We need PVE servers here's why

Azherae wrote: »

What if anything do we know about Ashes that requires owPvP to exist given that there are no Factions and that Guild v Guild exists?

Mule runs being completely safe. I'd imagine a lot of people will use them in the game as the safer version of caravans because most people would be scared of x2 corruption, but if anyone wanted the resources in that mule (if they knew the transporting player and their value) - they could still risk it.

I think others have mentioned it before, but I dunno how pvp-dislikers would look at node wars as a concept. To me that's literally owpvp on a huge scale and a kind of replacement of L2's guild wars (because AoC's GWs will be more goal-based). So if you watched that 17min video that I posted in your thread, you know how those wars went, and that definitely doesn't look all too consensual to me (mainly because it's gonna be a bit harder to change your node, compared to how ez it was to exit a clan at war if you didn't want to bother with the war).

And even outside of node wars there's pvp/pk attacks as the means of active node attrition. We obviously have no clue how exactly the node points will be distributed, but I'd assume higher lvled content would probably give out more points (at least that seems logical to me), so a guild/group from another node coming to yours and just locking everyone out of a dungeon through pvp/pk would quickly put pressure on your node's atrophy. Obviously this would be a huge undertaking and would probably be difficult to execute well, but I'm sure you know that there'll always be people ready to attempt the hardest things if they see a benefit in doing so.

Those 3 are the biggest ones that came to my mind rn.

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

What if anything do we know about Ashes that requires owPvP to exist given that there are no Factions and that Guild v Guild exists?

Mule runs being completely safe. I'd imagine a lot of people will use them in the game as the safer version of caravans because most people would be scared of x2 corruption, but if anyone wanted the resources in that mule (if they knew the transporting player and their value) - they could still risk it.

I think others have mentioned it before, but I dunno how pvp-dislikers would look at node wars as a concept. To me that's literally owpvp on a huge scale and a kind of replacement of L2's guild wars (because AoC's GWs will be more goal-based). So if you watched that 17min video that I posted in your thread, you know how those wars went, and that definitely doesn't look all too consensual to me (mainly because it's gonna be a bit harder to change your node, compared to how ez it was to exit a clan at war if you didn't want to bother with the war).

And even outside of node wars there's pvp/pk attacks as the means of active node attrition. We obviously have no clue how exactly the node points will be distributed, but I'd assume higher lvled content would probably give out more points (at least that seems logical to me), so a guild/group from another node coming to yours and just locking everyone out of a dungeon through pvp/pk would quickly put pressure on your node's atrophy. Obviously this would be a huge undertaking and would probably be difficult to execute well, but I'm sure you know that there'll always be people ready to attempt the hardest things if they see a benefit in doing so.

Those 3 are the biggest ones that came to my mind rn.

I'd absolutely treat Mules as Caravans, I honestly figured they basically were, but obv there's no reason that must be true.

So since I am not actually sure that I can get anything out of @Mag7spy or @Okeydoke until they accept that I'm a ganker and not a PvP-remover...

Might as well clarify to you and reference it in case they ever catch on.

One of the main things successful leads and CEOs learn not to do (because they move around between companies as managers) is not to put much weight on the opinions of people who can't justify the status quo other than to restate that it is so.

This means that when you don't want something to change, you should come up with a better reason than 'there's no need to change it'. If Ashes works like this at all, and Steven isn't just 'refusing to actually debate things with staff', then some of even Steven's ideas are subject to change if he can't justify them beyond 'I just don't think it needs to change'.

Every person who jumps on the same line is taking a big risk of losing the thing they are interested in because they didn't give real feedback, they just relied on inertia. So here's my problem. I don't think the above are enough. They're good arguments, surely, but even as the person who wants to keep the owPvP... I'm not sure I could justify it given design at the moment.

I'm trying to figure it out. What the actual reason to not change it is. What the core 'This is why Ashes MUST have this', is, so that I can keep having it with some certainty beyond 'But Steven promised!'

I'd love for this thread to result in a concrete reason that people could be pointed to as to why Ashes must have this and will not change it that doesn't boil down to 'Oh you scared?! Suck it up, buttercup, or gtfo!'

Because that is helping precisely nobody. So, separately, all y'all having that reaction to ME...

You wanna actually help make sure we get to keep this thing or what?

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

I'm... just gonna assume you're trying to troll me here. If not, please reread.

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

My bad I will spell it out for you.

I am a ganker sometimes.

I want more PvP. All of it. I want everyone to PvP. I want everyone to WANT to PvP. I want everyone to see PvP as a valid way of solving their conflicts and a fun experience 90% of the time it happens.

I want to finally have an MMO where if I see someone and I just feel like fighting and that person is at my level, that they have a good reason to think 'I should have this fight, it might be good/fun'.

I don't see that in Ashes yet, I see the same old annoying world in which the moment I start fighting a bunch of inexperienced people, they're going to be very upset and not fight back. And I will kill them anyway.

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

Then I guess you're small-time evil compared to me.

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

Yeah. I'm not the type of small-fry that you seem to be, where the Corruption system or the 'threat of dropping gear' changes my behaviour. I do what I want, when I want, and all I want is a game where other people are taught to fight back instead of feeling helpless and quitting.

Understand now?

Azherae wrote: »

I'd absolutely treat Mules as Caravans, I honestly figured they basically were, but obv there's no reason that must be true.

I mean, in the current design mule is supposedly a way safer way to transfer your goods. On a pve server it would be THE safest way, because anyone who might partake in pvp, would most likely raid caravans fairly often. If you remove mules from the game to push the pvp onto players, you've created a "feelsbad" moment where a player might lose a ton of their resources or would have to run upwards of 100 times between their destinations to avoid that loss. I know that Dygz loves to imagine that solo caravans won't be attacked or will be exempted from the pvp event system for some reason, but I don't agree cause that'd be the juicy ez food for any pvp-enjoyer.

But let's say on a pve server a solo caravan will be purely pve. In theory that wouldn't influence the quest or mayoral based ones, so that'll probably be fine.

Azherae wrote: »

You wanna actually help make sure we get to keep this thing or what?

Now as for my other examples. Nodes are the main feature of the game. Nodes interacting and changing is the core design of this feature. Both of those things are pvp based and pretty much play the biggest role in the "sand" part of sandpark, because w/o nodes interacting/changing you'd have a static themparky world.

Now if we look at all the pvp events in the game, we'd have castle/node sieges, caravans (in this case only mayoral and quest-based) and guild wars. The sieges part would happen maybe once a month for any given player, and that's if they manage to be a part of the siege itself and whether the siege even happens.

The caravans is an interesting thing, because imo unless Intrepid forces mayors and other people to use the quest-based caravans (or at least makes it waaaay more beneficial to do so) - I don't see a reason why someone would risk their own or their node's resources in a quest caravan run when they can just run one alone in a group w/o any fear of being attacked.

And the remaining pvp event is guild wars. Steven has said that he wants to have those wars be more meaningful than their L2 counterpart, so this won't necessarily be a pure pvp event. It'll more likely be a some kind of event with pvp in it, akin to the caravan system. Afaik it was also stated that declaring a guild war won't be as easy and as cheap as it was in L2 (pretty much just hit a button and that's it ) nor will the refusal be free. So this leads me to believe that we might not see too many guild wars among people. Especially if we consider this in the context of a PvE server where most people would probably expect to chill and just kill some mobs or do some artisanal shit.

And so with all of those things considered, we come to a point where the "sand" part of the game would maybe amount to an evening's worth of content roughly once a month. That doesn't sound all that sandy to me. Now it could be argued that this is the whole point of having a PvE server, but at that point I personally wouldn't call this game Ashes of Creation.

I don't know if I've managed to explain my view point on this issue as well as you wanted, but that's the best reasoning for "I don't think PvE servers would work in Ashes" that I could come up with.

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

I'd absolutely treat Mules as Caravans, I honestly figured they basically were, but obv there's no reason that must be true.

I mean, in the current design mule is supposedly a way safer way to transfer your goods. On a pve server it would be THE safest way, because anyone who might partake in pvp, would most likely raid caravans fairly often. If you remove mules from the game to push the pvp onto players, you've created a "feelsbad" moment where a player might lose a ton of their resources or would have to run upwards of 100 times between their destinations to avoid that loss. I know that Dygz loves to imagine that solo caravans won't be attacked or will be exempted from the pvp event system for some reason, but I don't agree cause that'd be the juicy ez food for any pvp-enjoyer.

But let's say on a pve server a solo caravan will be purely pve. In theory that wouldn't influence the quest or mayoral based ones, so that'll probably be fine.

Azherae wrote: »

You wanna actually help make sure we get to keep this thing or what?

Now as for my other examples. Nodes are the main feature of the game. Nodes interacting and changing is the core design of this feature. Both of those things are pvp based and pretty much play the biggest role in the "sand" part of sandpark, because w/o nodes interacting/changing you'd have a static themparky world.

Now if we look at all the pvp events in the game, we'd have castle/node sieges, caravans (in this case only mayoral and quest-based) and guild wars. The sieges part would happen maybe once a month for any given player, and that's if they manage to be a part of the siege itself and whether the siege even happens.

The caravans is an interesting thing, because imo unless Intrepid forces mayors and other people to use the quest-based caravans (or at least makes it waaaay more beneficial to do so) - I don't see a reason why someone would risk their own or their node's resources in a quest caravan run when they can just run one alone in a group w/o any fear of being attacked.

And the remaining pvp event is guild wars. Steven has said that he wants to have those wars be more meaningful than their L2 counterpart, so this won't necessarily be a pure pvp event. It'll more likely be a some kind of event with pvp in it, akin to the caravan system. Afaik it was also stated that declaring a guild war won't be as easy and as cheap as it was in L2 (pretty much just hit a button and that's it ) nor will the refusal be free. So this leads me to believe that we might not see too many guild wars among people. Especially if we consider this in the context of a PvE server where most people would probably expect to chill and just kill some mobs or do some artisanal shit.

And so with all of those things considered, we come to a point where the "sand" part of the game would maybe amount to an evening's worth of content roughly once a month. That doesn't sound all that sandy to me. Now it could be argued that this is the whole point of having a PvE server, but at that point I personally wouldn't call this game Ashes of Creation.

I don't know if I've managed to explain my view point on this issue as well as you wanted, but that's the best reasoning for "I don't think PvE servers would work in Ashes" that I could come up with.

Perhaps I need to review the systems. I know Guild Wars will be harder to declare, but that's not really an argument for or against owPvP in my mind, especially if 'being in a Guild' is actually meaningfully useful.

I was under the impression that all Caravans are attackable, so I need to review that, so thanks for pointing it out.

The amount of 'useless for development' unbalanced PvP that will probably be the early months of Ashes is my concern here, so if someone came and said 'we're just going to take it out' or even 'we're going to make PvP only start at level 40', then what?

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

I don't pick on the small-fry, James.

Unless they're picking my herbs or something.

Besides, by their own declaration, they would definitely PK me, so clearly I'm doomed to lose and your betting pool is pointless. I have been overwhelmed by their confidence.

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

Yes yes I'm completely familiar with the 'I'm the most evil around! Fear me!'

You can have the title of Evil OverEdgeLord, I only care about my money. Consider your point proven and your honor defended.

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

Ok I have to admit, this one made me smile a bit.

Number one guild... on a New World Server.

I don't actually care if I can beat you or not, but this was definitely good for a laugh.

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

Yes I'm sure you dominated crushingly over all (~rechecks New World Server player cap~) 1900 of your likeliest opponents and never once did anyone in your guild use any of the multiple gold dupes or buggy systems to get ahead.

Because that wouldn't be the TYPE of evil you do.

Azherae wrote: »

Perhaps I need to review the systems. I know Guild Wars will be harder to declare, but that's not really an argument for or against owPvP in my mind, especially if 'being in a Guild' is actually meaningfully useful.

I guess it is an argument for me because, as shown in the video I posted in your thread, guild wars in L2 were the bread and butter of the pvp there. And it was usually "non-consensual" (even though you consented to it by being in a guild with a war). So to me, a change towards "goal-based" guild wars is a change from owpvp. But node wars was the direct replacement to that. And with that in mind, as I already stated, I dunno how pvp-dislikers would feel towards that feature. At least in their day-to-day life. Obviously you can try and replace a Mayor that keeps declaring wars (though that would be real difficult to do imo), but iirc that is also only once a month, so you're kinda fucked for a month, unless you're ready to change your preferred node. But I personally thought that Nodes were supposed to be the highest "fealty" thing for any given player in the game, so changing it willy-nilly like you might a guild isn't quite as easy.

Azherae wrote: »

I was under the impression that all Caravans are attackable, so I need to review that, so thanks for pointing it out.

They are all attackable. It's just Dygz that likes to keep saying that a solo caravan is pretty much a pve experience cause the chances of getting attacked by others are real low.

But I also mentioned them being exempt from the pvp event system as a way to remove the hardest hitting point of small pvp in the game. People will be using caravans to move big volumes of resources and others will attack said caravans with the goal of stealing all that shit. If we keep mules on a pve server and leave the caravan system unchanged - most people will use mules because that'll be a 100% sure way to transfer your goods. Yes, people like Dygz might make their one caravan run "the pvp of the day", but how many of such people will be able to run those caravans again and again if they keep losing tons of their resources? I'd assume, not that many.

And this is why I brought up mules as one of the systems that's gonna be impacted a lot by the removal of owpvp. And mules are connected to resource movements, which are connected to nodes, which are at the core of the game.

Azherae wrote: »

The amount of 'useless for development' unbalanced PvP that will probably be the early months of Ashes is my concern here, so if someone came and said 'we're just going to take it out' or even 'we're going to make PvP only start at level 40', then what?

Again, considering my bias, that would be a bad thing just because I enjoyed low lvl pvp as much as high lvl one. And considering how the crafting system will work, "removing pvp up to lvl40" would bring us to the NW's problems of "he got the rare resource I wanted and I can't do anything about it" or, god forbid, "I killed a mob but that motherfucker was closer to it so he was the one to skin it" (this is easily fixable though).

And with this kind of system you'll create a meta of "fastest class with fastest augments is the best at gathering", because they'll be able to run between any gatherables super quickly and pick them all up before anyone can even try. I've done this type of thing in L2 with mobs. Some dude came to my room and didn't flag up, even if I did on him? I'd just outfarm his ass by using my fastest abilities combines with my hardhitting aoes. Usually the dude would get the hint pretty quickly. The same has been done to me quite a few times too. Now imagine this on a bigger scale of hardcore guilds. A group of theoretical rogues or archers running around gathering shit and not letting a single person do anything. Owpvp or node wars would at least allow us to fight back against this type of thing, but on a PvE server I don't really know what you could do (well except for joining the same dark side).

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

Then please, I honestly implore you, give me those 'more reasons than what he's said'.

Because if someone goes to Steven and says 'Steven we NEED to make open world PvP opt-in until level 35, it still keeps most of the same functions of the game, you can still attack sub-35 people in Guild Wars and every other situation, but we need to protect the casuals', I would like to know that Steven has a truly good reason to deny this suggestion other than 'No, I promised the people!'

Especially when like 50% of the people will definitely go 'yes that is a great idea do that!'

Azherae wrote: »

Especially when like 50% of the people will definitely go 'yes that is a great idea do that!'

Way more than 50%, which will usually then snowball into bigger asks. But I get your point.

L2 had an "anti-chaos character" buff where PKers couldn't attack the person with the buff. That buff was given out by an npc in any town for free. But that's just another anti-PK system rather than an anti-PvP one.

Also, considering the "sub-40 no pvp" thing. In your opinion, how should artisanal levels correlate with the adventure lvl, if at all? Cause I could see that as a huge potential hole, if a sub-40 dude could be a top lvl artisan and just go around picking up super rare resources w/o anyone being able to stop him. Yes, the mobs would be a factor, but there's way too many variables there. Also, if you have such a dude in your high lvl party, he'd be the resource vacuum and would never lose them due to PK. I'd definitely use this system in such a way if it allowed me to.