My PvX != Your PvX

HybridSR wrote: »

They're coded so that if X happens then Y, and if Y ends then Z appears. That's PvE.

This.
PvE can be made more complex & fun, but is still fundamentally scripted content and therefore limited.

PvE is like Agent Smith to PvP's Neo.

Noaani wrote: »

PvE is inherently more varied than PvP, we can move on to talking about this if you like - your call.

This is it, the word "inherently" here is completely misused.
PvE can be varied. But is inherently more limited, IE: by its very nature.

Noaani wrote: »

When I talk variation, I'm talking about encounters like the one above where you are playing a song as a raid. Or encounters that swallow raid members and require them to find explosives and blow the mob up with them. Or encounters that require you to keep your mana level between 60 and 35% at all times or wipe the raid. Or encounters that require all members to take a step at least once every 2 seconds (fondly referred to as the DDR mechanic). Or encounters that would remove the tanks pants. Or encounters that require two entities to remain within 1% HP of each other the entire time. Or encounters that spawn adds the healers need to kill. Or encounters that are on platforms being lowered in to lava (cliche, but still). Or encounters with any mix of hundreds of other mechanics.

Exactly what I mean. You clearly don't realise how much these examples make our point.
These are nothing more than arbitrary rules thrown in to make an encounter more challenging. Can it be fun? Yeah of course.. to have a group organised sufficiently to pull these off.
But they are still totally arbitrary, designed, scripted and therefore fundamentally limited, and to many of us: kinda boring at a fundamental level.

(Advances in AI may spice things up though).

HybridSR wrote: »

it actually embarasses me that I played a Blizzard game for so long.

Yeah, that is embarassing.

Even more embarassing would be if you thought that was an example of the kind of game I am talking about.

WoW releases expansions every two years, they expect you to kill most of the same content for that period - this should have clued you in to the fact that WoW is nothing at all like the games I am talking about. Sure, they release mid-expansion content, but so do games that have yearly expansions with as much content as WoW's expansions.

And sure, if you entered an instance 400 times, you would do those same things 400 times. However, again, with a good PvE MMO you wold only expect to run that content a dozen times or so before you move on to the next one.

There are many, many instanced encounters in EQ2 that I literally only killed once and never had a need to go back to. In fact, one of the encounters mechanics that I mentioned above was from an encounter that most people would only ever kill once (keeping mana between 30 and 65% or wipe the raid).

So much repitition! having to kill a mob one time!

While obviously only killing a mob one time isn't the norm, neither is your claim of 400 times, or 100 times. Again, the average number of times I would have killed an encounter in EQ2 was about a dozen - and when those encoutners are as varied as that collection of mechanics above should indicate to you, yea, that is more varied than PvP.

Keep in mind, in PvE, you can also move mobs to fight them in a different location, so sometimes we also have trees and hills in different spots just like PvP variation.

Or there are mobs like one of EQ2's Avatars that for a while had an ability that knocked you back so far that there was no chance of survival, and also had an effect that electrocuted players in deep enough water to death. You could fight the mob in an area of nearby water trying to stay at a depth that was enough to prevent the knock back but not enough to trigger the electrocution, or you could fight in nearby tunnels where the raid didn't need to worry about electrocution but would be knocked all around the tunnels with each knock back. So yeah, that one version of that one fight had massive variation based on where you opted to fight it.

Noaani wrote: »

However, again, with a good PvE MMO you wold only expect to run that content a dozen times or so before you move on to the next one.

Does the "dozen times or so" refer to attempts to clear or reruns for loot? If it's loot, then what was the median number of attempts per boss. And if it does include attempts then how many bosses would be released per how many days?

If attempts were low (if not singular), wouldn't that mean that you could do 3-4 bosses per evening gameplay session? Which would then mean that the 2200 bosses you mentioned could be cleared in about a year, by a well-coordinated group.

Even if Intrepid did manage to get their tech to a point where they could be pumping out bosses at a "400 per expansion' rate, if those bosses are one-offs and are easily clearable - that is nowhere near enough content. Especially if a good chunk of those are instanced.

And if bosses are meant to just be killed "one a day", then wouldn't that mean that you'd need to do other repeatable pve for the rest of your gameplay session? Or would this boss design approach only work if those bosses were the only source of gear/mats, so everyone who was done farming their singular boss for the day wouldn't need to do any other pve?

Otr

HybridSR wrote: »

Steven didn't lie. That's PvX. Lineage 2 was PvX, so was AA. I'm a bit sorry that you're unable to enjoy these kind of games because nothing will give you bigger highs than them.

If somebody never experienced games with this kind of flagging system, cannot know what to expect.
The corruption can be balanced to let PvP happen more or less frequently.
I've seen older statements from Steven saying that the corruption will protect a lot.
Wiki was telling us that TTK will be long, to let the fight be more strategic.

Previously it was stated that the TTK was expected to be around 30 seconds to a minute.[3]
The time-to-kill needs to be strategic and tactical.[4] – Steven Sharif

We will see by the end of Alpha 2 how the balance will end up being and wonder why, if because Steven or because players wanted that. Those players might want the old TTK back if they payed access to Alpha 2 expecting a certain balancing described by Steven.

Otr

NiKr wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

So you will play AoC for the story? And then once you finished it you go back to Genshin which rolls out story faster?

I'm not gonna be playing Ashes for its pve. Story is simply the only part of the pve that I will care about. Grinding mobs, artisanry, quests - all are just tools to make me better in pvp, while the story is completely its own thing that I have a separate interest in.

But yes, I will be playing both, Ashes and all of the mihoyo games

Here an example of a player which seems to make his own story for the characters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwdgEyb3iTY
Just as an example of how some players like to play.
He has other videos with interesting titles for this game but I have not watched them.

Otr wrote: »

Here an example of a player which seems to make his own story for the characters.

Watched the first 10min and to me it just sounds like RPing and that the more sandboxy games allow for a better RPing experience.

A totally valid approach to playing games (not necessarily even rpgs), and I will be doing this partially with my character, but to me this is still separate from the dev-made story

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

However, again, with a good PvE MMO you wold only expect to run that content a dozen times or so before you move on to the next one.

Does the "dozen times or so" refer to attempts to clear or reruns for loot?

Kills.

As for median attempts per boss, this is something that is both hard to really work out (especially a decade after the fact) but also not overly applicable to the notion of a discussion on repetitive gameplay. It was fairly common for only a few pulls at an idea to happen at a time, and if no real progress was being made, a different idea that was vastly different was attempted.

Some encounters absolutely were killed first attempt, without a doubt. Some encounters took hundreds of hours of attempts, with the above multiple different ideas being fairly common.

As an example of developers not really wanting players to spend time on encounters they have no desire to spend time on any longer, it was fairly normal for large raid zones specifically to get a teleport to a point near the end (2/3 to 3/4 of the way through) at some point a few months after the zone launched - specifically so players can avoid those earlier encounters that they have killed for those few months already.

Another thing to keep in mind in relation to EQ2 - something that would be fairly foreign to anyone that played top end PvP games - it was uncommon for people to log in to EQ2 more than 4 times a week. The game didn't have stupid daily quests, or any form of daily limit, and there was no need or pressure to try and keep up with other players in terms of gear like there is in PvP games (especially at the top end). There was no fear that if you weren't on for a few days, your guild would lose their guild hall, or your home city would be destroyed.

People could just log in when they wanted to play, rather than feeling any pressure or being compelled to play in any way.

Thus, the notion of * number of mobs per day for * number of weeks just doesn't work in a game like EQ2. Part of the reason people were only running bosses a dozen or so times was specifically because they were off playing Oblivion some nights. Since there was no need to run them any more, there was no specific need to log on to that game, so another game could be played instead.

HybridSR wrote: »

you're a G for being here from the start but jesus christ.. I don't care if Steven keeps saying until the end of time that AoC isn't a PvP game, they literally have already included in the game, the EXACT flagging system from L2.

Uh hunh. You're saying I should have believed from the start that Steven was boldly lying to my face when I asked him about Ashes PvP.
And you say it's the same exact sam flagging system as L2, but Steven says it's not the EXACT same flagging system.
Steven says that Ashes flagging is HARSHER than the L2 flagging system and that players who like PvP sometimes should feel comfortable playing Ashes.
And Steven used to say it's only the players who 100% hate PvP combat and the gamers who 100% hate PvE who are not in the target audience. But, if you sometimes like PvP and you sometimes enjoy PvE, you are in the target audience for Ashes.

Also, again... you're saying I should have known based on L2. I know nothing about L2. I haven't played L2.
I barely even heard of L2 before the Ashes Forums.
And... the L2 players, including Steven, said, "You should reserver judgment until you test Corruption during the Alpha. I think Corruption will be enough of a deterrent that you will feel OK playing Ashes.

HybridSR wrote: »

It's been there for years, it was there in Alpha 1.The moment they added that to the Open World, it became a PvP game.

I disagree.
1: I don't necessarily have an issue with Corruption. With Corruption, I can punish non-consesnual PvP by giving the perpetrator Corruption. I'm theoretically OK with that. I would have to test it to know for sure.

2: I sometimes enjoy objective-based PvP - especially defending Towns and Cities. So, opt-in Castle Sieges, Node Sieges and Caravans are precisely the type of PvP I enjoy.

3: The type of PvP I abhor is non-consensual, free-for-all PvP, like the Open Seas - which Ashes did not have until 2 years ago.

4: The moment The Open Seas was added in 2022 is the moment that it became clear that Ashes is a PvP game rather than... a PvX game that has some PvE and some PvP. And that is the moment I realized I am no longer part of the Tartget audience.

5: Alpha One included Corruption... sometimes. A lot of the time Corruption was turned off because it interefered with specific testing goals. I might have experienced Corruption-related PvP 6 times during the entire Alpha One period. 4 times in the same day. And then a couple of times directly after Siege testing it would be possible to go Red while we waited to be kicked from the Siege instance.
So... no. Alpha One was not a decent opportunity to test the efficacy of Corruption.

6: Sieges in Alpha One were fun. Exactly the kind of PvP I enjoy - when I'm in the mood for PvP combat.

HybridSR wrote: »

When Steven says PvX he just means the PvE + PvP combined into one. That's it. Nothing more than that. They might add more complex PvE encounters but they will most likely all be Open World content and therefore contested. Steven didn't lie. That's PvX. Lineage 2 was PvX, so was AA.

"Combined into one" doesn't really tell us much.
Most importantly... what Ashes did not have in the design before 2022 were large areas of the map that permanently have auto-flag, Corruption-free, free-for-all PvP.
In 2018, when I directly asked Steven to compare Ashes to ArcheAge, specifically because I don't like the AA naval combat and that is the reason I chose not to play AA - Steven specifically state that the difference between Ashes and AA is that Corruption-flagging is active across the entire map. That's the deal.
The addition of The Open Seas in 2022 is the deal-breaker.
I dunno why you keep fixating on Corruption being similar to L2. As far as I know - that form of PvP is great.

I consider EQ/EQ2 and WoW to be PvX. I consider Neverwinter Online and New World to be PvX.
I consider AA and EvE to be too PvP-centric for me. Steven specifically responded in 2018 that Ashes is not like those games because Ashes doesn't have areas similar to what was later added in 2022 - The Open Seas.
And Steven will tell you that Ashes is not as PvP-centric as L2.
He will spin it that Ashes PvX is something new. Something different from L2, AA and EvE. Especially prior to September 2022.

HybridSR wrote: »

I'm a bit sorry that you're unable to enjoy these kind of games because nothing will give you bigger highs than them.

This like when Japanese people tell me they're sorry I can't enjoy eating fish eyes.

PvP never brings me any highs. There are moments where I can tolerate PvP combat for about an hour out of my 8-hour play sessions. If I encounter non-consensual PvP within the 7 hours of my game session that I'm not in the mood for PvP, I'm probably going to be enraged - which is a major low.
So, the moment The Open Seas were added to the Ashes design, I no longer needed to wait to test Corruption to know that I'm not in the Ashes target audience.
And that is all good.

It's just different playstyles.
When Ashes Kickstarter was announced in 2017, I was curious about how you get players who typically play MMORPGs on PvE servers to play with gamers who typically play MMORPGs on PvP servers.
The answer that Steven and other L2 players gave in 2017 was, "With Karma/Corruption. Try that, you will see."
The addition of The Open Seas gives me the true answer: "Oh, you don't get players who typically play MMORPGs on PvE servers to play on the same server as PvPers. The target audience for Ashes are the fans of ArcheAge and EvE (and L2).
Which is why I tried to get Steven to just admit that in 2018. But, he refused to admit it then.
The addition of the Open Seas in 2022 made it all clear. And, yeah, doesn't matter what Steven says.
Actions speak louder than words.
So... no worries.

Noaani wrote: »

Some encounters took hundreds of hours of attempts, with the above multiple different ideas being fairly common.

Usually this is what "pvpers" mean when they say that they don't want to run the same dull content over and over (mostly because it becomes dull on the dozenth attempt).

Yes, trying different group setups could be considered interesting and any potential rng on the side of the boss could be considered "variety", but both of those things apply to pvp as well, and on servers with several warring big guilds, you'd have several dozen potential matchups at any given time and quite often in one day, if not at the same time.

This is why pvpers keep saying that pvp is all different, while pve is the same. It's simply different points of abstraction on both sides. To you the same encounter, but with a different raid setup and both mechanics rng, can be viewed as a big variety of content, while to pvper that's "just the same boss over and over".

And while to pvpers fighting several different groups in several different locations (with those groups potentially swapping out members from time to time) is super varied, while you see it as a "humans are predictable, so it's all the same".

I'd say that this difference of abstractions is one of, if not THE, main reasons for the neverending arguments on what's seen as "having more unique content".

Noaani wrote: »

People could just log in when they wanted to play, rather than feeling any pressure or being compelled to play in any way.

Thus, the notion of * number of mobs per day for * number of weeks just doesn't work in a game like EQ2. Part of the reason people were only running bosses a dozen or so times was specifically because they were off playing Oblivion some nights. Since there was no need to run them any more, there was no specific need to log on to that game, so another game could be played instead.

This was also the beauty of earlier L2. Even though you'd ideally want to keep farming stuff, even your current gear could still serve you well in pvp and you could still be valuable as a unit. And due to severe death penalties, the entire outlook on dying and re-progressing was quite different from the uberoptimal strategies of later years. Who cared that your gear was above a certain lvl, when the next big pvp could delevel you below that gear's required lvl. And it could then take you days (or weeks if you were real unlucky) to get back up.

The entire pace of the game was waaay slower. Well, at least in my experience. I'm sure hardcore players on official servers pushed stuff to the limit, especially considering how fucking bot-ridden and rmt-prone those official servers were (at least from what I've heard).

EQ2's approach seems to be quite close to what FF14 is known for. You just make progress at your own pace and you don't really care if you miss a day or few.

But I'm one of those freaks who likes to absolutely nolife a game if he likes it, so I'd want to clear all those EQ bosses asap and I'd be playing 12h+ a day, so I'd either go through all of them too quickly or I'd fail in finding a group to play with, so I'd just quit relatively fast cause the game wouldn't keep up with my pace.

And in my experience (most likely cause L2 is a grinder game) a ton of pvpers are somewhat like me and want to nolife the game as much as possible as quickly as possible, because staying at the top usually requires that.

And I think this is of the reasons why pvpers think that pve doesn't have competition. We look at our near-constant grind and then compare it to the type of pace you described, and think to ourselves "how can they have competition when there's no haste in their actions". I'm sure that world-firsts have that haste, but iirc you've said before that world-firsts is the weakest example of pve competition.

NiKr wrote: »

Yes, trying different group setups could be considered interesting and any potential rng on the side of the boss could be considered "variety"

I mean, you *could* consider that variety, but I wouldn't.

Refer to the encounter description I gave above where one method of taking on the encounter saw the guild having to wade at a specific depth in water or die, while the other method saw the guild being pinballed around a small cave every 42 seconds.

Depending on which of these options you took, it essentially feels like a different encounter. It plays like a totally different encounter.

This wasn't even the encounter with the most variation based on player choice, either. Not even in the top 5 - it's just one that is easy to explain to people that don't understand the intricacies of EQ2 mechanics.

You say this is the part PvP players dislike. Keep in mind, in the decade or so I played EQ2, there were obviously many players that came and went to other games. Some games tended to have players that were well suited to EQ2 (DDO and LotRO, as well as Vanguard - all of these launched after EQ2 but lost large numbers of players early on). Some games had players that could never make it at the top in EQ2 (WoW and EVE players specifically), and some were in the middle (L2 was in the middle).

In this experience of people from many different games, PvP players don't tend to make it to the point we are talking about above. The most successful PvP players we had in my guild ever were people I have talked to you about in the past from L2 (iirc it was one of our earlier discussions). This group of players were in the guild for about 6 months, from memory, but they were never what we would consider tier one players. We would take them along on content so that they could see it, so they could get gear from it, but they were just not good enough to take along on content that we were still working on.

They were asbolutely not at the leading edge of the guild.

Quite honestly, I am not aware of any players in any guild that came from PvP games that got to the point where they were asked to be a part of that exploration process.

NiKr wrote: »

"how can they have competition when there's no haste in their actions".

I have no doubt PvP players would think this.

But that is because the average PvP player wouldn't understand that when your competition is not in the form of PvP, your gear doesn't matter.

Edit to add; and yes, at times there would be some really long spells in order to get a world first. Grinding out the levels of a new expansion was expected in top end guilds. My guild made up 50% of the first 50 players to each new level cap while I was playing, but once you were at that point, it was fairly chill.

Another point to note as to why PvE games are this way - in order to progress, there is usually only 2 or 3 raid zones that are relavent at a given point in time, and these zones have week long lockouts.

Sure, you could log on more if you like, but you can't actually do anything worthwhile. The game (and developers) want you to have a life.

They respect your time.

Archeage specifically didn't. L2 from what you say didn't. EVE didn't, though not to the same level as Archeage. WoW doesn't, but for different reasons.

While this isn't a specific discussion point we have had, I am fairly sure most of the players I talk to often about MMORPG's would all agree that a game that respects player time is the most important factor for them to pick up a new MMORPG.

Noaani wrote: »

You say this is the part PvP players dislike.

I agree that having a different environment is good variety, but the same thing applies to pvp, as you've already discussed here. The dislike part comes from the repetition of the overall encounter. If you gotta do, say, 100 attempts, even if the boss has 3 totally different variants - that's still 33 attempts at each, if we split them up equally.

And if you're saying that a ton of bosses had several variations within each separate variation - I'm definitely sure that Intrepid won't go for that. Maaaybe smth like "in summer this boss has these abilities and is in a desert-like surrounding, while in other seasons it's completely different stuff" could work, but we'll have to see if Intrepid will go as far as making several such variants for each (or at least a lot) boss in the game. If we even just take the seasons - that's x4 the devtime.

Noaani wrote: »

Quite honestly, I am not aware of any players in any guild that came from PvP games that got to the point where they were asked to be a part of that exploration process.

I mean, I could say that the players who could've been at the top in EQ simply stayed in their previous games because there were at the top there and people rarely leave from the top if they get there.

And I obviously dunno those who were in your guild, but it could also be a situation where they simply didn't like the content highly enough to take the time/effort to get to the top.

Noaani wrote: »

While this isn't a specific discussion point we have had, I am fairly sure most of the players I talk to often about MMORPG's would all agree that a game that respects player time is the most important factor for them to pick up a new MMORPG.

As you already know, I like grindy games. And my bubble of friends and mates were the same. And to us the "respect of our time" was always present because our time directly correlated to our power.

Just as irl you'd need to put in time to achieve something great - mmos that we liked required us to put in time to achieve smth great in them. And due to inherent competitive nature of owpvp games, you had to put in more time than the next guy to keep achieving greatness. And this time also needed to be used correctly, so it wasn't just a case of "if I grind for 20h and you for 10 - I'll always win".

We always saw stuff like WoW as "disrespect of our time" because there you had instances that gave you content on a silver platter, yet still asked you to do it over and over and over again before you got your desired loot. Back in mid-late 00s no one here had even heard of EQ(2), so I dunno how this demographic would respond to a game where you didn't have to grind instances and instead just needed to beat them just a few times. Maybe it would've been liked, maybe not. I'd imagine people would at least be a bit more interested in EQ than in WoW, but WoW simply had way bigger ad campaign, so, alas.

Aszkalon

Dygz wrote: »

RPGs are not going to be pure PvP games. True.

And yet PvP " WILL " be able to happen to You at every Step of the Open World of Verra. And you will accept it. Because otherwise you wouldn't be there when the time comes.

Ashes will not be a pure PvP Game as well, Yes. But it will have PvP in about every Corner. Aside from a few, apparently Story-instanced Places.

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

You say this is the part PvP players dislike.

I agree that having a different environment is good variety, but the same thing applies to pvp, as you've already discussed here. The dislike part comes from the repetition of the overall encounter. If you gotta do, say, 100 attempts, even if the boss has 3 totally different variants - that's still 33 attempts at each, if we split them up equally.

So, what you are saying is that PvE is harder? That PvP players can't handle it?

I mean, I could say that the players who could've been at the top in EQ simply stayed in their previous games because there were at the top there and people rarely leave from the top if they get there.

You could say that, but the implication there would be that PvE players are happy in their game of choice, where as PvP players are shopping around.

As you already know, I like grindy games.

I mean, EQ2 did have a serious grind if you wanted it, it just wasn't necessary.

There were 20 different titles that required killing 20,000 mobs of a specific type. Running around with the "Executioner of Fairies" title is just fun. Getting all 20 titles is 400,000 mobs of specific types that you need to kill.

We always saw stuff like WoW as "disrespect of our time" because there you had instances that gave you content on a silver platter, yet still asked you to do it over and over and over again before you got your desired loot. Back in mid-late 00s no one here had even heard of EQ(2), so I dunno how this demographic would respond to a game where you didn't have to grind instances and instead just needed to beat them just a few times. Maybe it would've been liked, maybe not. I'd imagine people would at least be a bit more interested in EQ than in WoW, but WoW simply had way bigger ad campaign, so, alas.

EQ2 in it's third expansion had some class specific armor that dropped on specific raid encounters. Around 6 months in to the expansion, specifically so that people could stop running content, the game started doing a check on the inventory of everyone in the raid (including bank and housing storage), and would only drop items for classes that were present in the raid and didn't have the item in question.

This system persisted to every content cycle that had class specific gear for as long as I played.

That is respect of player time.

Noaani wrote: »

As for median attempts per boss, this is something that is both hard to really work out (especially a decade after the fact) but also not overly applicable to the notion of a discussion on repetitive gameplay. It was fairly common for only a few pulls at an idea to happen at a time, and if no real progress was being made, a different idea that was vastly different was attempted.

Some encounters absolutely were killed first attempt, without a doubt. Some encounters took hundreds of hours of attempts, with the above multiple different ideas being fairly common.

You're referring here to different ideas being attempted. IE: different attempts at cracking the encounter.
Once cracked, it stays cracked. Then it just becomes a case of everyone knowing the script and not fucking up.

PvP is never solved in the same way. Yes there can be dominant strategies, groups etc - but the enemy then continues to evolve around your strategies.

So the variety in PvP is not coming from the different group setups (yes that contributes), but more fundamentally from the very nature of competing vs enemies who learn, improve and adapt.

As I said earlier, PvE is like Agent Smith to PvP's Neo. It can be very advanced, difficult, fun etc.. but is inherently limited by its programmed nature.

Aszkalon wrote: »

And yet PvP " WILL " be able to happen to You at every Step of the Open World of Verra. And you will accept it. Because otherwise you wouldn't be there when the time comes.

Originally, always being able to penalize forced PvP with Corruption was the mitigating factor for non-consensual PvP. That has great potential to be a fair exchange. I would have to test it to know for sure.
I [iu]don't accept[/u] the Corruption-free, non-consensual PvP that comes with The Open Seas.
Which is precisely why The Open Seas is a dealbreaker for me and I'm no longer interested in playing Ashes.

Aszkalon wrote: »

Ashes will not be a pure PvP Game as well, Yes. But it will have PvP in about every Corner. Aside from a few, apparently Story-instanced Places.

Especially with the addition of The Open Seas and Steven's obsession with Risk v Reward.
We agree.

NiKr wrote: »

We always saw stuff like WoW as "disrespect of our time" because there you had instances that gave you content on a silver platter, yet still asked you to do it over and over and over again before you got your desired loot. Back in mid-late 00s no one here had even heard of EQ(2), so I dunno how this demographic would respond to a game where you didn't have to grind instances and instead just needed to beat them just a few times. Maybe it would've been liked, maybe not. I'd imagine people would at least be a bit more interested in EQ than in WoW, but WoW simply had way bigger ad campaign, so, alas.

EQ released in the US in 1997. More popular even than UO.
EverQuest Online Adventures released Feb 2003
EverQuest Online Adventures Frontiers released Nov 2003
Lords of EverQuest released Dec 2003
Champions of Norrath Feb 2004
EQ2 released Nov 2004
WoW released in 2005.

Anarchy Online appeared at E3 around 1999 and released 2001

Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness released in the US in 1995. December 1995 listed #2 PC game behind Myst.
Warcraft II: Beyond the Dark Portal released 1996
Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos released 2002
World of Warcraft released Nov 2004

I started working in QA at Activision in Feb 1996.
Warcraft II was immensely popular among my QA bros.
UO was also immensely popular. Too PvP-centric for me to be interested.
EQ released in 1997. My pal, Jens Andersen (who later created DCUO) suggested I try playing EQ on the PvP-Optional servers. "Join our Guild. We'll protect you whenever you flag for PvP."

EQ was tons of fun - especially to explore. It felt like running through a 3D virtual world of D&D.
And I fell in love with the lore - just as I might for a great Fantasy novel franchise.
I played all of the EQ titles listed above.

I did play Warcraft II (and Starcraft), but I prefer RPGs over RTS games.
We began to see World of Warcraft at E3 in 1999.
Anarchy Online appeared at E3 around 1999.
Anarchy Online released in 2001.
We were still waiting for WoW. Each year at E3, we would ask the devs for a release date. The answer was always "When it's ready." The length of production was a common joke.
Several other MMORPGs appeared at E3 and were released years before WoW.
EQ2 appeared at E3 around 2001/2002.

By 2003, I was super-invested in EQ lore, due to playing several games in that setting and only one in the Warcraft setting.
My Activision bros were all super-stoked for WoW. I was super-hyped for EQ2.
WoW seemed to cartoony and... why abandon the EQ lore for Warcraft lore - especially when Warcraft was primarily an RTS?

EQ2 released before WoW.
EQ2 was fun to play, but slow on my not-brand-new home PC. Took forever to load between zones.
My Activision bros asked me to join a WoW Guild, so I started also playing WoW.
Turns out - WoW was just built better than EQ2. Better optimized. And no loading between zones.
Phasing felt way better than loading.
WoW just felt less frustrating to play, so I mostly played WoW. Though I would bounce back and forth between the two.

TL;DR
Before 2004, EQ was the WoW of MMORPGs (in the US). Still immensely popular 10 years ago.
EQ has steadily fallen down the ladder after the change from SoE to Daybreak - especially as more modern MMORPGs have released.

Otr

Dygz wrote: »

4: The moment The Open Seas was added in 2022 is the moment that it became clear that Ashes is a PvP game rather than... a PvX game that has some PvE and some PvP. And that is the moment I realized I am no longer part of the Tartget audience.

I was not far from this point when I said

Otr wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Well, no.
4 years ago… all non-consensual PvP could be punished with Corruption. So, at that point, wait to see if Corruption works as a comfortable deterrent.

The addition of The Open Seas 2 years ago basically too much of the game auto-consent to non-consensual PvP just by logging in.
At that point, A2 testing for Corruption is irrelevant.

I guess I start to understand why this change bothers you.
By adding the open sea, all those players who would spend most of their time playing there are potentially different from those who spend their time on land. It is like having 2 different audiences.

Instead of having nice polite PvEers audience we get trash-talking PvPers.
And Steven wants you to be friend with them!

Dygz wrote: »

Aszkalon wrote: »

Ashes will not be a pure PvP Game as well, Yes. But it will have PvP in about every Corner. Aside from a few, apparently Story-instanced Places.

Especially with the addition of The Open Seas and Steven's obsession with Risk v Reward.
We agree.

And Steven's obsession.
If he doesn't understand your way of enjoying mmorpgs, chances are that you will not get a good one from him.
Will be interesting to see the balancing changing over time during Alpha 2.
The trendy topic next year will be to predict how many players will play at release.

Dygz wrote: »

I started working in QA at Activision in Feb 1996.
Warcraft II was immensely popular among my QA bros.

Me vs QAs as bloody usual

Otr wrote: »

Instead of having nice polite PvEers audience we get trash-talking PvPers.

Where's the trash talking? It's been pretty fair I thought, all round, mostly.
IMO this is part of the issue, this automatic stereotyping of anyone who enjoys PvP. Bizarre.