Home › Game Forums › Aion
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Who would play on a Rift free server but still have the PVP zones?
Would you like the option to play on a Rift free server but still PVP in zones like the Abyss but without ganked while PVEing?
For Aion to be successfull I don't see how NC can't give players this option. There are three types of MMO gamers.
1) Player Versus Players.
2) Players who like to PVE without getting ganked and still have the option to PVP in zones and instances. Warhammer and Dark ages of Camelot type games.
3)Players who only like to PVE.
To get the numbers they are hoping for NC needs to do what Wold of Warcraft has done. Make Aion attractive to all three and not just the Player versus players.
Comments
There really wouldn't be a point to having servers like that. The best PvE leveling is in the abyss after 25, where you can get ganked even more easily than a rift zone. PvP and PvE are so closely intertwined with this game you'd have to put forth a serious effort in to avoid the PvP entirely. From someone who has generally stuck to PvE in MMOs thus far, I don't see why you would with Aion.
The idea that every game needs to emulate WoW to be successful is ridiculous, and is not helping the genre progress at all. Furthermore, NCSoft won't have trouble with numbers; they already have healthy-sized fan bases in Asian countries, and will get plenty more from NA and Europe without redesigning their game entirely.
Simple answer, No.
If I didn't want the pvp I wouldn't play this game. Why do people look at/play a game they don't like and ask for it to be changed? Aion is doing really well in the east as it is. They're not going to change it just for a few people that don't like it in the west. If you don't like the rifts,pvp,rvr don't play it. There's plenty of pve style mmo's for people to choose from.
Is someone putting out talking points? The above was utter foolishness the first hundred times I've read it, in it's various forms and it hasn't improved it's logic rating with this iteration.
The point would be that the game would quadruple (or greater) it long term commercial appeal. If the best PvE leveling is in the Abyss, why would you care if other players could play grief free in the "inferior" PvE zones? NCSoft has already stated that there is enough content to level to the cap with out setting foot in the Abyss, so on servers where there was no non-consensual PvP outside the Abyss you could avoid PvP to what ever degree you wanted to with out much effort. Why would someone who has generally stuck to PvE in MMOs want to do the same in Aion? Sorry, I don't get your point on that one.
Having servers with out forced, Rift fed, PvP in the PvE zones doesn't morph Aion into an emulation of WoW; another game with potential that completely blows it due to some dumb developer design decisions is really not helping the genre to progress at all. The Asian market can do what's best for that market. If they want to have Aion be more than a niche game in the Western market by the end of the year and actually have a chance at ending the year with a million subscribers, rather than 150K, they'll add a second server type. An alternative rule set can be implemented very, very easily. Eliminate forced PvP in the PvE zones. Retain PvP in the Abyss. There are three very simple ways to do this, none of which require more than a small amount of coding, NOT any kind of redesign of the game!
Entire previous post refuted. People should be embarrased to repeat an argument with so little basis in logic or fact.
Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
As to the OP, although eliminating the rifts entirely would not be my prefered solution for offering an alternate server type, I'd support it if there were no other options offered.
There is a very easy way for NCSoft to add a PvE / casual friendly server option.
The game already supports zone "channels", which are just additional instances of the zone you are in. This is done for the lvl 1-20 zones, to prevent over crowding, but is currently turned off for the higher level zones.
They could have two channels for the level 20-40 and level 30-50 rift enabled zones. Native characters would default to channel #1 and could change to channel #2 if they wished to. Invading characters would default to channel #2 and would not have access to channel #1. Players wishing to avoid ganking and griefing in their home zones would play on, oblivious to any rift invaders, on channel #1. Those wishing to defend against invaders would switch to channel #2 and would there risk encounters with Rift invaders.
Why this, rather than just turn off rifts? There are quests that require you to visit the enemy zones to complete. With a system like this, no quests would be invalidated. No other changes to the game would be needed.
Preferable to this would be a PvP flagging system, not requiring two zone channels. Invaders would be force flagged, defenders would not. I won't spell out the details, I think we've seen it in enough games to know how it would work. This may, or may not, require more coding than the previous option, but once again requires no additional modification to the game.
In any event, PvP in the Abyss would remain as it already exists in the game. The Abyss would continue to be a risky place to play, but also offers rewards for those risks.
Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
Is someone putting out talking points? The above was utter foolishness the first hundred times I've read it, in it's various forms and it hasn't improved it's logic rating with this iteration.
The point would be that the game would quadruple (or greater) it long term commercial appeal. If the best PvE leveling is in the Abyss, why would you care if other players could play grief free in the "inferior" PvE zones? NCSoft has already stated that there is enough content to level to the cap with out setting foot in the Abyss, so on servers where there was no non-consensual PvP outside the Abyss you could avoid PvP to what ever degree you wanted to with out much effort. Why would someone who has generally stuck to PvE in MMOs want to do the same in Aion? Sorry, I don't get your point on that one.
Having servers with out forced Rift fed PvP in the PvE zones doesn't morph Aion into an emulation of WoW; another game with potential that completely blows it due to some dumb developer design decisions is really not helping the genre to progress at all. The Asian market can do what's best for that market. If they want to have Aion be more than a niche game in the Western market by the end of the year and actually have a chance at ending the year with a million subscribers, rather than 150K, they'll add a second server type. An alternative rule set can be implemented very, very easily. Eliminate forced PvP in the PvE zones. Retain PvP in the Abyss. There are three very simple ways to do this, none of which require more than a small amount of coding, NOT any kind of redesign of the game!
Entire previous post refuted. People should be embarrased to repeat an argument with so little basis in logic or fact.
Wow, not trying to start a flame war here, are we >.>.
I'm sure I'm not the first to make this arguement, but that doesn't make it less valid. I also think you mistook some of my points. Yes, there is content enough to reach the level cap without entering the abyss. My point was that skipping PvP ignores such a large percentage of the content and features in the game that it doesn't make sense imo. You're foregoing not only open abyss PvP, but RvR sieges, and PvPvE raids (major features/selling points of the game). Not to mention that you are essentially confining yourself to about 1/3 of the game's total map. Sure you COULD do that, but why play a game with all those features if you're going to ignore everything unique about it and focus on something every game on the market has. That's just my opinion as a player (I was only referring to myself when I talked about someone who has generally stuck to PvE in the past - I'm not doing that here because I'd forego so much that the game had to offer).
The game does not suck just because it is designed differently from most mainstream MMOs on the market. The OP also flat out said that they should make the game like WoW, so it's not like I'm pulling that out of thin air.
I'm not in market research, so I don't have the numbers on whether the costs of adding these extra servers would be worth NCSoft's investment, and neither do you. That's up to them to figure out, but I'm confident the game will continue to be quite successful even if it doesn't go out of its way to appease the NA audience's popular tastes.
I've never made this arguement on these boards before, as I recall, please don't displace your frustration on me. I am not attempting to belittle other peoples' playstyles. I don't see where my post is devoid of all "logic or fact" though. I game my opinion as a gamer, and your exaggerated figures are no more factual than that.
It's a rehash of the same rebuttal I've seen a hundred times. Nothing personal.
My post answers yours, sentence by sentence. Logical errors and complete exaggerations refuted.
I'm sorry if you innocently absorbed and repeated this stuff. It's amazing how easily so many have been swayed by admitted greifers who are laughing at NCSoft openly for giving them such a grief friendly game.
I prefer PvP play, but trying to mold a complex new anti-greifing system that would make a "one server type fits all" approach viable, this late in the game, would be asking a lot from the Devs. That's why I support a very easy to implement, low grief server alternative.
The ratio of players that would chose one type vs. the other is speculative. That in other MMORPGs that offer a choice see more than 2/3 chose a PvE server over a PvP server, I think I can very safely say that NCSoft would easily populate at least one PvE server, with at least a 50/50 split being a good bet.
"Be griefed or play another game" is an attitude you'd expect from griefers and some hard core PvP players. I'd think developers, wanting to attract and keep as many customers as possible, would realize how foolish an attitude that would be to take.
If they want another L2 level of success in the Western market with Aion, fine, but it will still be a shame to see such potential wasted, just because they wouldn't offer a server variant.
Let me apologize if you take the rebuttal personally. I'm just at the end of my patience with pro-greifer PvP rebuttals to requests for PvE servers. If you really respect other play styles, why would you oppose a PvE server? No one is asking for the core ruleset to be replaced with something more care-bear. It's only the "hardcore PvP" side that is insisting that there be no options.
Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
One, WoW was successfulll because it appealed to all three types of gamers. I never said make it like WoW. In fact I didn't like WoW and only tried it for a month before cancelling.
I don't want to eliminate PVP from Aion. But what I do wish NC would do is make PVE safe from griefers and Fiontar has some very good and easy to impliment ideas.
The magority of players want a game that's lets you PVE in peace and PVP when and if they want. Is that so bad or hard for the Gankers to understand and accept?
That was a tad condescending for an apology -_-.
If we're talking about overused arguements, I've seen "Aion needs to be like WoW or it will fail" more times than I'm comfortable with (which the OP seemed to be arguing to a degree).
I was merely stating my opinion that I would be happy with the game as is, because while I am not of the "hardcore" mindset and dislike the idea of griefing, I think it is a small price to pay for the potential features that can be included in the game because PvP is such a prominent factor. Even with the game in it's current incarnation, you can mostly avoid pvp, like they say, and they are still tweaking the anti-griefing system in the rift zones, so I don't see why new servers are warranted.
So, I was saying that while you can be strictly pve in the game, you are doing yourself a disservice imo by skipping all the more unique features of the game. If you just want pvp to be completely consensual, even in normally risky zones like the rift areas, that can be implemented without NCSoft having to purchase and maintain new servers.
All they have to do all a few more PvE areas with rifts don't appear... problem solved.
Don't wanna PvP goto the non-rift PvE areas.
No need to make a 2nd Server type.
They already have those and are in the process of adding new content to them so a 100% pve grind will become viable. That's why I agree that other server types are not needed.
Hey Hey
I Would be against this type of change. I am not a griefer, and generally i am not very good at pvp, however i miss the excitment of being aware of my surronding , and for there to be a real reason to be in groups.
Part of what interested me in Aion is the fact that it is not heavly instanced , and there is some danger. That being said not every game is for every gamer, and not every game is gonna be right for every one. I would much rather a game focus on a core group of people then attempts to make everyone happy. Personally i am looking forward to the cry's in chat for help and for a bunch of people to band together to kill a common enemy. While at some point it may be detramental to the community , in the long run i think it helps build a strong relationship with your fellow gamers.
Welcome Home
Rev
They already have those and are in the process of adding new content to them so a 100% pve grind is viable. That's why I agree that other server types are not needed.
I know, that why I say "a few more"
You should maybe read up on the level of greifing that has occurred and will occur outside the Abyss.
Each side has two large zones on their continent for post level 20 leveling. Well, large isn't quite accurate, as the game world is pretty small comparative to other titles. One is level 20-40, the other level 30-50. Rifts open in these zones. There are roughly a dozen Rift exit points on each side. Yes, each Rift has level and number limits. The lower limits for the exit points next to the lower level content of the zone, the higher limits for those opening where the content level is higher. Rifts open every two hours. 2 to 8 rifts, on average, open at each opportunity.
One problem is that even though higher level rifts do indeed tend to open further away from the low level players, it is very easy to travel from those rifts to the lower level content with in the zone. So, yes, a large zerg of level 45s can grief level 20s.
The second problem is that Aion does not decrease the power differential between players of different levels the way that most other games do. If you encounter another player 8 levels higher than you, you will miss 95% of the time and they will resist your skills 95% of the time, on top of them having better mitigation, more HP and higher DPS. A single level 30 can defeat a full party of 20s pretty easily in this game.
The third problem is that unlike the Abyss, (where there aren't many choke points, due to the 3D environment), the PvE zones are full of impassible cliffs and a small handful of choke points. It doesn't take many high level griefers to shut down travel with in a zone.
This last weekend, something like a dozen Elyos characters level 28 - 30 were able to shut down the entire level 20-40 Asmodian zone for most of the weekend.
This isn't like most other PvP titles, where you can be clever and duck around attackers if you are careful.
In many ways, the Rift system itself makes matters worse. It encourages large zergs, where as in other games most griefing is usually done by small groups or individuals.
There are many factors that contribute to this being one of the most grief friendly games released in a long time.
The Rift slayer system debuffs do little to keep griefing in check. Griefers have already mocked the system as irrelevant.
Casual players and those with out large, high leveled guilds will find that post level 20, griefing will be a persistant problem.
Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
I've been following the game closely as well, and I'm fully aware of all the issues you mentioned.
While I think that that particularly bad episode of griefing was partially a function of it being beta, I believe NCSoft will continue to make changes to the slayer system.
I played L2 back at launch, when simply stepping out of the starter town as a level 1 meant an instant gank, as an army of max level players could simply camp it all day with no reprecussion (not to mention the death penalties were harsh). They later made changes to that, making the game a bit more newbie friendly. I'm sure they know full well the extent that the griefing can reach and will take steps to remedy it (though I don't see them removing the rift mechanic entirely as that is obviously intended in some form). I still don't believe starting new servers need be one of those steps. If there aren't ways to circumvent it, I'm confident they will add them eventually.
They already have those and are in the process of adding new content to them so a 100% pve grind is viable. That's why I agree that other server types are not needed.
I know, that why I say "a few more"
There is currently one PvE zone on each continent with no rifts. A fifth of the zone contains about a dozen quests for level 20-25 and grind content for those levels. The rest of the zones are filled out in patch 1.5 with quests and content for levels 45-50. (This content was added to lessen the amount of grinding for that final, rough leveling range).
You can go there between levels 20 and 25 to avoid PvP, but with the very limited number of quests, if you chose to level there it will be a slog of a grind. From levels 25 to 45, there are a couple dungeons you could grind, over and over and over and over... if you are a complete masochist.
To avoid griefing in Aion requires a grinding leveling path that would drive even most "hard core" players from the game.
The big myth of Aion is that there is a greif free, PvP free leveling path that will be viable for casual or PvE centric players. There is a path to 50 that allows you level with out ever initiating PvP of entering the Abyss. There is not a viable path to 50 that allows you to avoid PvP griefing.
Even if you decide that the above doesn't mean anyting to you personally, we come back to the most basic question: "Why would anyone planning to play the default ruleset care if other people got to play on a care-bear server"?
Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
They wouldn't, but NCSoft would, since it's their dollar to pay for purchase and upkeep of those additional servers. Again, exact dollar figures elude me, but I would wager that tweaking the rift zones and pve game through patches (which the most recent ones that the NA client will launch with are already beginning to do) would be more cost effective in the long run than maintaining those extra servers with only slight differences in a small section of the game.
I've been following the game closely as well, and I'm fully aware of all the issues you mentioned.
While I think that that particularly bad episode of griefing was partially a function of it being beta, I believe NCSoft will continue to make changes to the slayer system.
I played L2 back at launch, when simply stepping out of the starter town as a level 1 meant an instant gank, as an army of max level players could simply camp it all day with no reprecussion (not to mention the death penalties were harsh). They later made changes to that, making the game a bit more newbie friendly. I'm sure they know full well the extent that the griefing can reach and will take steps to remedy it (though I don't see them removing the rift mechanic entirely as that is obviously intended in some form). I still don't believe starting new servers need be one of those steps. If there aren't ways to circumvent it, I'm confident they will add them eventually.
The game will be crippled commercially if it takes months for them to make adjustments. If they eventually fix it, or even decide to offer PvE servers a few months down the road, it will be too late. Games never recover from errors that bleed customers during the crucial opening months.
I've already said it. If NCSoft wants an L2 level of success in the West, they are on the right path. It will be a horrible waste (and a major financial misstep), however, to throw away the potential this game has to appeal to a broad audience by offering two server types.
If the game had nothing to offer but hardcore PvP and griefer appeal, then targeting that niche might make sense. That's not the case with Aion.
Also, the entire concept of trying to fit all play styles on one ruleset is really an impossible goal. If they ever did find a middle ground, the compromise would leave neither side happy. If people really like the default PvP design model for Aion, they should be begging for PvE servers to be added, so that there will be no pressure to water down PvP for those who want it!
Broken record warning: "The Question": As someone who likes the current rule set, why would you even care if some players were able to play on a seperate, more "care bear" server? Does your abiity to enjoy the game hinge on the inability of others who prefer less PvP to play the game in a way enjoyable to them?
Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
I'm just curious, if this was such a problem, or is such a problem, how did the game become so popular in the East? I'd imagine if there was nothing but crazy PvP camping and shutting down of zones that this game wouldn't have been much fun to play and all of the players would have quit.
I've been playing the CBTs and haven't ran into any of these problems yet. I'm playing on the Israphel server. I did hear about this shutting down of the zone last CBT but I didn't really believe it. I haven't seen any videos or screen shots of it, and aside from you, I've only read about it from one other person. I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm just saying, I didn't see it. If it was really that bad, a video would have been released and some major bitching would have ensued.
Again, I'm not saying it did or didn't happen or that it could or couldn't happen, I'm just saying it's never happened on Israphel. At least not when I've played, and I'm playing both sides.
Now to the original poster's question: Would I play on a server without Rifts? No, I would not. I would like to play the game as originally designed and intended. Just as I wanted to play Asheron's Call, Everquest, Dark Age of Camelot, World of Warcraft, Guild Wars, etc. as they were designed and intended. Nothing is perfect. Nothing will ever appeal to everyone.
We don't even know what the system will be like when the game is released. At least, I don't, I've never played 1.5 so I have no idea. Really, you just need to give the game a try and see if you like it. If the Rifts are something that really bother you, then this might not be the game for you. I'm sure they will offer a free trial after release, like most MMOs, so just wait until then.
I wouldn't.
Again, there is a slayer system coming with the version we launch with. If someone is out ganking they continue to receive penalties. People are getting really worked up about this, but NCSoft has already seen the problem and is already trying to adjust it. The slayer system has room for improvement but it is a step in the right direction.
Penalties of PvP in PVE Areas
If you go on a killing rampage in enemy territory (does not apply to the Abyss), you will receive penalties for doing so. This is called the Slayer System. The effects are as follows:
1. Depending on the amount of killings you will receive points. If your penalty points go over a certain limit, you will receive the penalty effects. If you kill lower leveled players than you, you will receive more points.
2. The penalty effects are categorized into two. One is a ?Curse? and you cannot use rifts. The second is a ?Judgment? and under this effect you cannot be resurrected in any Kiosk placed in the enemy territory, as well as use rifts.
3. The name of the Curse/Judgment depends on the race. If you are Elyos, you will receive Curse/Judgment of Asphel. Asmodians will get Curse/Judgment of Ariel.
4. Once you come under Curse or Judgment, your location will be revealed throughout the local map for the entire opposing faction members. Also, even if you are under a hiding skill, your title will be seen, making it even easier to be spotted.
5. You must go back to your own lands or the Abyss and wait for a certain amount of time for the Curse or Judgment to disappear.
6. If you or someone else kills a slayer, 12 nearby players of the dead body will receive buffs.
7. The killer of the slayer will be announced throughout the area chat under the format of ?[Race]?s Hero [Killer of the Slayer] has defeated [Slayer] while he was under [Judgment or Curse] of [Ariel or Asphel].
They wouldn't, but NCSoft would, since it's their dollar to pay for purchase and upkeep of those additional servers. Again, exact dollar figures elude me, but I would wager that tweaking the rift zones and pve game through patches (which the most recent ones that the NA client will launch with are already beginning to do) would be more cost effective in the long run than maintaining those extra servers with only slight differences in a small section of the game.
Any "additional servers" would just be more revenue. The total server capacity needed per 20,000 customers is the same. Having 5 PvP servers and 5 PvE servers to accommodate 100,000 people is no more expensive than having 10 PvP servers.
The incentives for PvE servers are even more complex.
The game currently has big appeal to PvP and PvE players.
*Lets run a hypothetical:
They launch with 500,000 customers on 20 PvP servers.
The grief friendly nature of the game quickly drives 50% of the initial players to quit with in four months.
They now have 20 half full servers for 250,000 subscribers.
They are paying for twice the server capacity they actually need for their subscribers.
(BTW, I think the bleed rate could be even worse than this).
*Ok, second hypothetical:
They launch with 500,000 customers on 10 PvP servers and 10 PvE servers.
By offering an enjoyable game experience for a wide range of play styles, they have a high retention rate and actually add customers.
With in four months, they have 750,000 customers on 12 PvP servers and 18 PvE servers. (Some people frustrated with the PvE servers migrate to PvE servers, but as over all subscriber base has increased, a couple new PvP servers are still warranted).
NCSoft has triple the subscriber base vs. the first hypothetical on servers near capacity.
*Now, it should be obvious which is better.
Even if you disagree on the split the community would produce, if even 10% of the subscription base would prefer to play on a PvP server, it's better financially for NCSoft and produces a more successful game.
PvE servers offer a more appropriate and enjoyable experience for PvE players AND offer an outlet for players who come to hate the PvP servers, but like the rest of the game enough to start over on a PvE server.
It's a complete no brainer.
Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
To you maybe it's a no brainer, but that is not what this game was designed for, or designed to be. This is like saying Chik-fil-a should serve hamburgers to increase their revenue. It's a complete no brainer.
I think this topic has gone way off base. The question was: Would you play on a Rift free server? Not: Do Rift free server make economic sense?
That's just my two pennies worth.
Oh, well, one more penny. The developers chose to make the game the way they did for a reason. They are the artist, this is their masterpiece. Would you have asked DaVinci to change the way he painted the Mona Lisa? Would you have asked him to offer a variant edition?
I'm not saying rift free servers would be bad, I'm sure there are people who would love them. I'm not one of those people. And by the way things look in the East, neither are 2.5 million people over there...if that's a true estimate of suscribers. I've heard more and I've heard less.
With the new Slayer system, why bother making "rift free" servers?
+1
Judging by the general forum consensus, 99% of people prefer the current server ruleset.
GW2 the future of MMO gaming
Not I said the chicken. I love doing PvE and having to watch my back. Its like a nice little surprise to get into a skirmish when out questing. Yeah there may be asshats that want to gank you and try to camp out but then you just gather up some people and make your presence known. But hopefully there is a lot of grouping going on in the later levels of Aion. That way there is less of a chance that you'll get ganked. I can see a lot of good battles happening while your party is out questing/adventuring and you run into a group of the opposite faction.
Edit: I always wondered what FFXI would have been like if it was open PvP. People would be fighting over places to camp out at battles at NM spawns. There was so many times I just wanted to straight up kill someone in game but couldn't.
I just cant wait to enter an opposing factions instance an battle it up in there and vice versa. I liked WAR's PvP except that the Destro would just play musical keeps all day. I guess people now days really just don't like a challenge. I hope Aion has found an answer to the musical keeps thing. If done right I can see my self having a ton of fun in this game.