Is it just me, or does anyone else feel like there is a time loop going on. I can't help but feel like things keep repeating themselves over and over and over....Am I living groundhog day?
I feel like Dygz is holding a lolipop in front of yall and you keep licking it, and he feels pleased enough with himself to keep talking to you about his other desires.
Aside from this thread being ridiculous as is, the same stuff is filling pages upon pages in other topics as well.
Imagine being a dev, working on Ashes of Creation, looking for feedback, and you stumble on this guy talking about his "contributions" about a different mmo in the future, that he helps develop "faster".
Moral superiority is a concept that you are adding. That really has nothing to do with my perspective.
Viewing people as content is what allows gamers to have the view that it's fun to shove cake down people's throat when they aren't in the mood for cake.
I see players as people; not content.
If anything, I'm more likely to view "content" as living beings. Which is one of the reasons I'm a Carebear and typically avoid combat as much as possible, even in TT D&D.
I play MMORPGs because I enjoy socializing with other players.
I also enjoy helping other players to complete quests.
I also enjoy seeing what fashion choices players have made and how they have built and decorated their homes.
I don't really play MMORPGs for the "gaming" experience.
I play MMORPGs primarily for the RP experience.
I agree with you that being a carebear is just a playstyle preference.
But, it's a preference caused by viewing other players and even NPCs as people; rather than as content.
And caused by viewing mobs as living beings rather than content.
I want to play a game where i get to shove cake in the face of other like minded individuals.
Shoot, half the current community would come to your aid, without a doubt.
Yet, that same half just can't accept the subject of their attachment doesn't want to be subjected to their attachment.
Well hopefully we won't have to when the game turns out to be one of the highest rated game of all time and what the game has to offer outweighs their dislike of other peoples proclivity for PvP.
I feel like Dygz is holding a lolipop in front of yall and you keep licking it, and he feels pleased enough with himself to keep talking to you about his other desires.
A man of tasteful analogies I see.
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
You claim to not be trying to claim a moral high ground and yet you are saying that I don't view people as people because i like to play pvp games.
Actually, I didn't say that.
I said I don't view people as content. And I said viewing people as content is what allows gamers to shove cake down people's throat. I didn't say that you are the type of PvPer who shoves cake down people's throat.
I didn't say that you you are the type of PvPer who forces players to PvP when they are not in the mood for PvP.
What I did say is that I don't view people as content. I view them as people. Just as I view the mobs and NPCs as living beings.
That's it.
I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything about how you view things.
I don't want to shove cake in people's face that don't want cake in there face. I want to play a game where i get to shove cake in the face of other like minded individuals.
1: I didn't claim that you were one of the gamers who like to shove cake down other people's faces.
2: And if you are... that is OK by me. I just don't want to be anywhere near you when you do it.
In my cake analogy - cake = PvP.
I like cake sometimes. As far as I can tell, you like cake, too. So there is no moral superiority there.
Yea, i got where you were going at with cake analogy.
You claim to not be trying to claim a moral high ground and yet you are saying that I don't view people as people because i like to play pvp games.
Actually, I didn't say that.
I said I don't view people as content. And I said viewing people as content is what allows gamers to shove cake down people's throat. I didn't say that you are the type of PvPer who shoves cake down people's throat.
I didn't say that you you are the type of PvPer who forces players to PvP when they are not in the mood for PvP.
What I did say is that I don't view people as content. I view them as people. Just as I view the mobs and NPCs as living beings.
That's it.
I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything about how you view things.
I don't want to shove cake in people's face that don't want cake in there face. I want to play a game where i get to shove cake in the face of other like minded individuals.
1: I didn't claim that you were one of the gamers who like to shove cake down other people's faces.
2: And if you are... that is OK by me. I just don't want to be anywhere near you when you do it.
In my cake analogy - cake = PvP.
I like cake sometimes. As far as I can tell, you like cake, too. So there is no moral superiority there.
When you choose to play in a pvp environment, the expectation should be that you are in the mood to pvp. If you are in one and someone attacks when you are "not in the mood," they are playing the game, the game you both choose to play. I don't think you can fault them for that.
You claim to not be trying to claim a moral high ground and yet you are saying that I don't view people as people because i like to play pvp games.
Actually, I didn't say that.
I said I don't view people as content. And I said viewing people as content is what allows gamers to shove cake down people's throat. I didn't say that you are the type of PvPer who shoves cake down people's throat.
I didn't say that you you are the type of PvPer who forces players to PvP when they are not in the mood for PvP.
What I did say is that I don't view people as content. I view them as people. Just as I view the mobs and NPCs as living beings.
That's it.
I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything about how you view things.
I don't want to shove cake in people's face that don't want cake in there face. I want to play a game where i get to shove cake in the face of other like minded individuals.
1: I didn't claim that you were one of the gamers who like to shove cake down other people's faces.
2: And if you are... that is OK by me. I just don't want to be anywhere near you when you do it.
In my cake analogy - cake = PvP.
I like cake sometimes. As far as I can tell, you like cake, too. So there is no moral superiority there.
Yea, i got where you were going at with cake analogy.
You claim to not be trying to claim a moral high ground and yet you are saying that I don't view people as people because i like to play pvp games.
Actually, I didn't say that.
I said I don't view people as content. And I said viewing people as content is what allows gamers to shove cake down people's throat. I didn't say that you are the type of PvPer who shoves cake down people's throat.
I didn't say that you you are the type of PvPer who forces players to PvP when they are not in the mood for PvP.
What I did say is that I don't view people as content. I view them as people. Just as I view the mobs and NPCs as living beings.
That's it.
I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything about how you view things.
I don't want to shove cake in people's face that don't want cake in there face. I want to play a game where i get to shove cake in the face of other like minded individuals.
1: I didn't claim that you were one of the gamers who like to shove cake down other people's faces.
2: And if you are... that is OK by me. I just don't want to be anywhere near you when you do it.
In my cake analogy - cake = PvP.
I like cake sometimes. As far as I can tell, you like cake, too. So there is no moral superiority there.
When you choose to play in a pvp environment, the expectation should be that you are in the mood to pvp. If you are in one and someone attacks when you are "not in the mood," they are playing the game, the game you both choose to play. I don't think you can fault them for that.
thats why he doesnt want to play...
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
When you choose to play in a pvp environment, the expectation should be that you are in the mood to pvp. If you are in one and someone attacks when you are "not in the mood," they are playing the game, the game you both choose to play. I don't think you can fault them for that.
And... this is why I'm choosing to not play Ashes now that there is auto-consent FFA PvP in the Open Seas.
So... we agree. And there is still no moral superiority. I don't think I faulted anyone for anything.
Is it just me, or does anyone else feel like there is a time loop going on. I can't help but feel like things keep repeating themselves over and over and over....Am I living groundhog day?
I feel like Dygz is holding a lolipop in front of yall and you keep licking it, and he feels pleased enough with himself to keep talking to you about his other desires.
Aside from this thread being ridiculous as is, the same stuff is filling pages upon pages in other topics as well.
Imagine being a dev, working on Ashes of Creation, looking for feedback, and you stumble on this guy talking about his "contributions" about a different mmo in the future, that he helps develop "faster".
hey are you diego vargas by any chance?
Who?
0
Options
FantmxMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Respectfully, there is no system in place to prevent non-consensual PvP thus the title of this post is factually incorrect.
Is it just me, or does anyone else feel like there is a time loop going on. I can't help but feel like things keep repeating themselves over and over and over....Am I living groundhog day?
I feel like Dygz is holding a lolipop in front of yall and you keep licking it, and he feels pleased enough with himself to keep talking to you about his other desires.
Aside from this thread being ridiculous as is, the same stuff is filling pages upon pages in other topics as well.
Imagine being a dev, working on Ashes of Creation, looking for feedback, and you stumble on this guy talking about his "contributions" about a different mmo in the future, that he helps develop "faster".
Respectfully, there is no system in place to prevent non-consensual PvP thus the title of this post is factually incorrect.
I’ve said this before, but maybe worth bringing up again. A big part of me believes that system is simply login - that’s your informed consent. The foundational social contract of Ashes is that you are not safe from a dangerous world, and other players are part of that world.
@Dygz and I went back and forth privately on this one for what? Like 4-5 months?
Edit: just to put a period on the above, what you define as non-consensual pvp won’t exist in Ashes at launch because just by being in the world all conflict has been consented to.
Logically it should work, but PvE'ers... here's what it's like: A person trying to show them some creature and they're just flipping out, throwing hands in the air screaming "get that fucking thing away from me!". When it's really just a rad little harmless herbivore that almost kind of looks like a spider.
Here's a better analogy for you. I don't like turkey stuffing/dressing at Thanksgiving and Christmas. I never have. Every time I go to a new person's house for Thanksgiving/Christmas dinner I give a polite "no thanks" when offered stuffing and without fail its met with an offended look. They claim that my dislike of stuffing is because I haven't tried THEIR stuffing and that I simply must try it because they put unicorn turds in it or something.
I try to weasel out of it, but they insist and won't let it go so I'm forced to try it with everyone at the table staring at me. Of course I don't like it. I don't like stuffing and I told them that right up front, but they are offended that I don't like THEIR stuffing. Every. Single. Time.
Logically it should work, but PvE'ers... here's what it's like: A person trying to show them some creature and they're just flipping out, throwing hands in the air screaming "get that fucking thing away from me!". When it's really just a rad little harmless herbivore that almost kind of looks like a spider.
Here's a better analogy for you. I don't like turkey stuffing/dressing at Thanksgiving and Christmas. I never have. Every time I go to a new person's house for Thanksgiving/Christmas dinner I give a polite "no thanks" when offered stuffing and without fail its met with an offended look. They claim that my dislike of stuffing is because I haven't tried THEIR stuffing and that I simply must try it because they put unicorn turds in it or something.
I try to weasel out of it, but they insist and won't let it go so I'm forced to try it with everyone at the table staring at me. Of course I don't like it. I don't like stuffing and I told them that right up front, but they are offended that I don't like THEIR stuffing. Every. Single. Time.
Except that before you walk into their house, they’ve explicitly stated you may have stuffing added to your plate, and you step into their house, and grab a plate, and sit at the table. That’s more analogous.
Here's a better analogy for you. I don't like turkey stuffing/dressing at Thanksgiving and Christmas. I never have. Every time I go to a new person's house for Thanksgiving/Christmas dinner I give a polite "no thanks" when offered stuffing and without fail its met with an offended look. They claim that my dislike of stuffing is because I haven't tried THEIR stuffing and that I simply must try it because they put unicorn turds in it or something.
I try to weasel out of it, but they insist and won't let it go so I'm forced to try it with everyone at the table staring at me. Of course I don't like it. I don't like stuffing and I told them that right up front, but they are offended that I don't like THEIR stuffing. Every. Single. Time.
pk them
1
Options
FantmxMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Respectfully, there is no system in place to prevent non-consensual PvP thus the title of this post is factually incorrect.
I’ve said this before, but maybe worth bringing up again. A big part of me believes that system is simply login - that’s your informed consent. The foundational social contract of Ashes is that you are not safe from a dangerous world, and other players are part of that world.
@Dygz and I went back and forth privately on this one for what? Like 4-5 months?
Edit: just to put a period on the above, what you define as non-consensual pvp won’t exist in Ashes at launch because just by being in the world all conflict has been consented to.
That is a very interesting position and not one that is inconceivable.
Logically it should work, but PvE'ers... here's what it's like: A person trying to show them some creature and they're just flipping out, throwing hands in the air screaming "get that fucking thing away from me!". When it's really just a rad little harmless herbivore that almost kind of looks like a spider.
Here's a better analogy for you. I don't like turkey stuffing/dressing at Thanksgiving and Christmas. I never have. Every time I go to a new person's house for Thanksgiving/Christmas dinner I give a polite "no thanks" when offered stuffing and without fail its met with an offended look. They claim that my dislike of stuffing is because I haven't tried THEIR stuffing and that I simply must try it because they put unicorn turds in it or something.
I try to weasel out of it, but they insist and won't let it go so I'm forced to try it with everyone at the table staring at me. Of course I don't like it. I don't like stuffing and I told them that right up front, but they are offended that I don't like THEIR stuffing. Every. Single. Time.
Except that before you walk into their house, they’ve explicitly stated you may have stuffing added to your plate, and you step into their house, and grab a plate, and sit at the table. That’s more analogous.
In the context of Ashes you are absolutely correct, but I thought Chipsahoy007's statement was more about pve players trying pvp in general and not specifically about Ashes. I could be wrong.
Respectfully, there is no system in place to prevent non-consensual PvP thus the title of this post is factually incorrect.
I forgot to put in an "almost" in there but then I seen it was clickbaity, remembered our community representative Narc, and thought "he would be proud".
People get the point in the first 2 sentences though.
Here's a better analogy for you. I don't like turkey stuffing/dressing at Thanksgiving and Christmas. I never have. Every time I go to a new person's house for Thanksgiving/Christmas dinner I give a polite "no thanks" when offered stuffing and without fail its met with an offended look. They claim that my dislike of stuffing is because I haven't tried THEIR stuffing and that I simply must try it because they put unicorn turds in it or something.
I try to weasel out of it, but they insist and won't let it go so I'm forced to try it with everyone at the table staring at me. Of course I don't like it. I don't like stuffing and I told them that right up front, but they are offended that I don't like THEIR stuffing. Every. Single. Time.
I don't think that's a very fitting analogy and I'm not that much of a weirdo. My point is that the PvE'ers think it's going to be a certain way and it won't be, a way it's not even intended for.
While also not figuring out what the game was intended to look like when people are playing it.
If you want a fitting analogy similar to yours it's like my mother who didn't like food with peppers in it because she didn't like peppers, while I kept telling her "just because something has peppers in it doesn't mean it taste just like peppers, flavors can blend and create something entirely new or similar but in a way you actually like".
Which she ended up finding out after I dug at it for a long time. I think I can see Stevens vision pretty well now and I think with some minor changes to how PvE'ers play they're going to lose their minds over it.
There are going to be those people and I wouldn't call them a problem, more like "a problem". They're content, a "F around and find out" thing. I enjoy playing the villain, though I know most people in the same boat as me are just cold blooded griefers out to really ruin someone's day full stop. There isn't much distinction between us, and that's why the system exists, for people like me, but it's going to have to be tuned giga tight for the.. OTHERS.
Yeah... I have 0 interest in playing MMORPGs on servers where gamers consider players to be their content.
Then why are you playing multiplayer games? even without open pvp, aren't players part of the experience/content?
In my opinion, in PvE player games, other players are part if the experience, but not part of the content.
Respectfully, there is no system in place to prevent non-consensual PvP thus the title of this post is factually incorrect.
You consent to the system upon log in. You are making a choice to play under the systems rules. If you do not agree with a games design and philosophy, you don't have to play it. This works just as much for Ashes for carebears as it's does with WoW and me who hates opt-in PvP. I simply won't play. If I do choose to play however, I don't get to tell the game to change its design if it is part of the core groundwork of the game.
Respectfully, there is no system in place to prevent non-consensual PvP thus the title of this post is factually incorrect.
You consent to the system upon log in. You are making a choice to play under the systems rules. If you do not agree with a games design and philosophy, you don't have to play it. This works just as much for Ashes for carebears as it's does with WoW and me who hates opt-in PvP. I simply won't play. If I do choose to play however, I don't get to tell the game to change its design if it is part of the core groundwork of the game.
I don't know why this reminded me of playing Classic on a PvP server and 90% of the people you'd gank would switch to their main or get a guildy and they'd body camp you for as long as they possibly could.
I mean you really knew they were seething. Almost as if they didn't want to be on a PvP server and were really losing it over one gank lol. I'd almost always wait for them to finish fighting a mob and eat/drink to full health/mana before attacking too.
I even had a couple people make an alliance character(on RPPVP realms you can have both horde and alliance) just to go off on me. Actually insane
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Respectfully, there is no system in place to prevent non-consensual PvP thus the title of this post is factually incorrect.
I’ve said this before, but maybe worth bringing up again. A big part of me believes that system is simply login - that’s your informed consent. The foundational social contract of Ashes is that you are not safe from a dangerous world, and other players are part of that world.
@Dygz and I went back and forth privately on this one for what? Like 4-5 months?
Edit: just to put a period on the above, what you define as non-consensual pvp won’t exist in Ashes at launch because just by being in the world all conflict has been consented to.
On the mainland, non-consensual PvP is punished with Corruption.
On the Open Seas, you auto-consent when you enter that space.
And I don't play games with permanent
I also don't want to play on the same servers with gamers who believe that you auto-consent just by playing the game, so...
At this point, it's effectively the same. And there's not much point quibbling over the details because you will never agree that non-consensual PvP exists.
But, again, that is really the true conundrum...
How do you convince players who abhor non-consensual PvP to play on the same PvP servers as gamers who don't acknowledge non-consensual PvP as a valid concept. And the answer is - you probably don't.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
At this point, it's effectively the same. And there's not much point quibbling over the details because you will never agree that non-consensual PvP exists.
But, again, that is really the true conundrum...
How do you convince players who abhor non-consensual PvP to play on the same PvP servers as gamers who don't acknowledge non-consensual PvP as a valid concept. And the answer is - you probably don't.
Yeah, agreed on both points. I’m not sure it’s a conundrum considering how explicitly exclusive IS is approaching their audience.
Reminds me of Joshua’s conclusion: ‘Would you like to play a nice game of chess?’
I’ll join you in Pax Dei or Palia though.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Yeah, agreed on both points. I’m not sure it’s a conundrum considering how explicitly exclusive IS is approaching their audience.
Reminds me of Joshua’s conclusion: ‘Would you like to play a nice game of chess?’
I’ll join you in Pax Dei or Palia though.
For the first 4 years, Steven said that Corruption should make playing on the same servers as PvPers comfortable for PvEers, except for those who never want to participate in PvP at all. And that there are no permanent zones with auto-consent FFA PvP.
At that point in time, non-consensual PvP was punished by Corruption. Across the entire map.
And, basically, that was the deal. You might have to put up with non-consensual PvP sometimes, but you always have the option of punishing that person with Corruption.
Permanent zones with auto-consent FFA PvP nullifies that deal.
And, you know, back in May 2018, when Steven was on The Ashen Forge...
The first thing I asked him was to compare Ashes PvP to Eve Online and ArcheAge PvP.
Because those games have PvP rulesets I refuse to play. Areas with auto-consent FFA PvP.
Steven said that the difference is that Ashes does not have permanent areas with auto-consent FFA PvP.
The Corruption mechanic is in play across the entire map.
So, yeah... now, as of Aug 2022, it's pretty clear who Steven's target audience is and who he is excluding when he says the game is not made for everyone. And the more Hardcore Challenge elements he adds - like the Inventory designed to make players have to contemplate economic warfare every time they want to pick some flowers - the clearer we can see who the target audience truly is.
I doubt alpha is a great representation in regards to tuning corruption. Most of the alpha players didn't drop hundreds of dollars on a key to come in and grief. I imagine the vast majority of alpha players are there for hype, support and content.
Yes, that's true. Beta onwards would be where the true test of corruption would begin.
"A single dream is more powerful than a thousand realities." —J.R.R. Tolkien
0
Options
FantmxMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Respectfully, there is no system in place to prevent non-consensual PvP thus the title of this post is factually incorrect.
You consent to the system upon log in. You are making a choice to play under the systems rules. If you do not agree with a games design and philosophy, you don't have to play it. This works just as much for Ashes for carebears as it's does with WoW and me who hates opt-in PvP. I simply won't play. If I do choose to play however, I don't get to tell the game to change its design if it is part of the core groundwork of the game.
Comments
hey are you diego vargas by any chance?
kinky
Well hopefully we won't have to when the game turns out to be one of the highest rated game of all time and what the game has to offer outweighs their dislike of other peoples proclivity for PvP.
A man of tasteful analogies I see.
Yea, i got where you were going at with cake analogy.
When you choose to play in a pvp environment, the expectation should be that you are in the mood to pvp. If you are in one and someone attacks when you are "not in the mood," they are playing the game, the game you both choose to play. I don't think you can fault them for that.
thats why he doesnt want to play...
So... we agree. And there is still no moral superiority. I don't think I faulted anyone for anything.
Who?
nvm
I’ve said this before, but maybe worth bringing up again. A big part of me believes that system is simply login - that’s your informed consent. The foundational social contract of Ashes is that you are not safe from a dangerous world, and other players are part of that world.
@Dygz and I went back and forth privately on this one for what? Like 4-5 months?
Edit: just to put a period on the above, what you define as non-consensual pvp won’t exist in Ashes at launch because just by being in the world all conflict has been consented to.
Here's a better analogy for you. I don't like turkey stuffing/dressing at Thanksgiving and Christmas. I never have. Every time I go to a new person's house for Thanksgiving/Christmas dinner I give a polite "no thanks" when offered stuffing and without fail its met with an offended look. They claim that my dislike of stuffing is because I haven't tried THEIR stuffing and that I simply must try it because they put unicorn turds in it or something.
I try to weasel out of it, but they insist and won't let it go so I'm forced to try it with everyone at the table staring at me. Of course I don't like it. I don't like stuffing and I told them that right up front, but they are offended that I don't like THEIR stuffing. Every. Single. Time.
Except that before you walk into their house, they’ve explicitly stated you may have stuffing added to your plate, and you step into their house, and grab a plate, and sit at the table. That’s more analogous.
pk them
That is a very interesting position and not one that is inconceivable.
We would all then PvP players.
In the context of Ashes you are absolutely correct, but I thought Chipsahoy007's statement was more about pve players trying pvp in general and not specifically about Ashes. I could be wrong.
I forgot to put in an "almost" in there but then I seen it was clickbaity, remembered our community representative Narc, and thought "he would be proud".
People get the point in the first 2 sentences though.
I don't think that's a very fitting analogy and I'm not that much of a weirdo. My point is that the PvE'ers think it's going to be a certain way and it won't be, a way it's not even intended for.
While also not figuring out what the game was intended to look like when people are playing it.
If you want a fitting analogy similar to yours it's like my mother who didn't like food with peppers in it because she didn't like peppers, while I kept telling her "just because something has peppers in it doesn't mean it taste just like peppers, flavors can blend and create something entirely new or similar but in a way you actually like".
Which she ended up finding out after I dug at it for a long time. I think I can see Stevens vision pretty well now and I think with some minor changes to how PvE'ers play they're going to lose their minds over it.
In my opinion, in PvE player games, other players are part if the experience, but not part of the content.
You consent to the system upon log in. You are making a choice to play under the systems rules. If you do not agree with a games design and philosophy, you don't have to play it. This works just as much for Ashes for carebears as it's does with WoW and me who hates opt-in PvP. I simply won't play. If I do choose to play however, I don't get to tell the game to change its design if it is part of the core groundwork of the game.
I don't know why this reminded me of playing Classic on a PvP server and 90% of the people you'd gank would switch to their main or get a guildy and they'd body camp you for as long as they possibly could.
I mean you really knew they were seething. Almost as if they didn't want to be on a PvP server and were really losing it over one gank lol. I'd almost always wait for them to finish fighting a mob and eat/drink to full health/mana before attacking too.
I even had a couple people make an alliance character(on RPPVP realms you can have both horde and alliance) just to go off on me. Actually insane
On the Open Seas, you auto-consent when you enter that space.
And I don't play games with permanent
I also don't want to play on the same servers with gamers who believe that you auto-consent just by playing the game, so...
At this point, it's effectively the same. And there's not much point quibbling over the details because you will never agree that non-consensual PvP exists.
But, again, that is really the true conundrum...
How do you convince players who abhor non-consensual PvP to play on the same PvP servers as gamers who don't acknowledge non-consensual PvP as a valid concept. And the answer is - you probably don't.
And PvX just means that PvPers will have to do some PvE.
Yeah, agreed on both points. I’m not sure it’s a conundrum considering how explicitly exclusive IS is approaching their audience.
Reminds me of Joshua’s conclusion: ‘Would you like to play a nice game of chess?’
I’ll join you in Pax Dei or Palia though.
At that point in time, non-consensual PvP was punished by Corruption. Across the entire map.
And, basically, that was the deal. You might have to put up with non-consensual PvP sometimes, but you always have the option of punishing that person with Corruption.
Permanent zones with auto-consent FFA PvP nullifies that deal.
And, you know, back in May 2018, when Steven was on The Ashen Forge...
The first thing I asked him was to compare Ashes PvP to Eve Online and ArcheAge PvP.
Because those games have PvP rulesets I refuse to play. Areas with auto-consent FFA PvP.
Steven said that the difference is that Ashes does not have permanent areas with auto-consent FFA PvP.
The Corruption mechanic is in play across the entire map.
So, yeah... now, as of Aug 2022, it's pretty clear who Steven's target audience is and who he is excluding when he says the game is not made for everyone. And the more Hardcore Challenge elements he adds - like the Inventory designed to make players have to contemplate economic warfare every time they want to pick some flowers - the clearer we can see who the target audience truly is.
Yes, that's true. Beta onwards would be where the true test of corruption would begin.
A valid point. Seems we are in agreement here.