Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Too much PvP for me

2

Comments

  • SoybeanSoybean Member UncommonPosts: 100
    Wizardry said:
    "difficulty" if anyone THINKS that a real player is the only way to create difficulty,well sadly they don't know anything about game/combat design.
    The whole premise of a RPG,ROLE playing game isn't all about pvp,you are suppose to take on the role of a living character within a living world.
    The OP is right,once you introduce pvp the game unless totally segregated into sections which would completely ruin the game and it's immersion ,will become JUST a pvp game.


    Some people are anti social and just sh*tty people in general. A separated community isn't always a bad thing.
  • AeliousAelious Member RarePosts: 3,521
    If Ashes wants to be the next big MMORPG it will have PvE servers, where mob hordes place environmental pressure on nodes, or have PvP consensual. We've all heard of the "systems" that deter ganking in different titles but it either chokes the PvP fans out, or the PvE fans out.
    PhryMrMelGibsonbcbully
  • PhryPhry Member LegendaryPosts: 11,004
    Aelious said:
    If Ashes wants to be the next big MMORPG it will have PvE servers, where mob hordes place environmental pressure on nodes, or have PvP consensual. We've all heard of the "systems" that deter ganking in different titles but it either chokes the PvP fans out, or the PvE fans out.
    Unironically, its when PVP is voluntary rather than forced that the loudest voices are usually those who are advocates of PVP, choice is a real problem for some reason.
    That to be a sandbox game a game must have PVP is perhaps one of the most bizarre, the reasoning given often sounding more like excuses rather than a determined argument, the existence of PVE sandbox games being an inconvenient reality.
    Instead while there are many factors that help determine if a game is a sandbox game or not, one of the most important, imo at least, is that players are allowed to have a choice. ;)
    AeliousOctagon7711MrMelGibsonMaurgrimtweedledumb99Gobstopper3Dbcbully
  • delete5230delete5230 Member EpicPosts: 5,822
    My guess, 
    60% will ignore this is a PvP game and play anyway.  60% will be disappointed when they are constantly harassed when they are trying to get PvE stuff accomplished. 

    This game will be irritating for 60% of players.
  • PhryPhry Member LegendaryPosts: 11,004
    My guess, 
    60% will ignore this is a PvP game and play anyway.  60% will be disappointed when they are constantly harassed when they are trying to get PvE stuff accomplished. 

    This game will be irritating for 60% of players.
    Its long been determined that when it comes to PVP/PVE split in terms of player numbers that it is 80% PVE and 20% PVP, using that it would be more reasonable to suggest that, assuming they even play the game, 80% will find the game irritating, not that 60% is a 'healthy' figure in itself. Irritated players tend to play games that are 'less irritating'. ;)
  • delete5230delete5230 Member EpicPosts: 5,822
    edited December 2018
    Phry said:
    My guess, 
    60% will ignore this is a PvP game and play anyway.  60% will be disappointed when they are constantly harassed when they are trying to get PvE stuff accomplished. 

    This game will be irritating for 60% of players.
    Its long been determined that when it comes to PVP/PVE split in terms of player numbers that it is 80% PVE and 20% PVP, using that it would be more reasonable to suggest that, assuming they even play the game, 80% will find the game irritating, not that 60% is a 'healthy' figure in itself. Irritated players tend to play games that are 'less irritating'. ;)
    Well, I stand corrected,
    80% will be irritated, thanks for clearing that up :)  


    Before someone states: 
    That leaves only 20% PvP, where's the problem ? 
    It will not be a liner 80% to 20% if the game is based on PvP.  A lot of FORCED PvP will make it irritating to the 80%.
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 11,073
    Phry said:
    My guess, 
    60% will ignore this is a PvP game and play anyway.  60% will be disappointed when they are constantly harassed when they are trying to get PvE stuff accomplished. 

    This game will be irritating for 60% of players.
    Its long been determined that when it comes to PVP/PVE split in terms of player numbers that it is 80% PVE and 20% PVP, using that it would be more reasonable to suggest that, assuming they even play the game, 80% will find the game irritating, not that 60% is a 'healthy' figure in itself. Irritated players tend to play games that are 'less irritating'. ;)
    Where is that determined?  I’d be interested in reading that.
    Torval

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

    My ignore list finally has one occupant after 12 years. I am the strongest supporter of free speech on here, but free speech does not mean forced listening. Have fun my friend. Hope you find a new stalking target.

  • AlpiusAlpius Member UncommonPosts: 187
    At this point I have doubts that it will ever even come out. The whole BR thing was supposedly 'only for testing' and, big surprise, it is now going to be it's own game from the looks of it. Such a shame, there were some great ideas being thrown around this game that made it sound like an actual world with a nice mix of PVP and PVE to keep everyone happyish.
  • HefaistosHefaistos Member UncommonPosts: 341
    @OP.

    Do you know in 2018 a succesful full PVP Game ? 75% pvp? 50/50? NO. Darkfall is whatever as an example but its niche. BDO ? 25 or so professions and only 1 is pvp.

    AOC aint dumb to delete the PvE players when they know those are the ones that will keep the game alive. Just have faith (i do and i do pvp and pve) that things will work out because there is NO PVP mmo that can come to life in 2018 and be succesful.

    And pls dont bring stories with relaunched games similiar with AO/UO. AOC wont be DAOC and Albion Online or whatever similar with this kind of gameplay (phone/tablet mmo) wont be AOC.

    Aoc might be close to BDO but BDO has 5% pvp and rest is pve.
    Octagon7711
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 11,073
    Hefaistos said:
    @OP.

    Do you know in 2018 a succesful full PVP Game ? 75% pvp? 50/50? NO. Darkfall is whatever as an example but its niche. BDO ? 25 or so professions and only 1 is pvp.

    AOC aint dumb to delete the PvE players when they know those are the ones that will keep the game alive. Just have faith (i do and i do pvp and pve) that things will work out because there is NO PVP mmo that can come to life in 2018 and be succesful.

    And pls dont bring stories with relaunched games similiar with AO/UO. AOC wont be DAOC and Albion Online or whatever similar with this kind of gameplay (phone/tablet mmo) wont be AOC.

    Aoc might be close to BDO but BDO has 5% pvp and rest is pve.
    What game in 2018 launched and was a successful full PvE game?

    Torval

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

    My ignore list finally has one occupant after 12 years. I am the strongest supporter of free speech on here, but free speech does not mean forced listening. Have fun my friend. Hope you find a new stalking target.

  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 16,465
    Pvp will mostly in part segregate the community into either for it or against it,better to aim for one side and keep everyone on the same page.

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • HefaistosHefaistos Member UncommonPosts: 341
    Soybean said:
     
    You are blinded by bias. Anti "PK" system never work for one.

    Two, as a PvE player, I don't want ANY murderer on the loose. period. Otherwise the game become about PvP and very little else. PvP player ( a lot ) just want to kill other player (easier the kill the better), they don't care about other stuff.

    This is an opinion forged by looking at the past and if you don't learn from the past, you are doomed to repeat it.
    That does suck when you are trying to level. Worse is when you keep getting camped. The funny thing is pvpers are the first to leave a game when they get bored.
    Actually BDO is kept alive buy those 5% who do the pvping and the rest of the lifeskills and by the casual afkprocessingplebs
  • AeliousAelious Member RarePosts: 3,521
    Hefaistos said:
    @OP.

    Do you know in 2018 a succesful full PVP Game ? 75% pvp? 50/50? NO. Darkfall is whatever as an example but its niche. BDO ? 25 or so professions and only 1 is pvp.

    AOC aint dumb to delete the PvE players when they know those are the ones that will keep the game alive. Just have faith (i do and i do pvp and pve) that things will work out because there is NO PVP mmo that can come to life in 2018 and be succesful.

    And pls dont bring stories with relaunched games similiar with AO/UO. AOC wont be DAOC and Albion Online or whatever similar with this kind of gameplay (phone/tablet mmo) wont be AOC.

    Aoc might be close to BDO but BDO has 5% pvp and rest is pve.
    What game in 2018 launched and was a successful full PvE game?

    "Launched" is a bad starting point, as there wasn't really a title to release worth noting... unless you count Bless, which had a focus on PvP... but that probably isn't an example you'd want to use, amiright?


    If you look at current Steam charts, the MMORPG ones seem more favored to PvE. Plus, as has been discussed many, many times, there seems to be a 75/25 split when PvE is offered on another server.


    Play and pander for what you wish but another thing to keep in mind is that more developers within the last couple years have been releasing PvP-focused MMOs... which means the playerbase that wants to plat that way is getting spread thin with each release.

    I highly doubt Intrepid will go forced PvP.
  • delete5230delete5230 Member EpicPosts: 5,822
    Try and join a Guild that offers solid PvE and city building... That's the Guild that will get splattered.  

    What you need is the Guild that offers maximum PvP, and not a word of PvE, it's the only way to survive. 

    You will not have options.
  • GigabearGigabear Member UncommonPosts: 39
    I'd be all for "PVE" servers myself. With the only difference being that there is no "murder" and corruption system and only meaningful pvp such as caravans and sieges.  

    I worry because they make ganking sound like it'll be punished via corruption and discouraged so it'll be an uncommon thing. But seem to go out of their way to ensure it's a thing anyway. 

    If you really didn't want much ganking, you wouldn't make systems that RELY on it being a playstyle, such as bounty hunters. 

    So, it's possible Intrepid is trying to have their cake and eat it too by including ways for people to, essentially, grief others while underselling how frequently you'll encounter it to more PVE oriented backers.

    I mean let's be real. This company told us for months BR was just for testing, and now it's a standalone game with a cash shop. I'm very much watching what they DO now, and not what they say. 
  • tweedledumb99tweedledumb99 Member UncommonPosts: 246
    Phry said:
    Aelious said:
    If Ashes wants to be the next big MMORPG it will have PvE servers, where mob hordes place environmental pressure on nodes, or have PvP consensual. We've all heard of the "systems" that deter ganking in different titles but it either chokes the PvP fans out, or the PvE fans out.
    Unironically, its when PVP is voluntary rather than forced that the loudest voices are usually those who are advocates of PVP, choice is a real problem for some reason.
    That to be a sandbox game a game must have PVP is perhaps one of the most bizarre, the reasoning given often sounding more like excuses rather than a determined argument, the existence of PVE sandbox games being an inconvenient reality.
    Instead while there are many factors that help determine if a game is a sandbox game or not, one of the most important, imo at least, is that players are allowed to have a choice. ;)
    PvP Player here. Well said.

    I like PvP cause I'm Bartle's killer type, but I'm also a cooperator and socializer (not necessarily the same thing) - and PvP gives me both of those as well (team PvP and RvR specifically).

    As other wise posters have said above - when someone says it's important a game is about choice (i.e. "I like sandboxes") but thinks it's okay to completely restrict someone else's playstyle (by making them player-killable) in that same game, that person is full of shit.

    Glad you're pointing this out.

    If I ever get to the point where I demand non-consensual PvP for a game that is targeted at PvE as well as PvP players, I'll be full of shit too.

    Obvious exception is games that are out-loud PvP-focused games. In those games (Camelot Unchained, Crowfall for example), it's good to make most people be exposed to PvP most of the time - that's the point of the game.

    FlyByKnight
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 11,073
    Phry said:
    Aelious said:
    If Ashes wants to be the next big MMORPG it will have PvE servers, where mob hordes place environmental pressure on nodes, or have PvP consensual. We've all heard of the "systems" that deter ganking in different titles but it either chokes the PvP fans out, or the PvE fans out.
    Unironically, its when PVP is voluntary rather than forced that the loudest voices are usually those who are advocates of PVP, choice is a real problem for some reason.
    That to be a sandbox game a game must have PVP is perhaps one of the most bizarre, the reasoning given often sounding more like excuses rather than a determined argument, the existence of PVE sandbox games being an inconvenient reality.
    Instead while there are many factors that help determine if a game is a sandbox game or not, one of the most important, imo at least, is that players are allowed to have a choice. ;)
    PvP Player here. Well said.

    I like PvP cause I'm Bartle's killer type, but I'm also a cooperator and socializer (not necessarily the same thing) - and PvP gives me both of those as well (team PvP and RvR specifically).

    As other wise posters have said above - when someone says it's important a game is about choice (i.e. "I like sandboxes") but thinks it's okay to completely restrict someone else's playstyle (by making them player-killable) in that same game, that person is full of shit.

    Glad you're pointing this out.

    If I ever get to the point where I demand non-consensual PvP for a game that is targeted at PvE as well as PvP players, I'll be full of shit too.

    Obvious exception is games that are out-loud PvP-focused games. In those games (Camelot Unchained, Crowfall for example), it's good to make most people be exposed to PvP most of the time - that's the point of the game.

    The problem is one of mechanisms.   A game like DAoC that allowed you to PvE in your homeland peacefully but had full PvP frontiers was a great setup.   An open world game that has toggleable flags is just silly and game ruining.  Now I'm a bad guy and can attack you, CLICK, now I'm "peaceful" haha and you can't!  That's just BAD game design in my eyes.


    ConstantineMerusdelete5230

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

    My ignore list finally has one occupant after 12 years. I am the strongest supporter of free speech on here, but free speech does not mean forced listening. Have fun my friend. Hope you find a new stalking target.

  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member RarePosts: 1,116
    Phry said:
    Aelious said:
    If Ashes wants to be the next big MMORPG it will have PvE servers, where mob hordes place environmental pressure on nodes, or have PvP consensual. We've all heard of the "systems" that deter ganking in different titles but it either chokes the PvP fans out, or the PvE fans out.
    Unironically, its when PVP is voluntary rather than forced that the loudest voices are usually those who are advocates of PVP, choice is a real problem for some reason.
    That to be a sandbox game a game must have PVP is perhaps one of the most bizarre, the reasoning given often sounding more like excuses rather than a determined argument, the existence of PVE sandbox games being an inconvenient reality.
    Instead while there are many factors that help determine if a game is a sandbox game or not, one of the most important, imo at least, is that players are allowed to have a choice. ;)
    PvP Player here. Well said.

    I like PvP cause I'm Bartle's killer type, but I'm also a cooperator and socializer (not necessarily the same thing) - and PvP gives me both of those as well (team PvP and RvR specifically).

    As other wise posters have said above - when someone says it's important a game is about choice (i.e. "I like sandboxes") but thinks it's okay to completely restrict someone else's playstyle (by making them player-killable) in that same game, that person is full of shit.

    Glad you're pointing this out.

    If I ever get to the point where I demand non-consensual PvP for a game that is targeted at PvE as well as PvP players, I'll be full of shit too.

    Obvious exception is games that are out-loud PvP-focused games. In those games (Camelot Unchained, Crowfall for example), it's good to make most people be exposed to PvP most of the time - that's the point of the game.

    The problem is one of mechanisms.   A game like DAoC that allowed you to PvE in your homeland peacefully but had full PvP frontiers was a great setup.   An open world game that has toggleable flags is just silly and game ruining.  Now I'm a bad guy and can attack you, CLICK, now I'm "peaceful" haha and you can't!  That's just BAD game design in my eyes.


    Well if all you're doing is clicking a button then sure, but there are far more intelligent ways to "toggle" pvp. SWG had optional PVP and it was good. Being able to choose when you pvp and when you don't, whether it's via location, joining/leaving factions or whatever is the "best of both worlds". 

    Designing a PVP flag to a button click.. lmao. Come on now.
  • cochscochs Member UncommonPosts: 92
    In addition to having hard separations between pvp/pve areas, another interesting thing I think is that group pvp is where people who mostly pve will participate in pvp the most.  Games like Daoc/GW2 see a lot of normally pve only players getting into pvp.  

    Pvp in a group and also where death is more normal and expected, it no longer makes you feel bad for dying.  It's common for everyone to die, it's not you personally that failed at anything. 

    This is where I think this game went wrong.  Last man standing doesn't fit this game.  Not only does it put players into a one vs one scenario, but death is final, you die once you lose.  If you want to make it fun for the most people it needs to work more like Daoc/GW2.  You die you try again, death is expected.  It's more about how long did you last, did you put up a good fight.  If you did that it's all good and you run back for more.

    Of course you will see a lot of pve players stop trying at some point if they lose too many battles in a row.  But the point is you will get pve players to participate and willingly to a much greater extent.

    What's frustrating is to watch games like this copy verbatim.  Take what works and apply it to your game in a way that works for your game.  At least try to learn what's going on under the surface, what makes battle royale tick, and try to figure out how some of it might transfer to pvp in an mmo.  But just blindly copying, that's brain dead IMO.
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 11,073
    Phry said:
    Aelious said:
    If Ashes wants to be the next big MMORPG it will have PvE servers, where mob hordes place environmental pressure on nodes, or have PvP consensual. We've all heard of the "systems" that deter ganking in different titles but it either chokes the PvP fans out, or the PvE fans out.
    Unironically, its when PVP is voluntary rather than forced that the loudest voices are usually those who are advocates of PVP, choice is a real problem for some reason.
    That to be a sandbox game a game must have PVP is perhaps one of the most bizarre, the reasoning given often sounding more like excuses rather than a determined argument, the existence of PVE sandbox games being an inconvenient reality.
    Instead while there are many factors that help determine if a game is a sandbox game or not, one of the most important, imo at least, is that players are allowed to have a choice. ;)
    PvP Player here. Well said.

    I like PvP cause I'm Bartle's killer type, but I'm also a cooperator and socializer (not necessarily the same thing) - and PvP gives me both of those as well (team PvP and RvR specifically).

    As other wise posters have said above - when someone says it's important a game is about choice (i.e. "I like sandboxes") but thinks it's okay to completely restrict someone else's playstyle (by making them player-killable) in that same game, that person is full of shit.

    Glad you're pointing this out.

    If I ever get to the point where I demand non-consensual PvP for a game that is targeted at PvE as well as PvP players, I'll be full of shit too.

    Obvious exception is games that are out-loud PvP-focused games. In those games (Camelot Unchained, Crowfall for example), it's good to make most people be exposed to PvP most of the time - that's the point of the game.

    The problem is one of mechanisms.   A game like DAoC that allowed you to PvE in your homeland peacefully but had full PvP frontiers was a great setup.   An open world game that has toggleable flags is just silly and game ruining.  Now I'm a bad guy and can attack you, CLICK, now I'm "peaceful" haha and you can't!  That's just BAD game design in my eyes.


    Well if all you're doing is clicking a button then sure, but there are far more intelligent ways to "toggle" pvp. SWG had optional PVP and it was good. Being able to choose when you pvp and when you don't, whether it's via location, joining/leaving factions or whatever is the "best of both worlds". 

    Designing a PVP flag to a button click.. lmao. Come on now.
    Strongly disagree.  I absolutely HATED SWG flag system.   I will never forget getting ganked 4-1 by "rebels" and then finding them maybe 15 minutes later in town (forget how long the flag took to switch) but they were "covert" and dancing/laughing at me but of course their "flag" was on so I could not attack.   That's just bad game design IMHO.


    TorvalConstantineMerusKyleran

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

    My ignore list finally has one occupant after 12 years. I am the strongest supporter of free speech on here, but free speech does not mean forced listening. Have fun my friend. Hope you find a new stalking target.

  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,669
    To me, this will be a PvX (or PvPvE). There is PvP and if that's a deal breaker, then other pve MMOs or MMOs with PvE only areas are going to be a better fit. Currently there is LotRO, EQ2, ESO, and Guild Wars 2 to name a few. Pantheon and Saga of Lucemia aim to join that list. If you're more interested in EA and upcoming games, then check those out. PvE servers work in a pure themepark, but they don't work in an open world PvX game.
    take back the hobby: https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ༼ つ ◕◕ ༽つ

    It only took 3 people 8 words to rock Blizzard to its core.
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member RarePosts: 1,116
    Phry said:
    Aelious said:
    If Ashes wants to be the next big MMORPG it will have PvE servers, where mob hordes place environmental pressure on nodes, or have PvP consensual. We've all heard of the "systems" that deter ganking in different titles but it either chokes the PvP fans out, or the PvE fans out.
    Unironically, its when PVP is voluntary rather than forced that the loudest voices are usually those who are advocates of PVP, choice is a real problem for some reason.
    That to be a sandbox game a game must have PVP is perhaps one of the most bizarre, the reasoning given often sounding more like excuses rather than a determined argument, the existence of PVE sandbox games being an inconvenient reality.
    Instead while there are many factors that help determine if a game is a sandbox game or not, one of the most important, imo at least, is that players are allowed to have a choice. ;)
    PvP Player here. Well said.

    I like PvP cause I'm Bartle's killer type, but I'm also a cooperator and socializer (not necessarily the same thing) - and PvP gives me both of those as well (team PvP and RvR specifically).

    As other wise posters have said above - when someone says it's important a game is about choice (i.e. "I like sandboxes") but thinks it's okay to completely restrict someone else's playstyle (by making them player-killable) in that same game, that person is full of shit.

    Glad you're pointing this out.

    If I ever get to the point where I demand non-consensual PvP for a game that is targeted at PvE as well as PvP players, I'll be full of shit too.

    Obvious exception is games that are out-loud PvP-focused games. In those games (Camelot Unchained, Crowfall for example), it's good to make most people be exposed to PvP most of the time - that's the point of the game.

    The problem is one of mechanisms.   A game like DAoC that allowed you to PvE in your homeland peacefully but had full PvP frontiers was a great setup.   An open world game that has toggleable flags is just silly and game ruining.  Now I'm a bad guy and can attack you, CLICK, now I'm "peaceful" haha and you can't!  That's just BAD game design in my eyes.


    Well if all you're doing is clicking a button then sure, but there are far more intelligent ways to "toggle" pvp. SWG had optional PVP and it was good. Being able to choose when you pvp and when you don't, whether it's via location, joining/leaving factions or whatever is the "best of both worlds". 

    Designing a PVP flag to a button click.. lmao. Come on now.
    Strongly disagree.  I absolutely HATED SWG flag system.   I will never forget getting ganked 4-1 by "rebels" and then finding them maybe 15 minutes later in town (forget how long the flag took to switch) but they were "covert" and dancing/laughing at me but of course their "flag" was on so I could not attack.   That's just bad game design IMHO.


    Or they could go sit in the non pvp area and do the same thing. Moot point. 
  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 9,783
    What? The usuals are complaining? Waiting the same old scripted stuff? That means...

    Ashes is gonna be a hit. Just like ESO, just like BDO. 

    These dudes complaining want wildstar 2, or Everquest Landmark. The will hype the hell out the crap, then they won’t even play it themselves.

    lets go Ashes. I’m pulling for you!
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 11,073
    Phry said:
    Aelious said:
    If Ashes wants to be the next big MMORPG it will have PvE servers, where mob hordes place environmental pressure on nodes, or have PvP consensual. We've all heard of the "systems" that deter ganking in different titles but it either chokes the PvP fans out, or the PvE fans out.
    Unironically, its when PVP is voluntary rather than forced that the loudest voices are usually those who are advocates of PVP, choice is a real problem for some reason.
    That to be a sandbox game a game must have PVP is perhaps one of the most bizarre, the reasoning given often sounding more like excuses rather than a determined argument, the existence of PVE sandbox games being an inconvenient reality.
    Instead while there are many factors that help determine if a game is a sandbox game or not, one of the most important, imo at least, is that players are allowed to have a choice. ;)
    PvP Player here. Well said.

    I like PvP cause I'm Bartle's killer type, but I'm also a cooperator and socializer (not necessarily the same thing) - and PvP gives me both of those as well (team PvP and RvR specifically).

    As other wise posters have said above - when someone says it's important a game is about choice (i.e. "I like sandboxes") but thinks it's okay to completely restrict someone else's playstyle (by making them player-killable) in that same game, that person is full of shit.

    Glad you're pointing this out.

    If I ever get to the point where I demand non-consensual PvP for a game that is targeted at PvE as well as PvP players, I'll be full of shit too.

    Obvious exception is games that are out-loud PvP-focused games. In those games (Camelot Unchained, Crowfall for example), it's good to make most people be exposed to PvP most of the time - that's the point of the game.

    The problem is one of mechanisms.   A game like DAoC that allowed you to PvE in your homeland peacefully but had full PvP frontiers was a great setup.   An open world game that has toggleable flags is just silly and game ruining.  Now I'm a bad guy and can attack you, CLICK, now I'm "peaceful" haha and you can't!  That's just BAD game design in my eyes.


    Well if all you're doing is clicking a button then sure, but there are far more intelligent ways to "toggle" pvp. SWG had optional PVP and it was good. Being able to choose when you pvp and when you don't, whether it's via location, joining/leaving factions or whatever is the "best of both worlds". 

    Designing a PVP flag to a button click.. lmao. Come on now.
    Strongly disagree.  I absolutely HATED SWG flag system.   I will never forget getting ganked 4-1 by "rebels" and then finding them maybe 15 minutes later in town (forget how long the flag took to switch) but they were "covert" and dancing/laughing at me but of course their "flag" was on so I could not attack.   That's just bad game design IMHO.


    Or they could go sit in the non pvp area and do the same thing. Moot point. 
    Not even close to being the same thing.
    ChildoftheShadows

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

    My ignore list finally has one occupant after 12 years. I am the strongest supporter of free speech on here, but free speech does not mean forced listening. Have fun my friend. Hope you find a new stalking target.

  • A1learjetA1learjet Member UncommonPosts: 258
    Waite you can tab to target then see them thru Items?  I hate that even in eso hope that is removed before launch

    image
Sign In or Register to comment.