What might 'actually' be AoC's biggest problem

We have not received permission from BaSkA_9x2 to share the quoted post.

Intrepid would have to support 2 different games. On pvp servers you can have limited resources because the pvpers are fine with fighting for them. On pve servers there's no fighting so you gotta supply everyone with resources otherwise they'll complain about not being able to farm anything (cause time-hardcore players will always win out).

On pvp servers bosses can be open world because, again, pvpers will have fun fighting over them. On pve servers you'll need to put those bosses into instance, because there won't be enough bosses for everyone (mainly because time-hardcore peeps will just have those bosses on unusual respawn timers and gonna kill them within minutes w/o anyone contesting).

On pvp servers you have a wide range of ways to undermine big guilds in the open world, in hopes that you can trip them up or at least sow doubt within their ranks so that they crumble from the inside. And then you can fight against a weaker force on bosses and during sieges. On pve servers there's nothing you can do against a blob of players that amasses resources and has good pvpers within the blob that use those resources to completely demolish anyone who tries to go against them.

In order to appeal to both extremes of the spectrum Intrepid would need to have two different designs for the game and keep developing them at the same pace if they want to keep both sides happy. Alternatively they can just make one good game and push it as hard as they can for its target audience. It'll obviously be on a smaller scale than a pve-friendly version, but those who do play it will love it so much more.

We have not received permission from Strevi to share the quoted post.

It is the PvP that kills the game.

It is also the people that go 'Even if you like PvP, as long as you don't like THIS SPECIFIC PVP THAT I LIKE, you're wrong and should gtfo'.

The two of these things interact quite poorly.

We have not received permission from BaSkA_9x2 to share the quoted post.

If the game has PvE servers, and this results in the majority of players playing on those, it would tell us one of three things.

1. Those players would probably not have put up with the PvP servers for too long anyway so that's the demographic that would have bled off from the standard sub numbers.
2. The systems work sufficiently with 'just PvE' that they're still fun
3. Some number of potentially PvP players found it to be in their best interest to switch (otherwise the PvP servers would still mostly thrive, which would also be great)

We actually have a model for this, because Elite gives you the choice of 'Open', 'Private Group', 'Solo' every time you even log in.

So you can get a MASSIVE amount of data about why EXACTLY players choose one or the other, since they must choose it repeatedly. They must form "Private PvE groups" that are only PvE by agreement. They similarly form groups that have "Players must play in Open Only" as their rules, and this is visibly enforceable because you can see 'which mode your group/friends logged in as'.

Their Reddit is a good place to farm data on 'what exactly makes players choose one or the other'.

We have not received permission from BaSkA_9x2 to share the quoted post.

Ah yes, sorry, I actually didn't even realize that I didn't write out the full name.

My point is that there are actually quite a few 'Anti-PvP' players of Elite Dangerous that were willing to play anyway, and there have been explicit discussions about 'what would happen if they stopped offering the option and made everyone play in Open' and a non-trivial number of people there seemed to respond "I'll still play because I know where to be/how to deal with the situation'.

I mention this because the only thing that 'protects' people in Open Play in Elite Dangerous is "wanted status", which is basically similar to Corruption, and it doesn't do a great job of it at all, but because of the other gameplay factors, it seems that a substantial number of players would still have been willing to play it.

This is, again, in a game where people have the option to never PvP ever, to never SEE another player in ANY situation, and multiple options for 'PvE groups' (those DO get quite large though). So I consider it 'a game where people got to make their own personal PvE sub-worlds', where they can relatively easily be attacked and the system doesn't protect them much, and they still do this while NEVER intending to PvP or particularly fight back. This is why I don't think Dygz would have minded, for example. "Escaping" is an important skill in these situations that Dygz would probably work on, and 'not being in the mood to PvP' apparently doesn't mean 'not being in the mood to use one's skill to escape or avoid PvP'.

They just adjust their builds and do all the things people say you should otherwise do in Ashes. Or at least, they did a few years ago, lots of controversy since has made me not bother checking.

tl;dr PvE servers don't seem as good an idea to me as giving more options for interacting with PvP players on reasonable terms, since a lot of even 'PvE players' don't want them.

We have not received permission from Dolyem to share the quoted post.

Nah, we gotta take the high road. We listen to both sides and then prove them wrong through actions. If you made the extreme sides out to be Mordor - they'll behave like it.

We have not received permission from Okeydoke to share the quoted post.

Exactly, the game survives on its community. If a good portion of the community can prove that the game can exist with owpvp w/o turning into a toxic grieffest - people will come and play the game.

FF14 is infamous for being kind to newbies and having an overall nice community. It's obviously easier for them to be nice considering that the game doesn't really push people against each other, but if we dare call ourselves true pvpers who have high skill then we gotta prove it by overcoming the innate toxicity of competitive games and come out on top. Otherwise we'd definitely be weaker than carebears.