Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
Even pvp guilds need allies and suppliers.
See, in my experience, you can only "trust" a PvP guild for as long as your offer is the best they have received.
Well, I'm talking about this game.
bruh we literally haven't seen all the skills, augments, gear, all the builds someone can have. i didn't know you had a crystal ball lol
edit: not all games allow for a reset. ashes will, but not on the fly. you might not even be able to get to the content because of PVP if you reset for some other build. who knows.
I just have a basic understanding of game mechanics and development.
Let's take mages for example. We know they can spec DPS.
if we want survivability, I'm fairly sure taking tank as secondary will accomplish that.
For mobility, we already have blink we can spec in to, so we know there is at least some scope to spec some mobility. On top of that, we will likely have a number of spells we can cast on the move, which in itself makes mages more mobile. Failing that, if we need more mobility, we could just spec in to only fast casting spells - as even something as basic as this functions as an increase in mobility, if an increase in mobility is needed.
As for if we need more CC im fairly sure taking bard or summoner secondary would allow a mage to occupy a target for an amount of time.
Where I think you perhaps went wrong in your assumption is in thinking something like a "mobility" spec for a mage needs to be on par with a mobility spec for a fighter, ranger or rogue. It doesn't - it just needs to allow for more mobility for said mage than a basic DPS spec allows for. Same with a CC spec - it doesn't mean that needs to make CC the main focus, it just means that you take some additional CC over what you would have in your regular build.
With this in mind, the notion that there won't be ways for every class to spec a little more in to almost any aspect of the game seems incredibly unlikely.
And that is without needing a crystal ball.
yep which can be supplied by PvE players in return for other arrangements
pvp players pve too...
This means to fully control power continuously at a node you need to work with people within your node, and in your connected nodes. Even zergs/streamers won't have so much power with their numbers. A successful guild will be one which can work best with it's allies. But even then, nothing is permanent. It seems a great system.
no you dot. and thats the problem. i know these are just examples,b ut again, this depends on the game. for example you see bards and summoners as cc providers, (and probably picking them as 2ndary will provide this as well) but i see them as buff and debuff providers. that doesnt mean you cant have a game where bards are more focused on cc, you can for sure. but thats not mandatory.
nothing guarantees that on ashes every character will have different options as you mentioned. you might have a dps character that focuses on burst damage, dps, or dots. no build for mobility or defense or anything and you rely on your supports to survive. arguing against this isnt about understanding development, its about the developers offering the options that they want. you can have the same archetypes play in a completely different way in different games. you still dont know how everything gonna be in ashes. you migh tbe right, but you might be wrong. if this was a wow or eq clone, id say you would be more right than wrong, probably.
on top of that, remember that pvp and pve arent separated. you might say well its better to take a more defensive build for this dungeon, then you go back to town, reset, and then you cant even get to the dungeon or farm it because of pvp and your choice of build is the worst for it.
It was an example.
I expect bards to also do a lot of buffing and debuffing - but since we were already talking about CC, and since I expect bards to have a good amount of CC, the bard in my example was CC focused.
Is that a problem?
I mean, the very fact that you state outright that you expect bards to be able to spec CC but that it isn't mandatory means you actually agree 100% with what I am saying - because what I am saying is that there will be that scope for variance.
Actually, the games class structure literally guarantees it.
In your example of a DPS class having options for burst, dps (by which i assume you mean sustained damage) or DoT's, the mobility option is ignoring the games class system completely. Sure, Archwizard may only have those three options, but that mage has 7 other secondary classes they can spec in to, each with 4 augment trees.
If the 32 augment trees available to mages (ignoring augments from other aspects of the game) can just be boiled down to the above three, or even just to different ways of dealing the same DPS, then Intrepid would have failed as game developers.
Yeah, doesn't that sound like a much better game than always running the same spec for every piece of content you do?
It means when you run in to some rivals, even if you've fought them many times, you still won't quite know what to expect. Are they jn their normal PvP spec that you've fought against many times? Are you in your PvP spec? Is one or both groups in a PvE focused spec? Are you in a mid spec?
Makes the game way more interesting.
i didnt say that! i said you see (expect) bards and summoners to provide the party with CC (maybe cuz thats what bards did in previous games you played) but i dont expect them to cc or even have an option for cc (1 or 2 cc doesnt count, im talking about heavy cc). i expect them to be buffers and debuffers.
using mage as an example...again no crystal ball. it could be that the mage or any dps doesnt have a cc or mobility option.
example:
mage/mage = change your own spells elements or just increase their damage
mage/hunter = add crit rate to your spells or damage to certain mobs (beasts), change your elements to nature
mage/rogue = add critical damage to your stuff. change your elements to dark.
mage/cleric = change your elements to holy or dark. more damage to undead / demons
mage/bard = add some minor buffs or mana regen to your stuff. add magic penetration
mage/summoner = summon temporary pets. add debuffs to your kit, cancel enemy buffs
mage/warrior = change some of your spells to do physical damage. add armor penetration. more aoe
mage/tank = reduce aggro caused by your spells.
doesnt mean they failed as game developers. maybe they just dont wanna provide every possible type of gameplay to every class... that isnt a bad thing
Literally no difference at all.
If it turns out that bards are buffers/debuffers, then OBVIOUSLY the bards we run will be in buff/debuff spec. Then OBVIOUSLY if we need some other aspect, we alter it to better suit the needs on hand. I mean, again, you are proving my point.
CC, DPS and mobility were examples. If the game doesn't have builds for that, it obviously won't ask players to spec for that.
Using your examples here, mage/ranger (that you have labeled as mage/hunter) would very obviously not be a good spec for PvP. It would potentially be GREAT for PvE in some areas, literally proving the point that I am making in that there will naturally be some specs that are better for one of either PvE or PvP than they are for the other.
Your attempt to disprove my point here has backfired spectacularly - I got to the second example you gave before there was an obvious build that was better for PvE over PvP.
If we go down your list, we can look over the rest and pick it apart.
Your cleric suggestion is obviously going to be better in PvE than PvP - we have no undead or demon races.
Your bard suggestion is only of use in PvP is fights are long, and if it isn't easy to get excess magic penetration.
Your summoner suggestion would be great in most PvP situations - it would only be good in PvE situations where mobs are using meaningful buffs that can be cancelled. (which is rare in every MMO I have played - buffs are either meaningful OR can be cancelled, never both).
Your warrior build is probably going to be a higher mobility build. Since physical damage is usually the easiest to protect against, developers have to compensate those that deal it by allowing them to deal damage while on the move. If mages taking warrior as a secondary find themselves still dealing the same amount of damage, and still unable to move while casting, then this would become the meme class.
Your tank build also seems to be lacking in viability in PvP.
Are you starting to get my point yet?
If you have options - ANY options - you have options that are better at PvP and other options that are better at PvE.
It is also worth pointing out two specific points to you.
The first is that you have only gone over one out of four specs for each of the above classes.
The second is that we already know mages will have a higher mobility spec. We KNOW that blink is a spell mages can opt to use. A higher DPS build wouldn't waste points on it, but a mobility build would - thus mage has a mobility build already - as an outright point of fact.
i know what you mentioned about cc was an example and i pointed that out, and yeah i didnt talk about all 4 augmentation schools for each class, but these are just examples..i got your point, but you didnt get mine. im not saying you are wrong. you are probably more right than wrong. my point is that we dont know for sure. not all games will provide all different playstyles for their class and aoc might not go that route as well, especially because its a party oriented game.
for example, if you need survivability, most archetype combinations wont have that option. you will have 1 or 2 players in the party in charge of the group's survivability, as opposed to a "solo mmorpg" where every player can build for it or for cc, or damage, etc, etc. thats the point im trying to make. just because you saw it in another game, doesnt mean aoc will have it.
and yes, some augments will be better for pvp and some for pve (different situations, but thats not the gist of the argument. in simple words, lets say the party needs 5 things. you are saying that every character will have the option to contribute those 5 things by respeccing depending on the situation (lets ignore that gear might be difficult to get, so even if you respec, you will be less effective, until maybe a year later when you get all the gear you need for all the specs), and if intrepid doesnt design like that, they failed as a developer. and im saying that every character wont be able to contribute with those 5 things. 1 character will contribute to 1 or 2, another character with 3 depending on spec, another character with 1, etc.
i dont expect everyone to heal or tank if they go cleric or tank secondary. a mage/cleric might as well just be more effective at dealing with undeads (weve seen them already) than a mage/mage but if the party needs survivability, the mage / cleric wont cut it. we will need a real cleric.
regarding mage's teleportation, we dont know if they will implement that for every class, then a week later realize its too op and change it to something else. maybe the final mage augments will be earth, water, wind, fire because teleportation was too overpowered, and because player havent seen that in action, they will never know it even existed. same applies to all archetypes and all augments. things can change constantly and we will never know. so unless you have a crystal ball or inside information, its not possible for you to know what options will be available for each archetype until intrepid mentions it or we see them. doesnt matter if you think you understand game development or not.
Here is what I am saying.
Taking mage as a secondary class gives you access to a school of augmentation called "teleport". Thus, every player in the game has access to an entire school of augmentation for adding teleport effects to their abilities.
While you are right in that clerics will likely be able to deal additional damage to undead, this will happen via a cleric secondary augment school called "death". There is also a secondary augment school called "life, that has been described thusly
This is what I mean by the games class design literally guarantees what I am saying to be true.
Another PvE andy trying to ruin another game and follow the same pattern to convert a mmorpg to PvE and than end up quitting it for next WoW expansion.
The game has been talked about as a PvX game from the start its not even a surprise......When they market the game for when they are ready to release of course its going to be marketed as a PvX game with pve and PvP towards consumers.
Yeah, this will happen.
The game will start out with a bang. A lot of players will look at Intrepids claim of "this is a PvX game" to mean "this isn't a PvP game", and thus will expect a good amount of good PvE.
This is literally why Intrepid have called the game PvX - they want to attract MMO players that don't want to play a PvP game. Once those players realize that Ashes is a PvP game, they will leave - we are probably talking more than half the games initial population here.
Unfortunately, some PvP players aren't smart enough to see this. They will look at valid concerns like yours and complain that you are trying to make the game less PvP - when really all you are doing is pointing out that the game as we currently understand it does not live up to what Intrepid have labeled it.
The simple fact is, if Intrepid label this game as not a PvP game, but release it as a PvP game, then anyone wanting not a PvP game that comes along will leave. Since the MMO specific population is much higher for not PvP than it is for PvP (almost by a 10 times multiplier), it stands to reason that at least half of the population that plays the game initially will leave before long.
You and I (and a few others here) know how bad this would be for an MMORPG. Some others here do not understand how bad this would be. Those people that currently do not understand will still blame the PvE crowd when the above happens, because that is all they know how to do.
Your ideas haven't evolved in that time though. Depending on your age, either good for you or I'm sorry you still feel that way.
I mean, if someone knows what they like, they know what they like.
What (I think) can't be debated all that much though is Intrepid labeling Ashes as a PvX game rather than a PvP game will have a negative impact on the game in the long run.
Since Archeage, L2, Tera, Albion, BDO etc are all considered PvP to the bulk of the MMO playerbase, looking at a developer calling their game a PvX game would make people think of games with PvP, but also PvE. The games that come to mind are Age of Conan, and ESO - and Ashes non PvP content from what we have seen is a long way short of that bar (Age of Conan is in my top 5 best top end PvE MMO's).
If players see the made up term "PvX" and then take that to mean a game with both PvP and PvE (as is valid), and then assume it to be akin to other MMO's that fit that, Ashes will disappoint.
Like I keep saying, we gotta hold Intrepid to higher standards. It doesn't have to be EQ2 lvls of content release pace, but the quality of what is released should be at that lvl (especially on the open world stuff side).
As you know, I totally agree.
My comments were more directly aimed at an above poster that always claims anyone advocating for better PvE is trying to ruin the games PvP.
Issue with noaani is he wants you to make points based on his logic and rule set in a very particular way, while ignoring valid points.
If we look at archage 2 that is suppose to have more focus on PvE or the riot mmorpg you can make the same argument. We have not seen high level pve so pve players won't play it (which is also not true he is trying to group everyone in hardcore PvE and go by his logic. Game can have mid pve and be fun for casuals and have them all playing it.)
We also makes points like devs don't know things till later on (I'd have to find exact quote but its something akin to that). Which contraindicates his current statements about pve as they are still in the middle of development.
He doesn't take the approach because it is in development they have yet to show or make those things he goes black and white. Trying to suggest those players won't play in order to push his narrative, but the actual truth is if the game is fun people will play.
If we are trying to make arguments based on bad faith its very easy to throw it up on the forums. But devs showing lvl 25-30 characters which is still early game. Should not be expected to be seeing end game raid content any mmorpg you play doing early- mid lvl content is not difficult nor shows any extreme levels of pve content. This applies to all mmorpgs you can use the same logic to say EQ gameplay is terrible and had no challenging pve content. And through up the argument its not worth playing.
All these types of statements can be based of faulty logic. As the game direction of AoC as far as making difficult PvE content can be in the same realm as anything, but what matters to people is their overall gameplay loop and what they have fun in not solely "end game raid content".
So my comment is in rejecting someone trying to suggest the game is almost solely pvp without pve content. And Noaani trying to make a statement agreeing with him in order to push points he wants.
Yet if you are actually following the game you can make huge arguments that pvp is the least of things they have shown and more about creating a good player content loop involving around Pve, exploration and a changing and growing world.
To make arguments to deny things they have shown based on logic "No end game pve shown" (at lvl 25-30???!) is disingenuous but those are his usual takes.
*edit
On paper what mmorpg is doing things on a pve level of dynamic events as AoC based on players choice / progression that can have such a reactive PvE effect. (I say on paper because we have seen some things but how the game plays will tell more lastly what we can expect and we won't know till we play. The closest I can think of was rift and that did not feel like that it was jut random mobs spawning in areas every so often. Nothing that would make me feel a true change to pve and exploration.
If Ashes ends up with amazing pve - cool, but so far we've heard a shitton of plans for pvp, but barely any for pve (outside of super vague statements from years ago).
You find so? I don't feel like that, I feel like this upcoming stream is approximately the first PvP information we're going to have that would be on the tier of the sort of thing you want to know for PvE.
It's probably me being elitist, but telling me 'there will be sieges and arenas and owPvP' tells me nothing about the quality of that PvP. I don't feel we have the PvP information either, and certainly nothing that would inform anything whatsoever about any PvX.
Forums are gonna explode after this stream... Good luck keeping up with all us 'PvP tryhards' and our 'bad takes' then, Mag, no sarc.
The Tumok fight we got is supposedly the "low lvl content" design, so, in theory, it shouldn't be even counted when thinking about complex pve.
To me pvp quality relies on 2 things. Class design and situations where you can have that pvp. Obviously we got fuckall info on class design, but this relates to the pve side as well, cause it's also influenced by class design.
And we've gotten a shitton of info about pvp situations, and we've even gotten huge updates on that (seas, node ruins). We've seen sieges in A1, we've now seen caravans, we're about to see some other pvp, we've seen Steven getting corruption in the last stream (which relates to the overall owpvp part of the game), we've gotten confirmation that GWs will have always-on pvp - and all of that is just the stuff that I remember off the top of my head rn.
Yes, we can't speak to the innate quality of that pvp, but like I said, I don't want to directly see the complex pve right now. I want them to talk about their plans, just as they've talked about those pvp situations.
Maybe I'm forgetting some details, but have we ever gotten a discussion on what kind of tools pve devs are working with? I wanna hear some dev being super excited for all the possibilities that their tools allow them to explore.
And if all of that is impossible to really talk about until the game has a more stable class design presentation - then we're in for, potentially, years of everyone calling Ashes a pvp game, because all we see/hear about is pvp. Imo this would simply ruin the image of the game (or at least the supposedly desired image).
If we had a pve plans stream, we'd be able to point to that any time some new rando comes here yelling that this will be a shitty pvp game that will be DOA.
The problem with discussing anything like that on these forums is basically that it used to be a lot of 'nuh uh! The game will look like what -I- want!'
We have Alpha-1 PvE and PvX. Open world Dragons, Siege Dragons, It Who x2, etc. My group and I did some other stuff. I've said multiple times 'hey this PvE is actually on a good foundation and I have so far only seen things with good design' (Tumok was actually the first thing I saw that seemed to be going the opposite way, and I'm hoping there was a 'marketing' disconnect between the Devs who did that, and Steven's presentation of it).
So technically, I'm on the other side, I'm just not blustering about it. I believe in Ashes PvE potential but have never seen a concrete indicator that the PvP won't be unbalanced garbage. I've seen a lot of their primary tools from fighting Alpha-1 dragons, etc.
If that is basically what you want, they've got videos already, they're just old and we're 'hoping nothing changed too much'. Copium!
I just feel like referencing those vids would lead back to the thing you mentioned at the start. People will be saying "well, things change so it's gonna be how I want it". Which is why a new dev stream going over that stuff would be great.
But I doubt that'll happen before A2, so we're shit outta luck.
Great Steven quotes to share here
Here is a link that features many of these quotes for the uninitiated: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/PvX
The conversation is moving away a bit from what I believe OP was suggesting, which I found to be some interesting thought-starters.
While we can discuss PvX, I do think some idea generation on different or unique ways to blend PvE and PvP with the established systems of Ashes of Creation could be neat c:
I'm going to be super blunt, @Vaknar
The title of this thread is "Supporting PvE raiders in Ashes". Even if the discussion has moved away from the specific particulars of what the OP had in mind, it is still (mostly) PvE raiders talking about what Ashes needs to do in order to support that playstyle.
Now for the blunt part. As a representative of Intrepid Studios, assuming PvE raiding is a playstyle you (Intrepid Studio) wishes to support, you should be listening and taking notes - not interrupting.
The absolute most you should be doing in this thread - assuming you want a discussion from PvE raiders on what Ashes needs to do to support PvE raiding, is removing posts of people that have no experience or interest in PvE raiding - as such posts simply can not add to a discussion on what Ashes needs to do to support PvE raiding as a playstyle in Ashes.
I'm going to carry on replying to a few other posters in this thread totally ignoring this post of yours. How you wish to moderate from there will say more about Intrepids desire to support PvE raiding than it will anything else.