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

blat

Dygz wrote: »

The foundation of RPGs is cooperative play that is PvE with less than 1% PvP.

I think might be the crux of it. And I don't even disagree, fully.
For me, games as a whole are about challenge and ever since PCs and networks have been up to it; the pinnacle of that challenge is an element of competition vs others.

An opinion of course, I know that's not the way you see it. Point being maybe this is the core difference behind these debates.

Dygz wrote: »

They want PvP to infuse all aspects of gameplay - which, from my perspective, is actually more PvP than on a WoW/EQ/EQ2 PvP server.

I think a lot of gaming history was down to technical limitations. Eg: noone would dream up a game full of instanced content, we only expect that now because we're used to it, but it existed primarily to manage load and it's simply easier to design. Lazy even.

I love WSG in WoW (instanced pvp, capture the flag) - but there's nothing remotely immersive about repeatedly queueing up for a game that plays out Ad infinitum. They've just decided to artificially inject a bit of content into the game.

Even separating servers by PvP / PvE feels like a bit of a hack to workaround the game's inability to accommodate all. Although I do agree sometimes this is/was a necessary workaround.

Ace1234

@Dygz

Inherently false because The Open Seas comprises significantly more than 1% of the map and The Open Seas does not include the Corruption mechanic.

Cmon Dygz you know I was talking about corruption enabled areas if im talking about corruption's effecriveness as a deterrent, obviously. I shouldn't have to reframe that every time I make that point this late into the discussion, especially when that was directed to Noanni.

Okaaay. But that makes it an inherently moot point.

Not sure what this is even referring too. How is it a moot point to say what Intrepid should do is different then what they might actually do.

Otr

NiKr wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

Player flagging rules do not flag healers when they support flagged players in their own team.
They remain green and can even pick up the epic drops from a killed player.

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_flagging
Non-combatants who heal, buff, or otherwise interact with combatants or corrupted players will be flagged as combatants.[21][22][23][24]

Thanks!
The picture shows only "attacks". I was looking for such a statement... next time I'll use the search function.

Dygz

Ace1234 wrote: »

I was simply talking about the progression experience going from more simplistic individual play loop options that are available, and ramping up into more emergent experiences and challenges utilizing said play loops in a way that is "not significantly different from adventuring early game". Which it sounds like you agreed already on these points so I don't think you actually disagree, it was just a matter of words being used.

That ramping up is really a factor of Node progression as has nothing to do at all with hitting Max Adventurer Level. The gameplay does not become more complex and emergent once a character hits Max Level.
The gameplay does become more complex, but not more emergent, once a character hits Mid Level and Secondary Archetypes become available.

And... again... sure. Freeholds become available for ownership once a character hits Max Level, but...
You don't have to be Max Level to do stuff on a Freehold and it's not possible for all Max Level characters to own a Freehold.
So, that's not really the gameplay changing significantly once your character hits Max Level.

Ace1234

@Dygz

That ramping up is really a factor of Node prgression as has nothing to do at all with hitting Max Adventurer Level. The gameplay does not become more complex and emergent once a character hits Max Level.
The gameplay does become more complex, but not more emergent once a character hits Mid Level and Secondary Archetypes become available.

Thats because you are looking at it through your lens of how you view corruption. My point to Azherae was that since corruption should deter most non-conensual pvp in corruption enabled areas, then the areas where it is becomes strategically worth it to go corrupt (such as highly contested areas) would create those more emergent pvp+pve scenarios and political counterplay measures, which I was saying would likely occur at later levels of progession where the rewards are highly sought after by competitive players.

Azherae

Ace1234 wrote: »

@Dygz

That ramping up is really a factor of Node prgression as has nothing to do at all with hitting Max Adventurer Level. The gameplay does not become more complex and emergent once a character hits Max Level.
The gameplay does become more complex, but not more emergent once a character hits Mid Level and Secondary Archetypes become available.

Thats because you are looking at it through your lens of how you view corruption. My point to Azherae was that since corruption should deter most non-conensual pvp in corruption enabled areas, then the areas where it is becomes strategically worth it to go corrupt (such as highly contested areas) would create those more emergent pvp+pve scenarios and political counterplay measures, which I was saying would likely occur at later levels of progession where the rewards are highly sought after by competitive players.

You get it, though.

The problem is your perspective on something really complicated is... I wanna say 'underthought'?

Do y'all really want an essay on this, though?

I can split it up into like 200 tweet-length posts.

EDIT: Just to be clear, that wasn't a jab or a misjudgement, moreso speaking 'to everyone'. I know that you, @Ace1234, are the absolute last person on this forum who one could think 'has a short attention span'. I've parsed your posts.

Otr

Dygz wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

My Bartle Score is:
Explorer 87%; Socializer 73% ; Achiever 47%; Killer 0%
👍🏾

Do you think you are a typical PvE player?
Players who prefer PvE servers and engage in PvP sometime when they are in the mood could try AoC and realize that they actually like playing AoC, even if they have not played those other old MMOs which you say that give a similar experience.

The data shows that most MMORPG players play on PvE-Only and RP servers.
Also, the devs for Lineage II, ArchAge and EvE are currently developing MMORPGs that have a lesser focus on PvP than their previous games because they have determined that most MMORPG fans prefer PvE.

People who prefer to play MMORPGs on PvE and RP servers are highly unlikely to enjoy the Ashes PvP ruleset.
Ashes is not designed for their playstyle. And playstyles rarely change to a significant degree.
But... people are free to try Ashes and see if they like it.
Most likely these people will be playing other games that fit their playstyle better than what Ashes offers.
Ashes is not made for everyone.

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.
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.

I think you cannot speak for all players who play on PvE servers, if they can and do PvP sometime.

Azherae

Otr wrote: »

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.

Ace1234

@Azherae

I know that you, @Ace1234, are the absolute last person on this forum who one could think 'has a short attention span'. I've parsed your posts.

Haha, thats the nicest thing anyones ever said to me

Azherae

Ace1234 wrote: »

@Azherae

I know that you, @Ace1234, are the absolute last person on this forum who one could think 'has a short attention span'. I've parsed your posts.

Haha, thats the nicest thing anyones ever said to me

I sure hope not!

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.

Ace1234

@Azherae

I sure hope not!

Lmao

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".

Otr

Azherae wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

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.

Azherae

Otr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

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.

Dygz

Otr wrote: »

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).

Otr wrote: »

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.

Otr wrote: »

I think you cannot speak for all players who play on PvE servers, if they can and do PvP sometime.

You can think whatever you want. It's a free world.
We shall see what actually happens.

Otr

Dygz wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

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.

Dygz wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

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.

Dygz wrote: »

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.

Dygz wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

I think you cannot speak for all players who play on PvE servers, if they can and do PvP sometime.

You can think whatever you want. It's a feee world.
We shall see what actually happens.

Balancing starts in 6 months.
I think your input will be valuable.

Dygz

You are free to feel whatever you feel.

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.

Otr

Dygz wrote: »

You are free to feel whatever you feel.

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.

Dygz

(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

Noaani

Ace1234 wrote: »

"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.

Ace1234 wrote: »

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.

Dygz

Otr wrote: »

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.

Child Item