Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
PvX tilted towards PvE High Risk vs High Reward
JamesSunderland
Member
Reading the recent threads regarding the Lawless Open Sea, i saw a sentiment from people more PvE oriented, it seems like they believe that the open seas are a area with PvX more tilted towards PvP High Risk vs High Reward and it made think of the possibility of a Area with PvX more tilted towards PvE High Risk vs High Reward.
In this thread, i would like people to discuss and give their opinions and ideas towards the concept of "PvX more tilted towards PvE High Risk vs High Reward".
Let me provide an idea:
Lorewise we know the Underrealm is the place the people who weren't able to leave from Verra fled to escape from corruption, how about making the Underrealm a Area with PvX more tilted towards PvE High Risk vs High Reward.
How so? How about making it an area where you gain more corruption when killing players, killing monsters and death reduces less corruption, monsters there are stronger than monsters on land or sea, you receive PK death penalty when dying to monsters there, some monsters can spawn and ambush you there and the place is as rewarding as the open seas.
In this thread, i would like people to discuss and give their opinions and ideas towards the concept of "PvX more tilted towards PvE High Risk vs High Reward".
Let me provide an idea:
Lorewise we know the Underrealm is the place the people who weren't able to leave from Verra fled to escape from corruption, how about making the Underrealm a Area with PvX more tilted towards PvE High Risk vs High Reward.
How so? How about making it an area where you gain more corruption when killing players, killing monsters and death reduces less corruption, monsters there are stronger than monsters on land or sea, you receive PK death penalty when dying to monsters there, some monsters can spawn and ambush you there and the place is as rewarding as the open seas.
Aren't we all sinners?
1
Comments
I'd be opposed to this, but I think I count as "PvP oriented", so not sure I'm the opinion you're looking for.
It goes against the reasons I personally have interest in this game. At that point I might as well play Throne and Liberty (given my other preferences for game design).
I dislike stratification, I further dislike the separation of PvP and PvE players that I would expect to follow this, and I don't like the ramifications of the effects it would have on the geopolitical landscapes of the game and Nodes (as I see it).
Your opinion is valid, as a "PvP Oriented" player aswell i do certainly agree with you specially on the "dislikes", even tho it wouldn't be something that would make me prefer to play "Throne and Liberty over Ashes" it would certainly diminish from the game in my point of view.
Aren't we all sinners?
I haven't seen many opinions from PvE oriented players yet though, other than Dygz? (I'm admittedly worried about that, so I expect some bias to come through here)
So for the sake of checking my bias, who are you talking about?
The deep you go the more corruption you gain from lingering in the area going up towards 1-5 levels making the tick increase grow as you go into more dangerous areas. Though upon entering from the entrance you gain a bubble that gives you a large buffer from actually being corrupted. As well you can only gain so much corruption from the area before you reach max stacks (to prevent max corruption gain) Once you reach the max, it lowers you maximum hp at a smaller amount and it will continue until you die.
Death to mobs or to corruption stack ticks make you drop all the items in your inventory and destroying it on the spot so it can not be reclaimed. If someone pks you though and takes the corruption hit the items are available to be picked up but each item take adds more corruption to your character
Upon adventuring in the area taking items also add corruption to your character drop wise you you are unable to take everything without also risk. But like the self protective bubble you get on entering there can be some drops the replenish those drops, as well as finding rare random spawn things throughout the dungeon that also replenish the buff by a certain percent.
So it becomes a very hard dungeon the deeper you go the better the loot but the higher chance you have of also losing what you gained from within it. If you make it to the deepest part of the dungeon you will be able to make it to the boss dealing with its mechanics and trying to ensure you keep your protective barrier up to not end up dying and losing everything.
Upon defeating the boss you simply need to escape back where you came from for whoever is left being a survivor and trying to not die to the corruption or the monsters that have respawned.
In the forum Dygz was definitely the main inspiration of this thread, but also more "PvE oriented" people i personaly know, a few people in the ashes reddit and ashes youtube comments(definitelly not alot of people).
Aren't we all sinners?
Ok, thanks, if it's not here specifically, it saves me checking my parser... but my worry/bias remains
Steven said that we'll have other means of travel between continents, so all the intercontinental trade would just be the same as the caravans running within the continents - a pvp zone.
This is certainly an interesting idea. I would counter with - if an area is more dangerous in terms of PvE elements, would that not incentivize players to group up, rather than kill one another, more so than an area that might incentivize more PvP behavior? In theory, that alone may accomplish player tendencies for PvE.
I should clarify, that these are just my own immediate thoughts and I'm not on the design team, lol! 😜
Well, responding to this purely as if you were any other poster...
Intrepid implied we are supposed to group up anyway. If we weren't grouping up whenever we could as part of the core design of the main game, I feel like we'd already have a different problem relative to the goals set out.
So I'd definitely consider 'grouped up' to already be the baseline, particularly for even remotely rewarding PvE. I don't really see 'these enemies are strong enough to require a 16 man group instead' as a good method, as that increases stratification even further, I think.
It does. But only by specifically incentivizing PvP in the area.
If a group is up against the toughest PvE content they can handle, that means that there's little room for error (or they'd be able to handle more), and it doesn't take much to upset the balance. This means that it doesn't take much for a PvP attack to make the content unwinnable. The less margin you have for error, the less margin you have for recovering from interference. Enemy guilds know they will have an even easier time stopping their competition from getting whatever gear or materials. So you do group up more, but it comes in the form of "bringing another group to protect you from the inevitable PvP attack, just so you have any chance of completing your PvE content". I'm not sure that's what most PvE-tilted players were looking for. It sounds like just "standard Ashes" to me.
Yes, an area with more dangerous PvE elements would certainly incentivize random players to group up in parties instead of going at eachothers throats, but the game is already tilted towards group gameplay anyway.
So when thinking about "dangerous areas" i think of an area that pretty much "requires" atleast a group(8man party) to handle it.
In the Open Seas context which is already expected to have dangerous PvE elements, i believe the majority of its dwellers are going to be pre-made groups that are able to deal with its PvE and would therefore not have the need of further grouping up to deal with said PvE(Other than bosses) and would only group up further if the necessity to deal with other biggers/stronger groups in PvP arises.
Aren't we all sinners?
Outside of going ultra insane mode with pve difficulty, it just can't compete with the dynamic and dangerous nature of pvp. I'd hope that Intrepid is making pve content across the land as difficult as they're willing to make it, in all places. I don't see a need for some special place you go for extra hard pve when that's kinda what most want anyway by default, where appropriate.
Tit for tat game design is a horrible way to design games. The open sea was made lawless. This makes sense conceptually and from a gameplay perspective. You can not like it. But it makes sense.
Increase corruption gain for killing in cities. This makes sense conceptually and arguably from a gameplay perspective. Done.
You start playing tit for tat on every design decision you're going to wind up with a Frankenstein of a game with no coherence, just a gigantic mess.
I say no to the fragmentation of the playerbase. I have spoke against PvP areas and I will speak against areas in which PK will be strongly restricted. Why create a haven for people to progress without fear of confrontation?
People need to understand that just like sieges and caravans (no corruption pvp), naval combat requires a lot of crafting and loss of property for all involved. It's not for casuals, not for RPers, not for PvP haters. There is a lot more to it than what PvErs call "mindless pvp zone".
Why be apologetic? No.
if you think of world first progging from the themepark mmos of ffxiv's Ultimates and wow's (i dont play wow so i dont know what its called) and allowed random people to kill them while doing the hardest content, it would ruin it for everyone. That isnt to say you cant have hard pve encounters with a pvp system but you wouldnt want to make something that hard when someone else can interrupt it so easily
my opinion about being a bit more pve oriented normally is the fact that someone else can specifically waste my time when im doing my own stuff and be rewarded for it.
Free time being able to be tossed out the window for no cost for the person attacking me is a 'feels bad' experience. I wouldnt want to try to reverse this experience.
So I dont think there is a pve equivalent for the game allowing people to waste time for a pvp person with the same feeling. The closest example I can think of is while playing dark souls and getting invaded and just "randomly" losing internet connection when they found me when i just wanted to see the funny messages from people. Elden ring solved this issue imo and I wouldnt
Mind you i dont mind Ashes version of pvp, I may actually quite like it quite a bit since lots of group oriented stuff for pvp. AI do like the instanced pvp in new world and ffxiv so lol
If the entire game became free reign open world pvp i would still try it but i dont tend to enjoy gank bot games. It's what has kept me from trying mortal online 2? i think it was
Not sure if you noticed George, but i am only playing Devil's Advocate through this half-baked idea, don't worry, there no "concession" or "apology", i'm only in the pursuit of MMORPG PvE Oriented players ideas and opinions that would somehow work in Ashes PvX setting as a soother to their loud cries(considering they are a majority in the MMORPG space taking WoW and FFXIV in consideration) without compromising(if it is even possible) the game's clear PvX vision, certainly the well stablished Ashes forum wasn't the best place for this search as most of the frequent users here certainly comprehend the essence and inspirations of the game.
A bit clueless? Probably, but still worth a shot.
Aren't we all sinners?
Inasmuch as a game can, it should accommodate both camps. But some concepts between the camps are just incompatible, they'd break each other, or otherwise be impossible to implement both.
I think George's point is...ask yourself, where are the pve apologists? Come pick me up on your unicorn, let's go find them. I'll be waiting on the front lawn with my pet dodo bird. lol
Edit: It's not even about pvp vs pve. I like both. Many do. It's more about theme park vs sandbox, modern mmo philosophy vs old mmo philosophy, everyone's a winner vs having to work at winning...on and on etc. Some of these things are highly incompatible.
there already gonna be instance ones i think they said its 25/75% split or something instanced to open world, open world will have the better gear drops aswell
I'm expecting the amount of instances to be more than I want but not enough to have a catastrophic effect on the game's systems.
I like the idea of having a more PvE focused area or activity. And @Mag7spy idea of making some kind of race against a clock or corruption works for it too.
A while back someone suggested the mage tower from wow and in that thread I said it would be more interesting to have a tower or colleseum where you could do instanced challenge content with increasing layers of difficulty.
You may have noticed that there are actually very few real PvEer commenting in these threads. It almost seems that all that argue against this are PvPers that either find the change strange in itself, or fear for the longtime perspective of the game. I am still not sure whether this low participation of the PvE players in ths discussion is positive or negative.
I would find it interesting if one of these islands could have a city on it.
When underwater, some magic would shield it and underwater game content could be accessed, only for the players living there.
Those places could be a source of resources and materials which cannot be found anywhere else.
You could make that idea even more complex, and it would greatly reduce being interrupted while you were doing a boss as people would have to be able to get towards you and survive.
Even if people did make it towards you and were weaken, you can have a hard boss without relying on instant wipe and rage mechanics allowing people to deal with the people coming and getting back tot he boss on the rare occasion. All depends how you design content it can be pretty easy to figure out solutions.
I would be opposed too, I think. There was another thread about seasonal land bridges that would be a similar concept to this. In the end I think both would simply amount to a way to bypass pvp which is not the intent.
Personal travel between continents seems to be supported with airships and teleport, but moving large amounts of goods will be exposed to attack. I think that is how it should be, and no workarounds should be offered.
Making too much sense, not allowed in 2022. Someone escort this guy out.