Ashes to run content that doesn't require them to understand the depths of PvP, and that it is on low level content where that understanding is not required.
Those two points are the basis for your current discussion with me, and again, in order to be true, that list above needs to all be true.
Now, you could backtrack by saying that you think Ashes will have content at all levels that doesn't require PvP, and will be of a quantity and quality enough to encourage people to leave their existing MMO and come here - but I don't even think you would attempt that argument.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
GW2 has a lot of story and you can level up and configure your characters.
Why GW2 is not an RPG? And what it is then?
AoC seems similar but will have the classes which bring the holy trinity.
You mean the possibility to Role Play?
I don't remember seeing any role playing in gw2. They all do the PvE and PvP, the jumping puzzles and achievements.
What's the flagging system like for GW2?
Like - there is only one PvP ruleset for Neverwinter Online - but that is a PvE game with instanced PvP - so I would probably expect those players to be mostly PvEers. I like the PvP ruleset in NWO because it's not OW PvP and I can choose when I PvP rather than other players choosing when I PvP.
Same for New World - there is only one PvP ruleset/Server Type - but it's manual flag. And most people would consider the gameplay primarily designed for PvEers, I think. I, of course, have fun playing NW because I can choose when to manual flag - and I have only done that to complete a BattlePass achievement.
I haven't played GW2. And it seems as though GW2 PvP rarely comes up in discussions about PvP vs PvE.
It may be what you meant to say, but it isn't what you said.
Well, i've made that point in several convos between different people, so I lost track of who I said what to at this point. But either way if I didn't say that then thats my bad, but yes thats what I meant.
You also said people not wanting to requirement of understanding the details of PvP could come from other games to Ashes to run content that doesn't involve that understanding - which we have already established as you believing to be the case at low levels (you have made no claim that you think there will be PvP free aspects of the game anywhere else, just low levels, for some reason).
When I said lower levels i basically meant anything that's not end game content of which is highly contested and strategically worth going corrupt for (for player accounts that are interested in having any sort of succesful long-term progression), you came up with the whole "first 5 levels" thing, which only really matters because, assuming "past level 5, progression starts to matter" in this context, there will be a segment of content/progression that corruption should become feared if it is there is no strategic benefit to going corrupt, hense the 99% deternence of non-consensual pvp within said content. We also assume that even though progression will begin to matter, said content can still be completed using focused playstyles, even if overlapping knowledge is necessary, because things havn't yet reach the point of the more emergent/overlapping gameplay becoming as commonplace due to the stratrgic benefits of going corrupt not being present yet within that content range.
If your vision of a game where players from other MMO's come to play the first 5 levels turns out to be true (this is what you have said you think could happen), then those lower 5 levels would be a prime target for players to make alts and go off and PvP them. Corruption on a character you intend to delete in a few minutes really doesn't matter, so corruption is a non-factor.
Even without this low level haven you speak of, this is what people will do. The lower levels, at least on some servers, will be a bloodbath at launch - because corruption means nothing if you have nothing invested in the character.
I also feel it worth pointing out that the biggest issue people have with open PvP in MMORPG's is not being killed, it is being interrupted.
Corruption does literally nothing at all to prevent this - and so corruption does nothing at all to prevent the issue most players have with open PvP.
I hear you and its a good point you are trying to make, but I still disagree. That still falls under the umbrella of my previous points. To directly address your point here (as an appetizer for the main dish), those players will recieve stat dampening and other inconvenience measures just to stop the types of players who dont give a flip about corruption. (Main dish-) Yes, if that was everyone that would be a major problem I agree, but if the optimal strategy for the game as a whole (or for them to progress in their desired play loop) is to not go corrupt until later in the game, then most players wil play that way, its just a "truthism" about gamers and how they optimize things. There will be a sub-set of people who ignore this, but between those aspects mentioned above and other inconvenience measures such as meaningful travel, there should not be a significant enough amount of corrupt players even early game for this to have a major impact on the average pve player experience imo (assuming testing/iteration is succesful). This will hold to be even more true the later in the progression path players get due to the higher investment, which in turn also means it really isn't even a big deal to be on the receiving end either at lower levels (for some players at least) but thats more of a side thought than a main/relevant point to the discussion so you can probably ignore that.
You can say "well pvpers don't care about optimizing they just want to pvp" but thats a non point because what they (I would say a vast majority) want to do is optimize for pvp, so if there are late game pvp systems then that will incentize them to optimize their progression path towards that goal, meaning avoiding corruption at earlier stages of progression if its a sub-optimal strategy.
Now, you could backtrack by saying that you think Ashes will have content at all levels that doesn't require PvP, and will be of a quantity and quality enough to encourage people to leave their existing MMO and come here - but I don't even think you would attempt that argument.
You are correct, pvp will be required at some point, mainly through flagged areas or contested areas where strategic benefits outweigh corruption penalties. So my argument is two-fold:
1. Those late game pvp loops will incentivize pvpers to optimize towards that goal, thus avoiding corruption if it is a sub-optimal way of reaching that goal
2. There will be meaningful progression paths that don't require overlapping gameplay (but potentially overlapping knowledge at some point), that create a time sink and incentive to "not throw your account away just to endlessly gank players at this level of progression"
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited March 28
I don't think Corruption would be much of a deterrent if I weren't a Carebear.
My main character in EQ reached Max Level only wearing starting rags.
She raised her Gear Score with her primary weapon and via Jewelry Crafted by one of my alts.
Also - if I were going to gank other players - I would do so on my alt(s); not on my main.
So stat dampening and gear degradation would be mostly irrelevant. Until the alt gets to a point where it's basically just a decomposing Zombie.
I dunno where you get the idea that PvPers, in general, want to optimize their stats for "late game PvP loops".
(Ashes doesn't really have that because we're always doing the Node progression loops the moment we leave Character Creation.
Gankers don't have to throw away their account. It's easy enough to create throw-away alts designated to gain Corruption.
Also - if I were going to gank other players - I would do so on my alt(s); not on my main.
So stat dampening and gear degradation would be mostly irrelevant. Until the alt gets to a point where it's basically just a decomposing Zombie.
I agree but this kind of hinges on my point about typical pvp behavior. Most pvpers arent going to waste their time ganking people on alt accounts. Yeah it will be funny and fun for a handful of people but between a small amount of players doing it and the inconvenience factors associated with this is shouldn't be an impactful problem for "my perception of a normal pve player" other than extreme "no non-consensual pvp! No exceptions!" type pve purists.
I dunno where you get the idea that PvPers, in general, want to optimize their stats for "late game PvP loops".
(Ashes doesn't really have that because we're always doing the Node progression loops the moment we leave Character Creation.
What I mean by late game pvp loops is where you need to be further along in your progression path to be highly competitive in, such as combatant flagged "high reward" areas or highly contested resource locations where its beneficial to go corrupt. Yes, you can do these things at any point but its sub-optimal, hense optimized strategy being to avoid corruption to reach this level of progression and compete/participate.
The need to optimize is just a "truthism" about gamers in general. Its not an unpopular opinion that I made up its very common in game design.
And, I know im not "representative of all pvpers" but I am on the extreme end of the spectrum of highly competitive pvper, and I have maybe 1% interest in randomly ganking low level players if it hurts my ability to progress optimally toward late game pvp loops (or if I can just hop into the arena), so if im not really interested then who is, other than the random people who continuously log in at level 1 every night just to gank other level 1 players, and not to actually play the game in any meaningful way, that make up like a minute amount of the playerbase.
Gankers don't have to throw away their account. It's easy enough to create throw-away alts designated to gain Corruption.
Yes I understand, but the point is that most normal pvpers won't feel the need to do this, and the ones that do plan on it, will only do so at very early stages of progression on alts instead of their main character. And for these players it will only be a handful, and it it will be inconvenient. And if it is "enough of a problem" then the account/alt situation is likely to change post-alpha 2, I would venture to say.
I hear you and its a good point you are trying to make, but I still disagree.
You are over-estimating the effect of corruption.
Corruption exists to stop people from killing others without reason.
It is not meant as a barrier if there is reason.
That reason could be as simple as "I saw you harvesting flowers for the last hour, and I want some of them".
To some people, "I know that if I kill you, you'll get upset" is enough of a reason. Corruption will make this group smaller, but it won't eliminate even this group. Corruption will have no impact at all on people willing to attack other players for a reason even as simple as taking some flowers.
This is Intrepids stated reason for corruption existing. This is their stated goal. They want people to attack each other to take resources and mobs - it is essential to the games design that these people be attacked at times.
The notion that PvP can be avoided in an MMORPG like Ashes is, frankly, naive.
I agree but this kind of hinges on my point about typical pvp behavior. Most pvpers arent going to waste their time ganking people on alt accounts. Yeah it will be funny and fun for a handful of people but between a small amount of players doing it and the inconvenience factors associated with this is shouldn't be an impactful problem for "my perception of a normal pve player" other than extreme "no non-consensual pvp! No exceptions!" type pve purists.
Typical PvPer behavior is irrelevant. PvEer aren't necessarily concerned about what typical PvPers do or what most PvPers will do.
What I mean by late game pvp loops is where you need to be further along in your progression path to be highly competitive in, such as combatant flagged "high reward" areas or highly contested resource locations where its beneficial to go corrupt. Yes, you can do these things at any point but its sub-optimal, hense optimized strategy being to avoid corruption to reach this level of progression and compete/participate.
In Ashes, this isn't truly a thing.
Expect Ashes to have plenty of gankers who are content with being "sub-optimal" when they are in the mood to gank. Especially with their alts.
And, I know im not "representative of all pvpers" but I am on the extreme end of the spectrum of highly competitive pvper, and I have maybe 1% interest in randomly ganking low level players if it hurts my ability to progress optimally toward late game pvp loops (or if I can just hop into the arena), so if im not really interested then who is, other than the random people who continuously log in at level 1 every night just to gank other level 1 players, and not to actually play the game in any meaningful way, that make up like a minute amount of the playerbase.
I mean... this discussion is certainly not about what you will do nor what most PvPers playing Ashes will do.
But, yeah, if you are on the extreme end of the highly competitive PvPer, that's going to make you biased about your claim that "the need to optimize is just a 'truthism' about gamers in general."
Also, I would probaby say while that is likely more true for gamers - it's not necessarily true for players.
Yes I understand, but the point is that most normal pvpers won't feel the need to do this, and the ones that do plan on it, will only do so at very early stages of progression on alts instead of their main character. And for these players it will only be a handful, and it it will be inconvenient. And if it is "enough of a problem" then the account/alt situation is likely to change post-alpha 2, I would venture to say.
What most normal PvPers will do is irrelevant. (Though I don't think you have a valid perspective on what the average PvPer will do. You may have a valid perspective on what highly competitive PvPers will do. Sure.)
The concern is about the PvPers who are the asshats that drive PvEers to play MMORPGs on PvE-Only servers. (And RPers on RP servers) Or to not be interested in playing games like Lineage II, ArcheAge and EvE.
Lineage II fans often state that separate servers will split the playerbase, but the playerbase is already split.
Traditionally, I began gameplay on PvP-Optional servers because I like to flag for PvP sometimes. But I have always been driven to leave the PvP-Optional servers to play on PvE-Only servers because there are always too many asshat PvPers who have no respect for PvEers.
And that really only takes a handful of asshats out of hundreds or thousands out of the vast majority of PvPers.
Although, I also don't really want to play on the same servers as competitive PvPers even when they aren't attacking me... During last year's Extra Life Livestream I was listening to the Intrepid Devs trashing talking while they were playing an FPS - and I was all, "Oh. Yeah. I hate that shit. I don't want to play on the same servers they're on."
Typical PvPer behavior is irrelevant. PvEer aren't necessarily concerned about what typical PvPers do or what most PvPers will do.
If the discussion is about pve players being concerned about getting ganked pvpers and corruption's effectiveness as a deterrent, then im not sure how pvp behavior doesn't concern them. Pvp behavior is relevant to the pve experience in this context. Obviously not "all pvers" will be accomodated "at all times" by relying on pvp behavior. You, for example, are done with the idea of playing Ashes seriously just at the mere thought of a potential forced pvp scenario and not being able to explore the whole map. But this argument isn't really aimed at your player archetype, but would accomate "less extreme" pve players.
In Ashes, this isn't truly a thing.
Expect Ashes to have plenty of gankers who are content with being "sub-optimal" when they are in the mood to gank. Especially with their alts.
I strongly diagree with this because I strongly disagree with this your take on player optimization and on pvp behavior being relevant to the pve experience.
I disagree.
But, again... the concern isn't really about what the general PvPer will do.
I disagree, because I have good reason to think that player optimization will be an important factor in the gameplay.
I mean... this discussion is certainly not about what you will do nor what most PvPers playing Ashes will do.
But, yeah, if you are on the extreme end of the highly competitive PvPer, that's going to make you biased about your claim that "the need to optimize is just a 'truthism' about gamers in general."
Also, I would probaby say while that is likely more true for gamers - it's not necessarily true for players.
There was a very clear logical progression of reasoning that lead to the discussion of pvp behavior being relevant to the main topic.
No, my playstyle is not "making me biased" because the idea of player optimization is not my own opinion derived from my own experiences, even though my behavior does happen to align with that idea. But ironically, if any bias was relevant it would be mine by default of me being a pvper and that being a key aspect of this subject and point being made. My perspective would hold more weight than yours for this particular point, if we are at the intersection of "my word vs. yours" for this point in the discussion. I think the reality is that you are an outlier and that is making you biased against my claim, because you are not a typical player (and neither am I but again, im not the one that came up with that idea.)
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
If the discussion is about pve players being concerned about getting ganked pvpers and corruption's effectiveness as a deterrent, then im not sure how pvp behavior doesn't concern them. Pvp behavior is relevant to the pve experience in this context. Obviouslt not "all pvers" will be accomodated "at all times" by relying on pvp behavior. You, for example, are done with the idea of playing Ashes seriously just at the mere thought of a potential forced pvp scenario and not being able to explore the whole map. But this argument isn't really aimed at your player archetype, but would accomate "less extreme" pve players.
As always, the concern is about non-consensual PvP."
Not having the freedom to choose when you cannot be attacked by other players - and instead allowing other players to decide that we have to engage in PvP combat even when we are not in the mood for PvP combat.
Also, you should strive to pay cloaser attention to the details of what I wrote:
I didn't say, "PvEers aren't necessarily concerned about PvPer behavior or what PvPers do."
I said, "PvEer aren't necessarily concerned about what typical PvPers do or what most PvPers will do."
I won't play Ashes of Creation because I don't play MMORPGs that include non-consensual PvP. Because I abhor non-consensual PvP.
You can expect that the PvEers who typically play MMORPGs on PvE-Only servers because they don't like non-consensual PvP are generally not going to accept "well, just don't go to the Open Seas then."
As I've stated previously... I was on the EQNext Forums discussing parameters that each camp might find acceptable to play on the same servers. And that kind of suggestion by PvPers - "Well just don't go to that area of the map..." is precisely the kind of suggestion that woul get PvEers temporarily banned as they expressed their outrage.
That is a PvPer solution that PvEers will generally not accept. It's not just a me thing.
It's just easy for me to provide an example of why that is problematic by sharing my Bartle Score.
I strongly diagree with this because I strongly disagree with this your take on player optimization and on pvp behavior being relevant to the pve experience.
Yeah. You strongly disagree because you are at the extreme of highly competitive PvPers.
I disagree, because I have good reason to think that player optimization will be an important factor in the gameplay.
You disagree because you have an extremely biased perspective because you are at the extreme end of highly competitive PvPers.
Player optimization will be an important factor for a great deal of the gamers playing Ashes.
AND will not be particularly important for a significant portion of the playerbase - including a signifcant portion of the PvPer playerbase.
There was a very clear logical progression of reasoning that lead to the discussion of pvp behavior being relevant to the main topic.
Um.The flaw in this logic is that no one claimed that PvPer behavior isn't relevant. PvPer behavior is relevant. Typical PvPer isn't relevant
What I said is that what is typical PvP behavior is irrelevant and what most PvPers will do is irrelevant because that's not what PvEers who abhor non-consensual PvP are concerned about. Rather they are concerned about the minority of PvPers who love to gank and who are not obsessed with being optimal 24/7.
No, it is not "making me biased" because its not grounded in my own behavior, even though my behavior does happen to align with that idea. But ironically, if any biased was relevant it would be mine by default of me being a pvper and that being a key aspect of this subject and point being made. My perspective would hold more weight than yours for this particular point, if we are at the intersection of "my word vs. yours" for this point in the discussion.
You are very clearly biased. And it's not by you being a PvPer as far as I can tell.
It's by being at the extreme end of the spectrum of highly competitive PvPer.
I dunno what you mean by having more weight than mine because you are a PvPer.
I'm sharing with you not only my own perspective on the topic, but the perspectives of other PvEers who have been discussing this topic for 10+ years.
And then... at the end of the day... we see who actually ends up playing Ashes of Creation.
My response to that is the same as to dygz' comment right above yours
The post in question doesn't address anything I am talking about.
You think people will only go corrupt in areas in which it makes sense - this tells me you have never played an MMORPG with open world PvP.
Truth is, players will go corrupt and attack just for entertainment. Not just a few people - most people. Sure, people will have differing points at which they would do this, but everyone has a point at which the entertainment of their action is worth more than the potential loss they may (or may not) face by going corrupt.
Yes, players generally try to optimize things, but different people optimize for different goals. Some people go for maximum profit, some go for maximum power, but most people go for maximum entertainment.
Also, you should strive to pay cloaser attention to the details of what I wrote:
I didn't say, "PvEers aren't necessarily concerned about PvPer behavior or what PvPers do."
I said, "PvEer aren't necessarily concerned about what typical PvPers do or what most PvPers will do."
Fair enough, I picked up on that and addressed that point though, after I already typed the other stuff caused by misreading.
As I've stated previously... I was on the EQNext Forums discussing parameters that each camp might find acceptable to play on the same servers. And that kind of suggestion by PvPers - "Well just don't go to that area of the map..." is precisely the kind of suggestion that woul get PvEers temporarily banned as they expressed their outrage.
That is a PvPer solution that PvEers will generally not accept. It's not just a me thing.
It's just easy for me to provide an example of why that is problematic by sharing my Bartle Score.
Fair point, but im not banking on that sample. I am holding off judgement on this until alpha 2.
You are very clearly biased. And it's not by you being a PvPer as fasr as I can tell.
It's by being at the extreme end of the spectrum of highly competitive PvPer.
I dunno what you mean by having more weight than mine because you are a PvPer.
I'm sharing with you not only my own perspective on the topic, but the perspectives of other PvEers who have been discussing this topic for 10+ years.
And then... at the end of the day... we see who actually ends up playing Ashes of Creation.
Thats assuming you are correct in your assessment of the typical player. Thats kind of a small sample size so we will have to wait and see who is right after alpha 2.
And then... at the end of the day... we see who actually ends up playing Ashes of Creation.
Agreed, we shall see.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Thats assuming you are correct in your assessment of the typical player. Thats kind of a small sample size so we will have to wait and see who is right after alpha 2.
Again... it's not really about the typical player.
The concern is primarily with a minority subset that has a significant negative impact.
Again, keep in mind there is a reason that the Lineage II, ArcheAge and EvE devs have chosen to place a lesser focus on PvP in their current games.
The post in question doesn't address anything I am talking about.
Yes it did, I am beating a dead horse because you are missing the point.
You think people will only go corrupt in areas in which it makes sense - this tells me you have never played an MMORPG with open world PvP.
I never said "only" I said a vast majority, between the concept of "chasing optimization" and "consensual pvp outlets" this will mitigate the amount of players who are even interested and willing to deal with the inconvenience of sacrificing alts just to gank some noobs, down to a manageable enough number as to not make a noticable impact on your average pve player. The idea of "average pve player" is important here, because no this will not include "no non-consual pvp, no exceptions!" types of pvers, but will accomodate more lenient pve players who can handle a forced pvp interaction once in a blue moon from some level 1 scrub who has no life. I said that my perception of this type of pve player could be off, but I am leaving that to alpha 2 to decide, not some dudes on the forums telling me I am wrong.
Truth is, players will go corrupt and attack just for entertainment. Not just a few people - most people. Sure, people will have differing points at which they would do this, but everyone has a point at which the entertainment of their action is worth more than the potential loss they may (or may not) face by going corrupt.
Yeah I addressed this.
Yes, players generally try to optimize things, but different people optimize for different goals. Some people go for maximum profit, some go for maximum power, but most people go for maximum entertainment.
Yup, addressed this.
Corruption isn't going to prevent unwanted PvP.
It will mitigate it to a highly significant degree, else I will admit that I was wrong, post-alpha 2
This is some of the rudest, most dickish behavior one can display on a forum.
At the very least (still rude, but less so), if you feel you have addressed a point one poster made to you in a post you directed to another poster (either via quotes or @ ing them), then you should quote the part of the first posters post you feel you have addressed, and then quote the part of your post to the second poster that you feel has addressed that point.
I actually wasn't trying to be rude, and generally don't go out of my way to be, just as future rule of thumb. I just figured you would put that point into the context I provided and didn't feel it was necessary to repeat the same thing over again. Here ill redo it.
The post in question doesn't address anything I am talking about.
Yes it did, I am beating a dead horse because you are missing the point.
You think people will only go corrupt in areas in which it makes sense - this tells me you have never played an MMORPG with open world PvP.
I never said "only" I said a vast majority, between the concept of "chasing optimization for later pvp loops" and also through "consensual pvp outlets" this will mitigate the amount of players who are even interested and willing to deal with the inconvenience of sacrificing alts just to gank some noobs, down to a manageable enough number as to not make a noticable impact on your average pve player. The idea of "average pve player" is important here, because no this will not include "no non-consual pvp, no exceptions!" types of pvers, but will accomodate more lenient pve players who can handle a forced pvp interaction once in a blue moon from some level 1 scrub who has no life. I said that my perception of this type of pve player could be off, but I am leaving that to alpha 2 to decide, not some dudes on the forums telling me I am wrong.
Truth is, players will go corrupt and attack just for entertainment. Not just a few people - most people. Sure, people will have differing points at which they would do this, but everyone has a point at which the entertainment of their action is worth more than the potential loss they may (or may not) face by going corrupt.
Yeah I addressed this, through my point of this being able to occur, but being heavily mitigated down to a minute sub-set of the player base, and with this only having a (in my perception) generally unimpactful effect on "the average pver" experience. This again is subject to what is an "acceptable amount of non-consensual pvp" from a pve player perspective, which is up for debate until alpha-2 testing, which imo the ability to mitigate non-consensual pvp 99% of the time would be sufficient to draw in a good amount of pvers to the game, even if someone like Dygz would not be one of those players.
Yes, players generally try to optimize things, but different people optimize for different goals. Some people go for maximum profit, some go for maximum power, but most people go for maximum entertainment.
Yup, addressed this- through my point that "someone optimizing for ganking specifically" will be few and far between, due to the overall uniteresting implications of this for most pvpers who will be seeking progresion paths towards endgame pvp loops, or arena pvp, and thus avoiding corruption penalties, which will mitigate these types of "ganker only" players down to only a small handful of the player population, which would be further mitigated through the sheer boredom and inconvenience of using disposable alt characters with no meaningful/fun progression aspects, in order to gank other low level players who have nothing to lose. I further used the example of myself being a hyper competitive pvper on the extreme end of the pvp spectrum, who has like a whopping 1% interest in ganking low level players in this way, so if im not interested that should be a good indicator on how small of a group of people this will be in relative terms (at least in a way that will be impactful enough on "an avwrage pver experience", which again is up for debate, but im not changing my mind on that until I see some alpha 2 data)
Corruption isn't going to prevent unwanted PvP.
It will mitigate it to a highly significant degree, else I will admit that I was wrong, post-alpha 2
GW2 has a lot of story and you can level up and configure your characters.
Why GW2 is not an RPG? And what it is then?
AoC seems similar but will have the classes which bring the holy trinity.
You mean the possibility to Role Play?
I don't remember seeing any role playing in gw2. They all do the PvE and PvP, the jumping puzzles and achievements.
What's the flagging system like for GW2?
Like - there is only one PvP ruleset for Neverwinter Online - but that is a PvE game with instanced PvP - so I would probably expect those players to be mostly PvEers. I like the PvP ruleset in NWO because it's not OW PvP and I can choose when I PvP rather than other players choosing when I PvP.
Same for New World - there is only one PvP ruleset/Server Type - but it's manual flag. And most people would consider the gameplay primarily designed for PvEers, I think. I, of course, have fun playing NW because I can choose when to manual flag - and I have only done that to complete a BattlePass achievement.
I haven't played GW2. And it seems as though GW2 PvP rarely comes up in discussions about PvP vs PvE.
Yes, the PvP is separated by PvE. There are however jumping puzzles which are located in the PvP area and PvE-ers will enter to get the achievements for solving them. The risk of being attacked while doing those puzzles is possible but nobody does that. Would be like griefing them for fun.
I know players who play GW2 mostly for the PvP experience and I met them in owPvP mmos too.
And I know PvE players who would have a problem with the concept that they can be attacked and their inventory looted even though they PvP sometime.
I think when players do PvP often enough in GW2 and they get bored of both PvP and PvE, they will try AoC.
You said yourself that you seen the corruption as an acceptable solution and only when the deep ocean was added, it was a deal breaker.
For many GW2 players, the corruption will be acceptable too and the deep ocean is just like the PvP area where they enter as often as they want.
But all depends how the corruption is balanced and what the world sees in Alpha 2.
Yeah I addressed this, through my point of this being able to occur, but being heavily mitigated down to a minute sub-set of the player base, and with this only having a (in my perception) generally unimpactful effect on "the average pver" experience. This again is subject to what is an "acceptable amount of non-consensual pvp" from a pve player perspective, which is up for debate until alpha-2 testing, which imo the ability to mitigate non-consensual pvp 99% of the time would be sufficient to draw in a good amount of pvers to the game, even if someone like Dygz would not be one of those players.
That response doesn't address what I said at all.
Not even a little bit.
Look at the game that is closest to Ashes of anything on the market today - Archeage.
At launch, Archeage had entire alliances of guilds (literally thousands of players) more interested in pissing other people off than in playing the game themselves.
Months after launch, there was an entire guild that spent all day (24 hours) every day literally not moving on a bridge. They gained nothing from it other than the entertainment of pissing off other people, and kept it up for months.
Your entire premise here is based on the notion that everyone wants to progress at all times. You are forgetting the fact that this is your perspective, not everyones perspective. In fact, I wouldn't even say it is the most popular perspective - if you asked most MMO players if they would rather spend 4 hours progressing or 4 hours having fun, most would take the second option.
Also, as a note for you, alpha isn't going to be able to test out how players react in game to different situations.
If there is one thing Intrepid learned during alpha 1, it is that players do not play a test like they would play the live game. Tests turn everyone in to murderhobos. As such, you can use alpha and beta testing to make sure the corruption system works, but you can't use it to see how players will react to that same corruption system.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited March 28
Sure. I think PvPers in GW2 will enjoy Ashes.
I have a feeling, from what you just wrote, that most of the PvEers in GW2 will play other games besides Ashes - where the PvP and obsession with Risk v Reward is less intense.
I think, for the most part, gamers in The Open Seas will not be giving GW2 PvEers a free pass from PvP.
The Open Seas will most likely be like the PvP free-for-all on the seas in ArcheAge, rather than like any of the PvP in GW2.
if you asked most MMO players if they would rather spend 4 hours progressing or 4 hours having fun, most would take the second option
I think thats the part you are missing, imo, "the fun" for a lot of these types of players will be better at endgame pvp loops, arenas, etc., rather than some low level ganking. I think the idea of that, plus the inconvenience and lack of payoff (in terms of amount of rage inflicted, through low investment of recipient) for playing in this manner will turn these kinds of players off from ganking at low levels (most of the time). Im not saying im 100% right or anything, im just saying that is how I think things will play out. Yes there will be "people who just want to piss people off" but I think more of those people, for that very reason, will opt for more meaningful content to play in that manner, compared to the people that opt to gank at low levels, for the most part. Alpha 2 results will either confirm or reject my hypothesis.
You are forgetting that fact that this is your perspective, not everyones perspective.
Im doing the exact opposite, and trying to see things from perspectives other than my own, I look at things from a design perspective and how different types of players can be accomodated, not just myself.
Also, as a note for you, alpha isn't going to be able to test out how players react in game to different situations.
If there is one thing Intrepid learned during alpha 1, it is that players do not play a test like they would play the live game. As such, you can use alpha and beta testing to make sure the corruption system works, but you can't use it to see how players will react to that same corruption system.
Of course, nothing is fullproof. It will be insightful though. Fun is fun, and some players will make their decision on whether the game is for them during this time regardless of it being a testing environment, and those attrition rates are data for Intrepid.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Yup, addressed this- through my point that "someone optimizing for ganking specifically" will be few and far between, due to the overall uniteresting implications of this for most pvpers who will be seeking progresion paths towards endgame pvp loops, or arena pvp, and thus avoiding corruption penalties, which will mitigate these types of "ganker only" players down to only a small handful of the player population, which would be further mitigated through the sheer boredom and inconvenience of using disposable alt characters with no meaningful/fun progression aspects, in order to gank other low level players who have nothing to lose.
That is pure fantasy.
I dunno why you are projecting your bordom with alts on other gamers.
Ganking is not fun for you. OK.
I further used the example of myself being a hyper competitive pvper on the extreme end of the pvp spectrum, who has like a whopping 1% interest in ganking low level players in this way, so if im not interested that should be a good indicator on how small of a group of people this will be in relative terms (at least in a way that will be impactful enough on "an avwrage pver experience", which again is up for debate, but im not changing my mind on that until I see some alpha 2 data)
It's actually the opposite. I think everyone agrees that the hyper competitive PvPers are not the ones who will be ganking. They will be focused on staying optimized. But that is also a minority subset of PvPers.
Gankers tend not to be competitive. Rather, they tend to be opportunists.
It will mitigate it to a highly significant degree, else I will admit that I was wrong, post-alpha 2
That's the hope.
But largely made moot with the addition of auto-consent PvP on the Open Seas.
Not just for me... but for other PvEers who have been following the development for several years.
We will have to see what the final numbers are after release.
Comments
Lmao
I normally read your take on things, if your looking for "at least 1 person who will try to understand my pov".
Their objective of creating an environment with "risk" appeals to me.
These principles were described long time ago.
Now in the last moment after selling access to Alpha 2 is closed, makes no sense to try to change the design.
While players who played L2 have some advantage in predicting how corruption will work, in AoC this corruption can be balanced differently and I think there will be enough safety for players which gather resources which can be processed in level 3 and 4 nodes.
Only when you collect resources which must go to freeholds and level 5-6 nodes, the PvP aspect will have a greater weight and corruption will protect less.
But even for such rare resources, the game has the possibility to maintain a comfortable balance for PvEX players through divine nodes:
Divine node benefits
Divine nodes at Metropolis (stage 6) may unlock a procedurally built "mega catacomb" dungeon beneath it that connects to its divine vassal nodes. These may house unique bosses with unique drop tables.[9]
I don't know what the plan is with that mega catacomb but seems that the end game for the PvX players which typically would chose a PvE server is there, in those nodes.
That's why Steven wants to prevent players to control which nodes level up. I think we will see the Divine nodes leveling up faster.
Steven admitted that they cannot balance without Alpha 2.
They need to collect data and players who got the key will provide it.
Before the game is properly released, everyone will see if we have fun or not.
Which is all great for you, all I'm telling you is 'PvE players have a valid, understandable reason why this form of risk is not fun nor reasonable gameplay'. All I ever see from people who support Ashes is 'they need to give it a chance, they might be safer than they think'.
Safety is not the problem.
Anyways I made a Splinter thread, so I guess I'm done dragging out chibibree's.
Grinding is when you Level via the minimal xp that trickles in from killing individual mobs or gathering resources without any association to quests.
That playstyle is loyal because questing is the foundation of RPGs. And questing should be providing intriguing lore and narrative, in addition to bulk xp (and decent treasure).
Ashes tries to put an end to Endgame by introducing new content as different Nodes rise and fall - and as new regimes govern Castles and Metros.
Ashes has a primary goal of frequently having massive 250 v 250 PvP combat battles - especially during Sieges.
"Collaboration" is an inherent by-product of 250 v 250 PvP combat battles, sure.
Also, yes…
When the 2nd design pillar was Meaningful Conflict via Sieges and Caravan runs and building and destroying Nodes… the emphasis was more on inherent collaboration.
That changed significantly after Jeffrey Butler left and Meaningful Conflict was replaced with Steven’s obsession with Risk v Reward. Where “Risk” actually means PvP combat.
Which is not necessarily about collaboration.
PvE players are players who typically play MMORPGs on PvE-Only servers - including players like me, who sometimes enjoys PvP.
I'd say the gamers you describe above are PvPers who also enjoy PvE. At best, they are PvXers.
But, PvX really just means that the PvPers who play Ashes will have to be OK with doing some PvE.
So... no. Very few PvEers will "become" PvXers.
There will be plenty of Lineage II, ArcheAge and EvE fans playing who have more of a focus on PvE to the degree that those who play those games consider them to be PvEers. Yes.
You can think whatever you want. It's a free world.
We shall see what actually happens.
When I fight NPCs, I can enjoy the fight and I stay there as long as I want and I leave when I feel I need a change.
If somebody comes and tells me that actually there is a quest in that area and I should take it, I'll get less fun out of this because I'll get the feeling that Steven and the game is pushing me to do that and then it tells me when to stop. Or to not stop when I want to actually leave.
Story could be interesting but depends who writes it and how is presented.
I would prefer to be able to revisit all dialogues and notes at a later moment. Stopping to read is really not possible in MMOs when your group is racing through the dungeon.
I am not sure what impact castle sieges will have. Could be that those will be optional activities which you do if you are interested. Node sieges however are far more important because you have stuff stored in those nodes or prices and trade routes change. And PvE content changes too.
I don't see how things changed after Jeffrey left.
The caravans and node sieges were present from the very beginning. The corruption too, and we don't know how will be balanced.
The only change might be the deep ocean. Is that what you mean? If yes, why is an important change for you?
Maybe even if the danger is high, game content could be low, without quests and stories.
The ocean being bigger, it is even safer for those who try to cross from one continent to the other, assuming ship speed is decent. Maybe cargo ships are slow, like the caravans but caravans are already outside the corruption system.
Before the deep ocean change there was nothing (just a small sea). Now there is something but not for PvE. So you lost nothing but you maybe gained more safety on land. You should see it as a positive change.
In what category do you place GW2 players?
That has no PvP or PvE servers. And has both PvP and PvE content easily accessible.
If some players do 5 days PvE and 2 days PvP, they would chose PvE servers on the MMO servers you play.
If they do 5 days PvP and 2 days PvE, they would chose PvP servers.
These players when they join AoC will have their preferred nodes and play style but will be able to do both PvP and PvE. And PvP in AoC might offer a superior experience due to the real impact onto the world.
Balancing starts in 6 months.
I think your input will be valuable.
I don't really place GW2 players in any category. Guild Wars sounds like it’s inherently a PvP game.
What’s the siginifcant difference between GW2 and Lineage II.
GW2 has a lot of story and you can level up and configure your characters.
Why GW2 is not an RPG? And what it is then?
AoC seems similar but will have the classes which bring the holy trinity.
You mean the possibility to Role Play?
I don't remember seeing any role playing in gw2. They all do the PvE and PvP, the jumping puzzles and achievements.
LMFAO
It may be what you meant to say, but it isn't what you said.
You said PvP won't be a factor at low levels.
However, even if we just assume you meant corruption would prevent non-consensual PvP 99% of the time at low levels, you are also still incorrect.
If your vision of a game where players from other MMO's come to play the first 5 levels turns out to be true (this is what you have said you think could happen), then those lower 5 levels would be a prime target for players to make alts and go off and PvP them. Corruption on a character you intend to delete in a few minutes really doesn't matter, so corruption is a non-factor.
Even without this low level haven you speak of, this is what people will do. The lower levels, at least on some servers, will be a bloodbath at launch - because corruption means nothing if you have nothing invested in the character.
I also feel it worth pointing out that the biggest issue people have with open PvP in MMORPG's is not being killed, it is being interrupted.
Corruption does literally nothing at all to prevent this - and so corruption does nothing at all to prevent the issue most players have with open PvP. Sure - but it is what you are saying requires.
You have said that you believe PvP wouldn't be a factor at low levels. You gave no reason for believing this, you just stated that is what you believe.
You also said people not wanting to requirement of understanding the details of PvP could come from other games to Ashes to run content that doesn't involve that understanding - which we have already established as you believing to be the case at low levels (you have made no claim that you think there will be PvP free aspects of the game anywhere else, just low levels, for some reason).
So, the logical requirement for the above to happen is that players find more interesting, enjoyable content in Ashes low level content than in the entierity of the MMORPG they are playing.
Thus, if what you say is to happen, that list of things I said earlier all need to be true. You don't need to claim to believe any one of them specifically, you just need to maintain your claim that players could come to Ashes to run content that doesn't require them to understand the depths of PvP, and that it is on low level content where that understanding is not required.
Those two points are the basis for your current discussion with me, and again, in order to be true, that list above needs to all be true.
Now, you could backtrack by saying that you think Ashes will have content at all levels that doesn't require PvP, and will be of a quantity and quality enough to encourage people to leave their existing MMO and come here - but I don't even think you would attempt that argument.
Like - there is only one PvP ruleset for Neverwinter Online - but that is a PvE game with instanced PvP - so I would probably expect those players to be mostly PvEers. I like the PvP ruleset in NWO because it's not OW PvP and I can choose when I PvP rather than other players choosing when I PvP.
Same for New World - there is only one PvP ruleset/Server Type - but it's manual flag. And most people would consider the gameplay primarily designed for PvEers, I think. I, of course, have fun playing NW because I can choose when to manual flag - and I have only done that to complete a BattlePass achievement.
I haven't played GW2. And it seems as though GW2 PvP rarely comes up in discussions about PvP vs PvE.
Well, i've made that point in several convos between different people, so I lost track of who I said what to at this point. But either way if I didn't say that then thats my bad, but yes thats what I meant.
When I said lower levels i basically meant anything that's not end game content of which is highly contested and strategically worth going corrupt for (for player accounts that are interested in having any sort of succesful long-term progression), you came up with the whole "first 5 levels" thing, which only really matters because, assuming "past level 5, progression starts to matter" in this context, there will be a segment of content/progression that corruption should become feared if it is there is no strategic benefit to going corrupt, hense the 99% deternence of non-consensual pvp within said content. We also assume that even though progression will begin to matter, said content can still be completed using focused playstyles, even if overlapping knowledge is necessary, because things havn't yet reach the point of the more emergent/overlapping gameplay becoming as commonplace due to the stratrgic benefits of going corrupt not being present yet within that content range.
I hear you and its a good point you are trying to make, but I still disagree. That still falls under the umbrella of my previous points. To directly address your point here (as an appetizer for the main dish), those players will recieve stat dampening and other inconvenience measures just to stop the types of players who dont give a flip about corruption. (Main dish-) Yes, if that was everyone that would be a major problem I agree, but if the optimal strategy for the game as a whole (or for them to progress in their desired play loop) is to not go corrupt until later in the game, then most players wil play that way, its just a "truthism" about gamers and how they optimize things. There will be a sub-set of people who ignore this, but between those aspects mentioned above and other inconvenience measures such as meaningful travel, there should not be a significant enough amount of corrupt players even early game for this to have a major impact on the average pve player experience imo (assuming testing/iteration is succesful). This will hold to be even more true the later in the progression path players get due to the higher investment, which in turn also means it really isn't even a big deal to be on the receiving end either at lower levels (for some players at least) but thats more of a side thought than a main/relevant point to the discussion so you can probably ignore that.
You can say "well pvpers don't care about optimizing they just want to pvp" but thats a non point because what they (I would say a vast majority) want to do is optimize for pvp, so if there are late game pvp systems then that will incentize them to optimize their progression path towards that goal, meaning avoiding corruption at earlier stages of progression if its a sub-optimal strategy.
You are correct, pvp will be required at some point, mainly through flagged areas or contested areas where strategic benefits outweigh corruption penalties. So my argument is two-fold:
1. Those late game pvp loops will incentivize pvpers to optimize towards that goal, thus avoiding corruption if it is a sub-optimal way of reaching that goal
2. There will be meaningful progression paths that don't require overlapping gameplay (but potentially overlapping knowledge at some point), that create a time sink and incentive to "not throw your account away just to endlessly gank players at this level of progression"
My main character in EQ reached Max Level only wearing starting rags.
She raised her Gear Score with her primary weapon and via Jewelry Crafted by one of my alts.
Also - if I were going to gank other players - I would do so on my alt(s); not on my main.
So stat dampening and gear degradation would be mostly irrelevant. Until the alt gets to a point where it's basically just a decomposing Zombie.
I dunno where you get the idea that PvPers, in general, want to optimize their stats for "late game PvP loops".
(Ashes doesn't really have that because we're always doing the Node progression loops the moment we leave Character Creation.
Gankers don't have to throw away their account. It's easy enough to create throw-away alts designated to gain Corruption.
I agree but this kind of hinges on my point about typical pvp behavior. Most pvpers arent going to waste their time ganking people on alt accounts. Yeah it will be funny and fun for a handful of people but between a small amount of players doing it and the inconvenience factors associated with this is shouldn't be an impactful problem for "my perception of a normal pve player" other than extreme "no non-consensual pvp! No exceptions!" type pve purists.
What I mean by late game pvp loops is where you need to be further along in your progression path to be highly competitive in, such as combatant flagged "high reward" areas or highly contested resource locations where its beneficial to go corrupt. Yes, you can do these things at any point but its sub-optimal, hense optimized strategy being to avoid corruption to reach this level of progression and compete/participate.
The need to optimize is just a "truthism" about gamers in general. Its not an unpopular opinion that I made up its very common in game design.
And, I know im not "representative of all pvpers" but I am on the extreme end of the spectrum of highly competitive pvper, and I have maybe 1% interest in randomly ganking low level players if it hurts my ability to progress optimally toward late game pvp loops (or if I can just hop into the arena), so if im not really interested then who is, other than the random people who continuously log in at level 1 every night just to gank other level 1 players, and not to actually play the game in any meaningful way, that make up like a minute amount of the playerbase.
Yes I understand, but the point is that most normal pvpers won't feel the need to do this, and the ones that do plan on it, will only do so at very early stages of progression on alts instead of their main character. And for these players it will only be a handful, and it it will be inconvenient. And if it is "enough of a problem" then the account/alt situation is likely to change post-alpha 2, I would venture to say.
Corruption exists to stop people from killing others without reason.
It is not meant as a barrier if there is reason.
That reason could be as simple as "I saw you harvesting flowers for the last hour, and I want some of them".
To some people, "I know that if I kill you, you'll get upset" is enough of a reason. Corruption will make this group smaller, but it won't eliminate even this group. Corruption will have no impact at all on people willing to attack other players for a reason even as simple as taking some flowers.
This is Intrepids stated reason for corruption existing. This is their stated goal. They want people to attack each other to take resources and mobs - it is essential to the games design that these people be attacked at times.
The notion that PvP can be avoided in an MMORPG like Ashes is, frankly, naive.
Plenty of willing pvpers + plenty of incentive = a motivated Verran police force
My response to that is the same as to dygz' comment right above yours
In Ashes, this isn't truly a thing.
Expect Ashes to have plenty of gankers who are content with being "sub-optimal" when they are in the mood to gank. Especially with their alts.
I disagree.
But, again... the concern isn't really about what the general PvPer will do.
I mean... this discussion is certainly not about what you will do nor what most PvPers playing Ashes will do.
But, yeah, if you are on the extreme end of the highly competitive PvPer, that's going to make you biased about your claim that "the need to optimize is just a 'truthism' about gamers in general."
Also, I would probaby say while that is likely more true for gamers - it's not necessarily true for players.
What most normal PvPers will do is irrelevant. (Though I don't think you have a valid perspective on what the average PvPer will do. You may have a valid perspective on what highly competitive PvPers will do. Sure.)
The concern is about the PvPers who are the asshats that drive PvEers to play MMORPGs on PvE-Only servers. (And RPers on RP servers) Or to not be interested in playing games like Lineage II, ArcheAge and EvE.
Lineage II fans often state that separate servers will split the playerbase, but the playerbase is already split.
Traditionally, I began gameplay on PvP-Optional servers because I like to flag for PvP sometimes. But I have always been driven to leave the PvP-Optional servers to play on PvE-Only servers because there are always too many asshat PvPers who have no respect for PvEers.
And that really only takes a handful of asshats out of hundreds or thousands out of the vast majority of PvPers.
Although, I also don't really want to play on the same servers as competitive PvPers even when they aren't attacking me... During last year's Extra Life Livestream I was listening to the Intrepid Devs trashing talking while they were playing an FPS - and I was all, "Oh. Yeah. I hate that shit. I don't want to play on the same servers they're on."
If the discussion is about pve players being concerned about getting ganked pvpers and corruption's effectiveness as a deterrent, then im not sure how pvp behavior doesn't concern them. Pvp behavior is relevant to the pve experience in this context. Obviously not "all pvers" will be accomodated "at all times" by relying on pvp behavior. You, for example, are done with the idea of playing Ashes seriously just at the mere thought of a potential forced pvp scenario and not being able to explore the whole map. But this argument isn't really aimed at your player archetype, but would accomate "less extreme" pve players.
I strongly diagree with this because I strongly disagree with this your take on player optimization and on pvp behavior being relevant to the pve experience.
I disagree, because I have good reason to think that player optimization will be an important factor in the gameplay.
There was a very clear logical progression of reasoning that lead to the discussion of pvp behavior being relevant to the main topic.
No, my playstyle is not "making me biased" because the idea of player optimization is not my own opinion derived from my own experiences, even though my behavior does happen to align with that idea. But ironically, if any bias was relevant it would be mine by default of me being a pvper and that being a key aspect of this subject and point being made. My perspective would hold more weight than yours for this particular point, if we are at the intersection of "my word vs. yours" for this point in the discussion. I think the reality is that you are an outlier and that is making you biased against my claim, because you are not a typical player (and neither am I but again, im not the one that came up with that idea.)
Not having the freedom to choose when you cannot be attacked by other players - and instead allowing other players to decide that we have to engage in PvP combat even when we are not in the mood for PvP combat.
Also, you should strive to pay cloaser attention to the details of what I wrote:
I didn't say, "PvEers aren't necessarily concerned about PvPer behavior or what PvPers do."
I said, "PvEer aren't necessarily concerned about what typical PvPers do or what most PvPers will do."
I won't play Ashes of Creation because I don't play MMORPGs that include non-consensual PvP. Because I abhor non-consensual PvP.
You can expect that the PvEers who typically play MMORPGs on PvE-Only servers because they don't like non-consensual PvP are generally not going to accept "well, just don't go to the Open Seas then."
As I've stated previously... I was on the EQNext Forums discussing parameters that each camp might find acceptable to play on the same servers. And that kind of suggestion by PvPers - "Well just don't go to that area of the map..." is precisely the kind of suggestion that woul get PvEers temporarily banned as they expressed their outrage.
That is a PvPer solution that PvEers will generally not accept. It's not just a me thing.
It's just easy for me to provide an example of why that is problematic by sharing my Bartle Score.
Yeah. You strongly disagree because you are at the extreme of highly competitive PvPers.
You disagree because you have an extremely biased perspective because you are at the extreme end of highly competitive PvPers.
Player optimization will be an important factor for a great deal of the gamers playing Ashes.
AND will not be particularly important for a significant portion of the playerbase - including a signifcant portion of the PvPer playerbase.
Um.The flaw in this logic is that no one claimed that PvPer behavior isn't relevant. PvPer behavior is relevant. Typical PvPer isn't relevant
What I said is that what is typical PvP behavior is irrelevant and what most PvPers will do is irrelevant because that's not what PvEers who abhor non-consensual PvP are concerned about. Rather they are concerned about the minority of PvPers who love to gank and who are not obsessed with being optimal 24/7.
You are very clearly biased. And it's not by you being a PvPer as far as I can tell.
It's by being at the extreme end of the spectrum of highly competitive PvPer.
I dunno what you mean by having more weight than mine because you are a PvPer.
I'm sharing with you not only my own perspective on the topic, but the perspectives of other PvEers who have been discussing this topic for 10+ years.
And then... at the end of the day... we see who actually ends up playing Ashes of Creation.
The post in question doesn't address anything I am talking about.
You think people will only go corrupt in areas in which it makes sense - this tells me you have never played an MMORPG with open world PvP.
Truth is, players will go corrupt and attack just for entertainment. Not just a few people - most people. Sure, people will have differing points at which they would do this, but everyone has a point at which the entertainment of their action is worth more than the potential loss they may (or may not) face by going corrupt.
Yes, players generally try to optimize things, but different people optimize for different goals. Some people go for maximum profit, some go for maximum power, but most people go for maximum entertainment.
Corruption isn't going to prevent unwanted PvP.
Fair enough, I picked up on that and addressed that point though, after I already typed the other stuff caused by misreading.
Fair point, but im not banking on that sample. I am holding off judgement on this until alpha 2.
Thats assuming you are correct in your assessment of the typical player. Thats kind of a small sample size so we will have to wait and see who is right after alpha 2.
Agreed, we shall see.
And then we see what actually happens.
Again... it's not really about the typical player.
The concern is primarily with a minority subset that has a significant negative impact.
Again, keep in mind there is a reason that the Lineage II, ArcheAge and EvE devs have chosen to place a lesser focus on PvP in their current games.
Yes it did, I am beating a dead horse because you are missing the point.
I never said "only" I said a vast majority, between the concept of "chasing optimization" and "consensual pvp outlets" this will mitigate the amount of players who are even interested and willing to deal with the inconvenience of sacrificing alts just to gank some noobs, down to a manageable enough number as to not make a noticable impact on your average pve player. The idea of "average pve player" is important here, because no this will not include "no non-consual pvp, no exceptions!" types of pvers, but will accomodate more lenient pve players who can handle a forced pvp interaction once in a blue moon from some level 1 scrub who has no life. I said that my perception of this type of pve player could be off, but I am leaving that to alpha 2 to decide, not some dudes on the forums telling me I am wrong.
Yeah I addressed this.
Yup, addressed this.
It will mitigate it to a highly significant degree, else I will admit that I was wrong, post-alpha 2
At the very least (still rude, but less so), if you feel you have addressed a point one poster made to you in a post you directed to another poster (either via quotes or @ ing them), then you should quote the part of the first posters post you feel you have addressed, and then quote the part of your post to the second poster that you feel has addressed that point.
I actually wasn't trying to be rude, and generally don't go out of my way to be, just as future rule of thumb. I just figured you would put that point into the context I provided and didn't feel it was necessary to repeat the same thing over again. Here ill redo it.
Yes it did, I am beating a dead horse because you are missing the point.
I never said "only" I said a vast majority, between the concept of "chasing optimization for later pvp loops" and also through "consensual pvp outlets" this will mitigate the amount of players who are even interested and willing to deal with the inconvenience of sacrificing alts just to gank some noobs, down to a manageable enough number as to not make a noticable impact on your average pve player. The idea of "average pve player" is important here, because no this will not include "no non-consual pvp, no exceptions!" types of pvers, but will accomodate more lenient pve players who can handle a forced pvp interaction once in a blue moon from some level 1 scrub who has no life. I said that my perception of this type of pve player could be off, but I am leaving that to alpha 2 to decide, not some dudes on the forums telling me I am wrong.
Yeah I addressed this, through my point of this being able to occur, but being heavily mitigated down to a minute sub-set of the player base, and with this only having a (in my perception) generally unimpactful effect on "the average pver" experience. This again is subject to what is an "acceptable amount of non-consensual pvp" from a pve player perspective, which is up for debate until alpha-2 testing, which imo the ability to mitigate non-consensual pvp 99% of the time would be sufficient to draw in a good amount of pvers to the game, even if someone like Dygz would not be one of those players.
Yup, addressed this- through my point that "someone optimizing for ganking specifically" will be few and far between, due to the overall uniteresting implications of this for most pvpers who will be seeking progresion paths towards endgame pvp loops, or arena pvp, and thus avoiding corruption penalties, which will mitigate these types of "ganker only" players down to only a small handful of the player population, which would be further mitigated through the sheer boredom and inconvenience of using disposable alt characters with no meaningful/fun progression aspects, in order to gank other low level players who have nothing to lose. I further used the example of myself being a hyper competitive pvper on the extreme end of the pvp spectrum, who has like a whopping 1% interest in ganking low level players in this way, so if im not interested that should be a good indicator on how small of a group of people this will be in relative terms (at least in a way that will be impactful enough on "an avwrage pver experience", which again is up for debate, but im not changing my mind on that until I see some alpha 2 data)
It will mitigate it to a highly significant degree, else I will admit that I was wrong, post-alpha 2
Yes, the PvP is separated by PvE. There are however jumping puzzles which are located in the PvP area and PvE-ers will enter to get the achievements for solving them. The risk of being attacked while doing those puzzles is possible but nobody does that. Would be like griefing them for fun.
I know players who play GW2 mostly for the PvP experience and I met them in owPvP mmos too.
And I know PvE players who would have a problem with the concept that they can be attacked and their inventory looted even though they PvP sometime.
I think when players do PvP often enough in GW2 and they get bored of both PvP and PvE, they will try AoC.
You said yourself that you seen the corruption as an acceptable solution and only when the deep ocean was added, it was a deal breaker.
For many GW2 players, the corruption will be acceptable too and the deep ocean is just like the PvP area where they enter as often as they want.
But all depends how the corruption is balanced and what the world sees in Alpha 2.
Not even a little bit.
Look at the game that is closest to Ashes of anything on the market today - Archeage.
At launch, Archeage had entire alliances of guilds (literally thousands of players) more interested in pissing other people off than in playing the game themselves.
Months after launch, there was an entire guild that spent all day (24 hours) every day literally not moving on a bridge. They gained nothing from it other than the entertainment of pissing off other people, and kept it up for months.
Your entire premise here is based on the notion that everyone wants to progress at all times. You are forgetting the fact that this is your perspective, not everyones perspective. In fact, I wouldn't even say it is the most popular perspective - if you asked most MMO players if they would rather spend 4 hours progressing or 4 hours having fun, most would take the second option.
Also, as a note for you, alpha isn't going to be able to test out how players react in game to different situations.
If there is one thing Intrepid learned during alpha 1, it is that players do not play a test like they would play the live game. Tests turn everyone in to murderhobos. As such, you can use alpha and beta testing to make sure the corruption system works, but you can't use it to see how players will react to that same corruption system.
I have a feeling, from what you just wrote, that most of the PvEers in GW2 will play other games besides Ashes - where the PvP and obsession with Risk v Reward is less intense.
I think, for the most part, gamers in The Open Seas will not be giving GW2 PvEers a free pass from PvP.
The Open Seas will most likely be like the PvP free-for-all on the seas in ArcheAge, rather than like any of the PvP in GW2.
I think thats the part you are missing, imo, "the fun" for a lot of these types of players will be better at endgame pvp loops, arenas, etc., rather than some low level ganking. I think the idea of that, plus the inconvenience and lack of payoff (in terms of amount of rage inflicted, through low investment of recipient) for playing in this manner will turn these kinds of players off from ganking at low levels (most of the time). Im not saying im 100% right or anything, im just saying that is how I think things will play out. Yes there will be "people who just want to piss people off" but I think more of those people, for that very reason, will opt for more meaningful content to play in that manner, compared to the people that opt to gank at low levels, for the most part. Alpha 2 results will either confirm or reject my hypothesis.
Im doing the exact opposite, and trying to see things from perspectives other than my own, I look at things from a design perspective and how different types of players can be accomodated, not just myself.
Of course, nothing is fullproof. It will be insightful though. Fun is fun, and some players will make their decision on whether the game is for them during this time regardless of it being a testing environment, and those attrition rates are data for Intrepid.
I dunno why you are projecting your bordom with alts on other gamers.
Ganking is not fun for you. OK.
It's actually the opposite. I think everyone agrees that the hyper competitive PvPers are not the ones who will be ganking. They will be focused on staying optimized. But that is also a minority subset of PvPers.
Gankers tend not to be competitive. Rather, they tend to be opportunists.
That's the hope.
But largely made moot with the addition of auto-consent PvP on the Open Seas.
Not just for me... but for other PvEers who have been following the development for several years.
We will have to see what the final numbers are after release.