One wonders about the motivations of those who are so fanatically against expanding choices here... PvP and PvE servers exist in many, many games. It also expands the companies potential profits. The only down side I can see is the loss of unwilling/inexperienced victims for ganking/griefing...
Those "other games" are pve games with pvp tacked on. Thats a big difference.
As for me, I am vehemently against pve severs because I havnt had an mmo to play in literally years - because they are all trying to cadre to you. Maybe thats where the big money is....but thats not where I am at. Please, pretty please, let me have just one fucking mmo to play? There is a metric-crap-ton of WoWs out there for you; take your pick. But lets just allow this game to be what it is.
One wonders about the motivations of those who are so fanatically against expanding choices here... PvP and PvE servers exist in many, many games. It also expands the companies potential profits. The only down side I can see is the loss of unwilling/inexperienced victims for ganking/griefing...
Those "other games" are pve games with pvp tacked on. Thats a big difference.
As for me, I am vehemently against pve severs because I havnt had an mmo to play in literally years - because they are all trying to cadre to you. Maybe thats where the big money is....but thats not where I am at. Please, pretty please, let me have just one fucking mmo to play? There is a metric-crap-ton of WoWs out there for you; take your pick. But lets just allow this game to be what it is.
Have you tried Darkfall? Its full loot, full time PvP. Its a game totally dedicated to PvP and all that goes with it.
One wonders about the motivations of those who are so fanatically against expanding choices here... PvP and PvE servers exist in many, many games. It also expands the companies potential profits. The only down side I can see is the loss of unwilling/inexperienced victims for ganking/griefing...
Those "other games" are pve games with pvp tacked on. Thats a big difference.
As for me, I am vehemently against pve severs because I havnt had an mmo to play in literally years - because they are all trying to cadre to you. Maybe thats where the big money is....but thats not where I am at. Please, pretty please, let me have just one fucking mmo to play? There is a metric-crap-ton of WoWs out there for you; take your pick. But lets just allow this game to be what it is.
Why would PvE friendly servers effect your ability to play the core server in any way?
If anything, an alternate server type would head off the current development of more care bear systems for the game, which is one of the reasons why I, as a PvP leaning player, would prefer that there be two server types.
The most common proposal for a PvE friendly server type for Aion would still have PvP in the Abyss, but would limit PvP in the rift accessible PvE zones. There are a few options for this, all of which would be extremely simple for NCSoft to produce with minimal cost or effort.
The game would be essentially the same and would allow casuals and PvE leaning players (which is about 66% of the market in the West) the ability to enjoy the game with out rift enabled griefing. Not at all an unreasonable request from the fan base and one that would pay huge financial dividends for NCSoft. It would also help keep the core game more "pure" for those who will enjoy the PvPvE element of the game.
One wonders about the motivations of those who are so fanatically against expanding choices here... PvP and PvE servers exist in many, many games. It also expands the companies potential profits. The only down side I can see is the loss of unwilling/inexperienced victims for ganking/griefing...
Those "other games" are pve games with pvp tacked on. Thats a big difference.
As for me, I am vehemently against pve severs because I havnt had an mmo to play in literally years - because they are all trying to cadre to you. Maybe thats where the big money is....but thats not where I am at. Please, pretty please, let me have just one fucking mmo to play? There is a metric-crap-ton of WoWs out there for you; take your pick. But lets just allow this game to be what it is.
Why would PvE friendly servers effect your ability to play the core server in any way?
If anything, an alternate server type would head off the current development of more care bear systems for the game, which is one of the reasons why I, as a PvP leaning player, would prefer that there be two server types.
The most common proposal for a PvE friendly server type for Aion would still have PvP in the Abyss, but would limit PvP in the rift accessible PvE zones. There are a few options for this, all of which would be extremely simple for NCSoft to produce with minimal cost or effort.
The game would be essentially the same and would allow casuals and PvE leaning players (which is about 66% of the market in the West) the ability to enjoy the game with out rift enabled griefing. Not at all an unreasonable request from the fan base and one that would pay huge financial dividends for NCSoft. It would also help keep the core game more "pure" for those who will enjoy the PvPvE element of the game.
But what it does do is reduce the number of unwilling/inexperienced victims available to be ganked/griefed. If there are PvP and PvE servers, those on the PvP servers are there by choice... And they tend to be the more experienced at PvP. Gankers/Griefers would consider this a Bad Thing(tm). Thats why so many of them would no doubt be on the PvE servers, attempting to find loop holes in the system. I've seen it in game after game.
NCsoft is Korean. The Asians have a completely different take on these things. Asian players have been conditioned to accept and expect, levels of ganking and griefing that would not only niche a game in the west, but would destroy its business model. If you think about it, you will see why. Content is one of THE most expensive parts of an MMO. In PvP heavy games, the players themselves provide much of the content. Meaning that the game isn't nearly as expensive to produce. Anyone who objects is met by howls of "Suck it up!" "Grow a Pair!". "Pussy!" "Grind Harder!" or other such nonsense(as seen in various parts of this thread).
One wonders about the motivations of those who are so fanatically against expanding choices here... PvP and PvE servers exist in many, many games. It also expands the companies potential profits. The only down side I can see is the loss of unwilling/inexperienced victims for ganking/griefing...
Those "other games" are pve games with pvp tacked on. Thats a big difference.
As for me, I am vehemently against pve severs because I havnt had an mmo to play in literally years - because they are all trying to cadre to you. Maybe thats where the big money is....but thats not where I am at. Please, pretty please, let me have just one fucking mmo to play? There is a metric-crap-ton of WoWs out there for you; take your pick. But lets just allow this game to be what it is.
Why would PvE friendly servers effect your ability to play the core server in any way?
If anything, an alternate server type would head off the current development of more care bear systems for the game, which is one of the reasons why I, as a PvP leaning player, would prefer that there be two server types.
The most common proposal for a PvE friendly server type for Aion would still have PvP in the Abyss, but would limit PvP in the rift accessible PvE zones. There are a few options for this, all of which would be extremely simple for NCSoft to produce with minimal cost or effort.
The game would be essentially the same and would allow casuals and PvE leaning players (which is about 66% of the market in the West) the ability to enjoy the game with out rift enabled griefing. Not at all an unreasonable request from the fan base and one that would pay huge financial dividends for NCSoft. It would also help keep the core game more "pure" for those who will enjoy the PvPvE element of the game.
In the immediate short term, you are entirely correct. Providing non-standard servers, such as Riftless servers or PvE only servers would have little to no effect on the standard servers and its players.
But three months, 6 months, a year down the road, when (if?) the game is established, you will now have Two sets of customers. PvPers and PvE'ers who are fine with some open world PvP, and those PvE'ers who will not tolerate any form of Open World pvp. And both will be wanting new content. Unfortunately, Developers have limited resources so one of those two sets is going to get "The Shaft" leaving them unhappy.
PvPvE and RVR development WILL be neglected in order to attract and retain the Riftless PvE'ers. Sure the game should probably develop PvE content AS WELL as PvPvE/RvR, but if there is a whole group who could care less about PvP...then that element will have less resources devoted to it then it would otherwise.
Splitting the servers will invariably lessen the experience for those of us who want a PvPvE...a good, triple A, well supported RVR type game.
And once again folks, keep in mind its not just riftless servers they are saying no to, its ALL non-standard servers be it Roleplaying, Super Extreme Hardcore, Full Loot, etc.
So yes. You may not mean to, but in wanting this you are wanting to limit the ability for us that want it to have a Good Solid Well Supported RVR game.
Hope that made sense and didnt come off as rude.
These three things doth a wise man fear: A storm at sea, a moonless night, and the anger of a gentle man
One wonders about the motivations of those who are so fanatically against expanding choices here... PvP and PvE servers exist in many, many games. It also expands the companies potential profits. The only down side I can see is the loss of unwilling/inexperienced victims for ganking/griefing...
Those "other games" are pve games with pvp tacked on. Thats a big difference.
As for me, I am vehemently against pve severs because I havnt had an mmo to play in literally years - because they are all trying to cadre to you. Maybe thats where the big money is....but thats not where I am at. Please, pretty please, let me have just one fucking mmo to play? There is a metric-crap-ton of WoWs out there for you; take your pick. But lets just allow this game to be what it is.
Why would PvE friendly servers effect your ability to play the core server in any way?
If anything, an alternate server type would head off the current development of more care bear systems for the game, which is one of the reasons why I, as a PvP leaning player, would prefer that there be two server types.
The most common proposal for a PvE friendly server type for Aion would still have PvP in the Abyss, but would limit PvP in the rift accessible PvE zones. There are a few options for this, all of which would be extremely simple for NCSoft to produce with minimal cost or effort.
The game would be essentially the same and would allow casuals and PvE leaning players (which is about 66% of the market in the West) the ability to enjoy the game with out rift enabled griefing. Not at all an unreasonable request from the fan base and one that would pay huge financial dividends for NCSoft. It would also help keep the core game more "pure" for those who will enjoy the PvPvE element of the game.
In the immediate short term, you are entirely correct. Providing non-standard servers, such as Riftless servers or PvE only servers would have little to no effect on the standard servers and its players.
But three months, 6 months, a year down the road, when (if?) the game is established, you will now have Two sets of customers. PvPers and PvE'ers who are fine with some open world PvP, and those PvE'ers who will not tolerate any form of Open World pvp. And both will be wanting new content. Unfortunately, Developers have limited resources so one of those two sets is going to get "The Shaft" leaving them unhappy.
PvPvE and RVR development WILL be neglected in order to attract and retain the Riftless PvE'ers. Sure the game should probably develop PvE content AS WELL as PvPvE/RvR, but if there is a whole group who could care less about PvP...then that element will have less resources devoted to it then it would otherwise.
Splitting the servers will invariably lessen the experience for those of us who want a PvPvE...a good, triple A, well supported RVR type game.
And once again folks, keep in mind its not just riftless servers they are saying no to, its ALL non-standard servers be it Roleplaying, Super Extreme Hardcore, Full Loot, etc.
So yes. You may not mean to, but in wanting this you are wanting to limit the ability for us that want it to have a Good Solid Well Supported RVR game.
Hope that made sense and didnt come off as rude.
That is a very good post. Although i am not going to play Aion i too could see no harm in having a few PVE servers but your post does show how it could overtime take away from the PVP aspect of the game. And at least for me, your post did not seem rude at all.
One wonders about the motivations of those who are so fanatically against expanding choices here... PvP and PvE servers exist in many, many games. It also expands the companies potential profits. The only down side I can see is the loss of unwilling/inexperienced victims for ganking/griefing...
Those "other games" are pve games with pvp tacked on. Thats a big difference.
As for me, I am vehemently against pve severs because I havnt had an mmo to play in literally years - because they are all trying to cadre to you. Maybe thats where the big money is....but thats not where I am at. Please, pretty please, let me have just one fucking mmo to play? There is a metric-crap-ton of WoWs out there for you; take your pick. But lets just allow this game to be what it is.
Why would PvE friendly servers effect your ability to play the core server in any way?
If anything, an alternate server type would head off the current development of more care bear systems for the game, which is one of the reasons why I, as a PvP leaning player, would prefer that there be two server types.
The most common proposal for a PvE friendly server type for Aion would still have PvP in the Abyss, but would limit PvP in the rift accessible PvE zones. There are a few options for this, all of which would be extremely simple for NCSoft to produce with minimal cost or effort.
The game would be essentially the same and would allow casuals and PvE leaning players (which is about 66% of the market in the West) the ability to enjoy the game with out rift enabled griefing. Not at all an unreasonable request from the fan base and one that would pay huge financial dividends for NCSoft. It would also help keep the core game more "pure" for those who will enjoy the PvPvE element of the game.
In the immediate short term, you are entirely correct. Providing non-standard servers, such as Riftless servers or PvE only servers would have little to no effect on the standard servers and its players.
But three months, 6 months, a year down the road, when (if?) the game is established, you will now have Two sets of customers. PvPers and PvE'ers who are fine with some open world PvP, and those PvE'ers who will not tolerate any form of Open World pvp. And both will be wanting new content. Unfortunately, Developers have limited resources so one of those two sets is going to get "The Shaft" leaving them unhappy.
PvPvE and RVR development WILL be neglected in order to attract and retain the Riftless PvE'ers. Sure the game should probably develop PvE content AS WELL as PvPvE/RvR, but if there is a whole group who could care less about PvP...then that element will have less resources devoted to it then it would otherwise.
Splitting the servers will invariably lessen the experience for those of us who want a PvPvE...a good, triple A, well supported RVR type game.
And once again folks, keep in mind its not just riftless servers they are saying no to, its ALL non-standard servers be it Roleplaying, Super Extreme Hardcore, Full Loot, etc.
So yes. You may not mean to, but in wanting this you are wanting to limit the ability for us that want it to have a Good Solid Well Supported RVR game.
One wonders about the motivations of those who are so fanatically against expanding choices here... PvP and PvE servers exist in many, many games. It also expands the companies potential profits. The only down side I can see is the loss of unwilling/inexperienced victims for ganking/griefing...
Those "other games" are pve games with pvp tacked on. Thats a big difference.
As for me, I am vehemently against pve severs because I havnt had an mmo to play in literally years - because they are all trying to cadre to you. Maybe thats where the big money is....but thats not where I am at. Please, pretty please, let me have just one fucking mmo to play? There is a metric-crap-ton of WoWs out there for you; take your pick. But lets just allow this game to be what it is.
Why would PvE friendly servers effect your ability to play the core server in any way?
If anything, an alternate server type would head off the current development of more care bear systems for the game, which is one of the reasons why I, as a PvP leaning player, would prefer that there be two server types.
The most common proposal for a PvE friendly server type for Aion would still have PvP in the Abyss, but would limit PvP in the rift accessible PvE zones. There are a few options for this, all of which would be extremely simple for NCSoft to produce with minimal cost or effort.
The game would be essentially the same and would allow casuals and PvE leaning players (which is about 66% of the market in the West) the ability to enjoy the game with out rift enabled griefing. Not at all an unreasonable request from the fan base and one that would pay huge financial dividends for NCSoft. It would also help keep the core game more "pure" for those who will enjoy the PvPvE element of the game.
In the immediate short term, you are entirely correct. Providing non-standard servers, such as Riftless servers or PvE only servers would have little to no effect on the standard servers and its players.
But three months, 6 months, a year down the road, when (if?) the game is established, you will now have Two sets of customers. PvPers and PvE'ers who are fine with some open world PvP, and those PvE'ers who will not tolerate any form of Open World pvp. And both will be wanting new content. Unfortunately, Developers have limited resources so one of those two sets is going to get "The Shaft" leaving them unhappy.
PvPvE and RVR development WILL be neglected in order to attract and retain the Riftless PvE'ers. Sure the game should probably develop PvE content AS WELL as PvPvE/RvR, but if there is a whole group who could care less about PvP...then that element will have less resources devoted to it then it would otherwise.
Splitting the servers will invariably lessen the experience for those of us who want a PvPvE...a good, triple A, well supported RVR type game.
And once again folks, keep in mind its not just riftless servers they are saying no to, its ALL non-standard servers be it Roleplaying, Super Extreme Hardcore, Full Loot, etc.
So yes. You may not mean to, but in wanting this you are wanting to limit the ability for us that want it to have a Good Solid Well Supported RVR game.
Hope that made sense and didnt come off as rude.
I haven't seen a single title where offering two server types has had any impact on future development.
In Aion, the Abyss is the Abyss. It's going to be PvP on any server. No reason for PvE leaning servers to some how lead NCSoft away from expanding the Abyss.
The newly fleshed out third zone on each continent is 85% filled with high level PvE content and there are no rifts to those zones. No need to have rifts to every PvE zone, obviously.
I don't see any impact, based on the way this game is laid out and proposed PvE friendly rule sets, why providing PvE friendlier servers would have any impact on future development of the game.
Maybe you can give a specific example of something that would have to change in the design of future content because of adding an additional server type. (Keep in mind that no one asking for an alternate rule set is asking for a rule set completely free from Rifts).
One wonders about the motivations of those who are so fanatically against expanding choices here... PvP and PvE servers exist in many, many games. It also expands the companies potential profits. The only down side I can see is the loss of unwilling/inexperienced victims for ganking/griefing...
Those "other games" are pve games with pvp tacked on. Thats a big difference.
As for me, I am vehemently against pve severs because I havnt had an mmo to play in literally years - because they are all trying to cadre to you. Maybe thats where the big money is....but thats not where I am at. Please, pretty please, let me have just one fucking mmo to play? There is a metric-crap-ton of WoWs out there for you; take your pick. But lets just allow this game to be what it is.
Why would PvE friendly servers effect your ability to play the core server in any way?
If anything, an alternate server type would head off the current development of more care bear systems for the game, which is one of the reasons why I, as a PvP leaning player, would prefer that there be two server types.
The most common proposal for a PvE friendly server type for Aion would still have PvP in the Abyss, but would limit PvP in the rift accessible PvE zones. There are a few options for this, all of which would be extremely simple for NCSoft to produce with minimal cost or effort.
The game would be essentially the same and would allow casuals and PvE leaning players (which is about 66% of the market in the West) the ability to enjoy the game with out rift enabled griefing. Not at all an unreasonable request from the fan base and one that would pay huge financial dividends for NCSoft. It would also help keep the core game more "pure" for those who will enjoy the PvPvE element of the game.
In the immediate short term, you are entirely correct. Providing non-standard servers, such as Riftless servers or PvE only servers would have little to no effect on the standard servers and its players.
But three months, 6 months, a year down the road, when (if?) the game is established, you will now have Two sets of customers. PvPers and PvE'ers who are fine with some open world PvP, and those PvE'ers who will not tolerate any form of Open World pvp. And both will be wanting new content. Unfortunately, Developers have limited resources so one of those two sets is going to get "The Shaft" leaving them unhappy.
PvPvE and RVR development WILL be neglected in order to attract and retain the Riftless PvE'ers. Sure the game should probably develop PvE content AS WELL as PvPvE/RvR, but if there is a whole group who could care less about PvP...then that element will have less resources devoted to it then it would otherwise.
Splitting the servers will invariably lessen the experience for those of us who want a PvPvE...a good, triple A, well supported RVR type game.
And once again folks, keep in mind its not just riftless servers they are saying no to, its ALL non-standard servers be it Roleplaying, Super Extreme Hardcore, Full Loot, etc.
So yes. You may not mean to, but in wanting this you are wanting to limit the ability for us that want it to have a Good Solid Well Supported RVR game.
Hope that made sense and didnt come off as rude.
I haven't seen a single title where offering two server types has had any impact on future development.
In Aion, the Abyss is the Abyss. It's going to be PvP on any server. No reason for PvE leaning servers to some how lead NCSoft away from expanding the Abyss.
The newly fleshed out third zone on each continent is 85% filled with high level PvE content and there are no rifts to those zones. No need to have rifts to every PvE zone, obviously.
I don't see any impact, based on the way this game is laid out and proposed PvE friendly rule sets, why providing PvE friendlier servers would have any impact on future development of the game.
Maybe you can give a specific example of something that would have to change in the design of future content because of adding an additional server type. (Keep in mind that no one asking for an alternate rule set is asking for a rule set completely free from Rifts).
Well three things.
I would argue that having riftless servers IS an alternate rule-set, as if you have a riftless server there is no (less of a?) need for any sort of Slayer/anti-gank system and such things.
Which brings up the second point. When the development team sits down to discuss who does what and who should be working on what, if you have riftless servers, then you have a problem: Putting a guy on helping to make rifts and the rift experience (and the anti-ganking systems) becomes something that instead of automatically happening, it must be debated. Do we put a guy on that to benefit half our servers, or do we take the guy and have him help finish PvE mid-level Instance zone? Or new skill set? or whatever they happen to work on.
The third point is this: Naming SPECIFICS is hard simply because Im not a member of the dev team so i have NO IDEA what there goals are and what projects they will be working on and putting resources towards. I just know that they will be dividing their resources to various areas of the game. Rifts and Open world PVP is something I want a lot of development time put towards to perfect them and add more interesting concepts to them. If only a portion of the servers even have rifts this becomes less likely to occur.
Oh and a fourth: Im positive you havent seen how having multiple server types has had an effect on development, simply because this isnt something that development teams advertise. "Oh yeah guys, were gonna be taking away all the resources we were planning on putting towards Roleplaying elements in the game because turns out the people on the PvP servers are whining about x, y or z" Its just not in their interest to say such things. Instead they just say 'Oh wow every area of the game is being worked on like craaaaazy' in hopes that the Roleplayer server people whove been wanting new roleplay options wont realize they are being bled of dev. resources.
Just cause you dont see it doesnt mean it isnt there.
Edit: Now I approve of expanding multiple elements in a game, dont get me wrong. I would love to see the PvE side of the game improved as well as the PvPvE and the Rift Concept. All I am saying is that, for me, the Rift Concept is interesting and I want to give it the absolute best chance it has at getting maximum amount of dev resources. Riftless servers would indirectly drain those resources.
These three things doth a wise man fear: A storm at sea, a moonless night, and the anger of a gentle man
One wonders about the motivations of those who are so fanatically against expanding choices here... PvP and PvE servers exist in many, many games. It also expands the companies potential profits. The only down side I can see is the loss of unwilling/inexperienced victims for ganking/griefing...
Those "other games" are pve games with pvp tacked on. Thats a big difference.
As for me, I am vehemently against pve severs because I havnt had an mmo to play in literally years - because they are all trying to cadre to you. Maybe thats where the big money is....but thats not where I am at. Please, pretty please, let me have just one fucking mmo to play? There is a metric-crap-ton of WoWs out there for you; take your pick. But lets just allow this game to be what it is.
Why would PvE friendly servers effect your ability to play the core server in any way?
If anything, an alternate server type would head off the current development of more care bear systems for the game, which is one of the reasons why I, as a PvP leaning player, would prefer that there be two server types.
The most common proposal for a PvE friendly server type for Aion would still have PvP in the Abyss, but would limit PvP in the rift accessible PvE zones. There are a few options for this, all of which would be extremely simple for NCSoft to produce with minimal cost or effort.
The game would be essentially the same and would allow casuals and PvE leaning players (which is about 66% of the market in the West) the ability to enjoy the game with out rift enabled griefing. Not at all an unreasonable request from the fan base and one that would pay huge financial dividends for NCSoft. It would also help keep the core game more "pure" for those who will enjoy the PvPvE element of the game.
In the immediate short term, you are entirely correct. Providing non-standard servers, such as Riftless servers or PvE only servers would have little to no effect on the standard servers and its players.
But three months, 6 months, a year down the road, when (if?) the game is established, you will now have Two sets of customers. PvPers and PvE'ers who are fine with some open world PvP, and those PvE'ers who will not tolerate any form of Open World pvp. And both will be wanting new content. Unfortunately, Developers have limited resources so one of those two sets is going to get "The Shaft" leaving them unhappy.
PvPvE and RVR development WILL be neglected in order to attract and retain the Riftless PvE'ers. Sure the game should probably develop PvE content AS WELL as PvPvE/RvR, but if there is a whole group who could care less about PvP...then that element will have less resources devoted to it then it would otherwise.
Splitting the servers will invariably lessen the experience for those of us who want a PvPvE...a good, triple A, well supported RVR type game.
And once again folks, keep in mind its not just riftless servers they are saying no to, its ALL non-standard servers be it Roleplaying, Super Extreme Hardcore, Full Loot, etc.
So yes. You may not mean to, but in wanting this you are wanting to limit the ability for us that want it to have a Good Solid Well Supported RVR game.
Hope that made sense and didnt come off as rude.
I haven't seen a single title where offering two server types has had any impact on future development.
In Aion, the Abyss is the Abyss. It's going to be PvP on any server. No reason for PvE leaning servers to some how lead NCSoft away from expanding the Abyss.
The newly fleshed out third zone on each continent is 85% filled with high level PvE content and there are no rifts to those zones. No need to have rifts to every PvE zone, obviously.
I don't see any impact, based on the way this game is laid out and proposed PvE friendly rule sets, why providing PvE friendlier servers would have any impact on future development of the game.
Maybe you can give a specific example of something that would have to change in the design of future content because of adding an additional server type. (Keep in mind that no one asking for an alternate rule set is asking for a rule set completely free from Rifts).
Well three things.
I would argue that having riftless servers IS an alternate rule-set, as if you have a riftless server there is no (less of a?) need for any sort of Slayer/anti-gank system and such things.
Which brings up the second point. When the development team sits down to discuss who does what and who should be working on what, if you have riftless servers, then you have a problem: Putting a guy on helping to make rifts and the rift experience (and the anti-ganking systems) becomes something that instead of automatically happening, it must be debated. Do we put a guy on that to benefit half our servers, or do we take the guy and have him help finish PvE mid-level Instance zone? Or new skill set? or whatever they happen to work on.
The third point is this: Naming SPECIFICS is hard simply because Im not a member of the dev team so i have NO IDEA what there goals are and what projects they will be working on and putting resources towards. I just know that they will be dividing their resources to various areas of the game. Rifts and Open world PVP is something I want a lot of development time put towards to perfect them and add more interesting concepts to them. If only a portion of the servers even have rifts this becomes less likely to occur.
Oh and a fourth: Im positive you havent seen how having multiple server types has had an effect on development, simply because this isnt something that development teams advertise. "Oh yeah guys, were gonna be taking away all the resources we were planning on putting towards Roleplaying elements in the game because turns out the people on the PvP servers are whining about x, y or z" Its just not in their interest to say such things. Instead they just say 'Oh wow every area of the game is being worked on like craaaaazy' in hopes that the Roleplayer server people whove been wanting new roleplay options wont realize they are being bled of dev. resources.
Just cause you dont see it doesnt mean it isnt there.
Edit: Now I approve of expanding multiple elements in a game, dont get me wrong. I would love to see the PvE side of the game improved as well as the PvPvE and the Rift Concept. All I am saying is that, for me, the Rift Concept is interesting and I want to give it the absolute best chance it has at getting maximum amount of dev resources. Riftless servers would indirectly drain those resources.
Interesting posts, thanks. But keep in mind that NCsoft is Korean. That means they have a cultural bias in favor of PvP and all that goes with it. PvP tends to be cheaper than PvE in terms of content(which I suspect is one of the reasons that so many Asian games are PvP centric, in addition to their culture). I can't see them slighting PvP in favor of PvE(even with the profit incentive of there being more PvE players in the west). To do that they would have to change some basic aspects of their perspective. You've seen all of the howling from the gankers/griefers about the mere possibility of having less potential victims.
Now imagine coming from a culture where that is a fundamental part of the general perspective. That is also one of the reasons that Asian games tend to niche themselves in the west. Western audiences will not tolerate the level of ganking/griefing that is standard in the typical Asian games. The days of UO being the only game in town are long since past, and will never happen again. Games that wish to have the widest appeal in the west will offer both options. The PVPVE concept is inherently flawed in terms of the west, and no doubt this will be demonstrated over the next year or two. NCsoft must realize the inherent problems, or they'd have not come up with the Slayer system as a bandaid. But its at least a step in the right direction.
One wonders about the motivations of those who are so fanatically against expanding choices here... PvP and PvE servers exist in many, many games. It also expands the companies potential profits. The only down side I can see is the loss of unwilling/inexperienced victims for ganking/griefing...
Those "other games" are pve games with pvp tacked on. Thats a big difference.
As for me, I am vehemently against pve severs because I havnt had an mmo to play in literally years - because they are all trying to cadre to you. Maybe thats where the big money is....but thats not where I am at. Please, pretty please, let me have just one fucking mmo to play? There is a metric-crap-ton of WoWs out there for you; take your pick. But lets just allow this game to be what it is.
Why would PvE friendly servers effect your ability to play the core server in any way?
If anything, an alternate server type would head off the current development of more care bear systems for the game, which is one of the reasons why I, as a PvP leaning player, would prefer that there be two server types.
The most common proposal for a PvE friendly server type for Aion would still have PvP in the Abyss, but would limit PvP in the rift accessible PvE zones. There are a few options for this, all of which would be extremely simple for NCSoft to produce with minimal cost or effort.
The game would be essentially the same and would allow casuals and PvE leaning players (which is about 66% of the market in the West) the ability to enjoy the game with out rift enabled griefing. Not at all an unreasonable request from the fan base and one that would pay huge financial dividends for NCSoft. It would also help keep the core game more "pure" for those who will enjoy the PvPvE element of the game.
In the immediate short term, you are entirely correct. Providing non-standard servers, such as Riftless servers or PvE only servers would have little to no effect on the standard servers and its players.
But three months, 6 months, a year down the road, when (if?) the game is established, you will now have Two sets of customers. PvPers and PvE'ers who are fine with some open world PvP, and those PvE'ers who will not tolerate any form of Open World pvp. And both will be wanting new content. Unfortunately, Developers have limited resources so one of those two sets is going to get "The Shaft" leaving them unhappy.
PvPvE and RVR development WILL be neglected in order to attract and retain the Riftless PvE'ers. Sure the game should probably develop PvE content AS WELL as PvPvE/RvR, but if there is a whole group who could care less about PvP...then that element will have less resources devoted to it then it would otherwise.
Splitting the servers will invariably lessen the experience for those of us who want a PvPvE...a good, triple A, well supported RVR type game.
And once again folks, keep in mind its not just riftless servers they are saying no to, its ALL non-standard servers be it Roleplaying, Super Extreme Hardcore, Full Loot, etc.
So yes. You may not mean to, but in wanting this you are wanting to limit the ability for us that want it to have a Good Solid Well Supported RVR game.
Hope that made sense and didnt come off as rude.
I haven't seen a single title where offering two server types has had any impact on future development.
In Aion, the Abyss is the Abyss. It's going to be PvP on any server. No reason for PvE leaning servers to some how lead NCSoft away from expanding the Abyss.
The newly fleshed out third zone on each continent is 85% filled with high level PvE content and there are no rifts to those zones. No need to have rifts to every PvE zone, obviously.
I don't see any impact, based on the way this game is laid out and proposed PvE friendly rule sets, why providing PvE friendlier servers would have any impact on future development of the game.
Maybe you can give a specific example of something that would have to change in the design of future content because of adding an additional server type. (Keep in mind that no one asking for an alternate rule set is asking for a rule set completely free from Rifts).
Well three things.
I would argue that having riftless servers IS an alternate rule-set, as if you have a riftless server there is no (less of a?) need for any sort of Slayer/anti-gank system and such things.
Which brings up the second point. When the development team sits down to discuss who does what and who should be working on what, if you have riftless servers, then you have a problem: Putting a guy on helping to make rifts and the rift experience (and the anti-ganking systems) becomes something that instead of automatically happening, it must be debated. Do we put a guy on that to benefit half our servers, or do we take the guy and have him help finish PvE mid-level Instance zone? Or new skill set? or whatever they happen to work on.
The third point is this: Naming SPECIFICS is hard simply because Im not a member of the dev team so i have NO IDEA what there goals are and what projects they will be working on and putting resources towards. I just know that they will be dividing their resources to various areas of the game. Rifts and Open world PVP is something I want a lot of development time put towards to perfect them and add more interesting concepts to them. If only a portion of the servers even have rifts this becomes less likely to occur.
Oh and a fourth: Im positive you havent seen how having multiple server types has had an effect on development, simply because this isnt something that development teams advertise. "Oh yeah guys, were gonna be taking away all the resources we were planning on putting towards Roleplaying elements in the game because turns out the people on the PvP servers are whining about x, y or z" Its just not in their interest to say such things. Instead they just say 'Oh wow every area of the game is being worked on like craaaaazy' in hopes that the Roleplayer server people whove been wanting new roleplay options wont realize they are being bled of dev. resources.
Just cause you dont see it doesnt mean it isnt there.
Edit: Now I approve of expanding multiple elements in a game, dont get me wrong. I would love to see the PvE side of the game improved as well as the PvPvE and the Rift Concept. All I am saying is that, for me, the Rift Concept is interesting and I want to give it the absolute best chance it has at getting maximum amount of dev resources. Riftless servers would indirectly drain those resources.
Interesting posts, thanks. But keep in mind that NCsoft is Korean. That means they have a cultural bias in favor of PvP and all that goes with it. PvP tends to be cheaper than PvE in terms of content(which I suspect is one of the reasons that so many Asian games are PvP centric, in addition to their culture). I can't see them slighting PvP in favor of PvE(even with the profit incentive of there being more PvE players in the west). To do that they would have to change some basic aspects of their perspective. You've seen all of the howling from the gankers/griefers about the mere possibility of having less potential victims.
Now imagine coming from a culture where that is a fundamental part of the general perspective. That is also one of the reasons that Asian games tend to niche themselves in the west. Western audiences will not tolerate the level of ganking/griefing that is standard in the typical Asian games. The days of UO being the only game in town are long since past, and will never happen again. Games that wish to have the widest appeal in the west will offer both options. The PVPVE concept is inherently flawed in terms of the west, and no doubt this will be demonstrated over the next year or two. NCsoft must realize the inherent problems, or they'd have not come up with the Slayer system as a bandaid. But its at least a step in the right direction.
Mind showing me a study or some proof where it indicates Korean's culture favors PvP? while the west prefers PVE?
Really feels like your making things up to fit your own personal tastes
Aion v3 "RELOADED" - A glimpse into the future of the MMO genre
Interesting posts, thanks. But keep in mind that NCsoft is Korean. That means they have a cultural bias in favor of PvP and all that goes with it. ... I keep seeing people post this, but where is your proof? WoW has most of it's subscribers from Eastern countries. Why would that be if they are biased in favor of PvP? You've seen all of the howling from the gankers/griefers about the mere possibility of having less potential victims. Curious you keep coming back to this statement. I'm guessing you've either been killed a lot in previous MMO games or you have heard about others getting killed. I can only speak for myself, but I have never "ganked" or "griefed" anyone in an MMO game, yet I have played as a PvPer in every mainstream MMO game that has the option. I like the challenge and the thrill of possibly fighting with a real person without me specifically going looking for a fight. I was initially against a no-rift server for the reasons I laid out in my previous post on this thread. After some deeper consideration though I realize now that most likely a no-rift server would probably not have any effect on the overall development of Aion; simply because the dev team is based out of Korea. Probably is not 100% sure though, so I'm still a little leery. The reason being I have first hand seen developers cater to one rule-set over another simply because more people play on that type of server (namely PvE) leaving issues with the other type of server unfixed for a long time. Now imagine coming from a culture where that is a fundamental part of the general perspective. That is also one of the reasons that Asian games tend to niche themselves in the west. I think you're forgetting that one of the most successful PvE MMO games is FFXI. Which was, of course, developed in Japan. NCsoft must realize the inherent problems, or they'd have not come up with the Slayer system as a bandaid. But its at least a step in the right direction. The Slayer system was put into place in v1.2 on the Korean servers before the beta events for the Western market was even started. Maybe not everyone in Asian thought unchecked ganking was a good idea, huh?
"There is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer."
One wonders about the motivations of those who are so fanatically against expanding choices here... PvP and PvE servers exist in many, many games. It also expands the companies potential profits. The only down side I can see is the loss of unwilling/inexperienced victims for ganking/griefing...
Those "other games" are pve games with pvp tacked on. Thats a big difference.
As for me, I am vehemently against pve severs because I havnt had an mmo to play in literally years - because they are all trying to cadre to you. Maybe thats where the big money is....but thats not where I am at. Please, pretty please, let me have just one fucking mmo to play? There is a metric-crap-ton of WoWs out there for you; take your pick. But lets just allow this game to be what it is.
Why would PvE friendly servers effect your ability to play the core server in any way?
If anything, an alternate server type would head off the current development of more care bear systems for the game, which is one of the reasons why I, as a PvP leaning player, would prefer that there be two server types.
The most common proposal for a PvE friendly server type for Aion would still have PvP in the Abyss, but would limit PvP in the rift accessible PvE zones. There are a few options for this, all of which would be extremely simple for NCSoft to produce with minimal cost or effort.
The game would be essentially the same and would allow casuals and PvE leaning players (which is about 66% of the market in the West) the ability to enjoy the game with out rift enabled griefing. Not at all an unreasonable request from the fan base and one that would pay huge financial dividends for NCSoft. It would also help keep the core game more "pure" for those who will enjoy the PvPvE element of the game.
In the immediate short term, you are entirely correct. Providing non-standard servers, such as Riftless servers or PvE only servers would have little to no effect on the standard servers and its players.
But three months, 6 months, a year down the road, when (if?) the game is established, you will now have Two sets of customers. PvPers and PvE'ers who are fine with some open world PvP, and those PvE'ers who will not tolerate any form of Open World pvp. And both will be wanting new content. Unfortunately, Developers have limited resources so one of those two sets is going to get "The Shaft" leaving them unhappy.
PvPvE and RVR development WILL be neglected in order to attract and retain the Riftless PvE'ers. Sure the game should probably develop PvE content AS WELL as PvPvE/RvR, but if there is a whole group who could care less about PvP...then that element will have less resources devoted to it then it would otherwise.
Splitting the servers will invariably lessen the experience for those of us who want a PvPvE...a good, triple A, well supported RVR type game.
And once again folks, keep in mind its not just riftless servers they are saying no to, its ALL non-standard servers be it Roleplaying, Super Extreme Hardcore, Full Loot, etc.
So yes. You may not mean to, but in wanting this you are wanting to limit the ability for us that want it to have a Good Solid Well Supported RVR game.
Hope that made sense and didnt come off as rude.
I haven't seen a single title where offering two server types has had any impact on future development.
In Aion, the Abyss is the Abyss. It's going to be PvP on any server. No reason for PvE leaning servers to some how lead NCSoft away from expanding the Abyss.
The newly fleshed out third zone on each continent is 85% filled with high level PvE content and there are no rifts to those zones. No need to have rifts to every PvE zone, obviously.
I don't see any impact, based on the way this game is laid out and proposed PvE friendly rule sets, why providing PvE friendlier servers would have any impact on future development of the game.
Maybe you can give a specific example of something that would have to change in the design of future content because of adding an additional server type. (Keep in mind that no one asking for an alternate rule set is asking for a rule set completely free from Rifts).
Well three things.
I would argue that having riftless servers IS an alternate rule-set, as if you have a riftless server there is no (less of a?) need for any sort of Slayer/anti-gank system and such things.
Which brings up the second point. When the development team sits down to discuss who does what and who should be working on what, if you have riftless servers, then you have a problem: Putting a guy on helping to make rifts and the rift experience (and the anti-ganking systems) becomes something that instead of automatically happening, it must be debated. Do we put a guy on that to benefit half our servers, or do we take the guy and have him help finish PvE mid-level Instance zone? Or new skill set? or whatever they happen to work on.
The third point is this: Naming SPECIFICS is hard simply because Im not a member of the dev team so i have NO IDEA what there goals are and what projects they will be working on and putting resources towards. I just know that they will be dividing their resources to various areas of the game. Rifts and Open world PVP is something I want a lot of development time put towards to perfect them and add more interesting concepts to them. If only a portion of the servers even have rifts this becomes less likely to occur.
Oh and a fourth: Im positive you havent seen how having multiple server types has had an effect on development, simply because this isnt something that development teams advertise. "Oh yeah guys, were gonna be taking away all the resources we were planning on putting towards Roleplaying elements in the game because turns out the people on the PvP servers are whining about x, y or z" Its just not in their interest to say such things. Instead they just say 'Oh wow every area of the game is being worked on like craaaaazy' in hopes that the Roleplayer server people whove been wanting new roleplay options wont realize they are being bled of dev. resources.
Just cause you dont see it doesnt mean it isnt there.
Edit: Now I approve of expanding multiple elements in a game, dont get me wrong. I would love to see the PvE side of the game improved as well as the PvPvE and the Rift Concept. All I am saying is that, for me, the Rift Concept is interesting and I want to give it the absolute best chance it has at getting maximum amount of dev resources. Riftless servers would indirectly drain those resources.
Interesting posts, thanks. But keep in mind that NCsoft is Korean. That means they have a cultural bias in favor of PvP and all that goes with it. PvP tends to be cheaper than PvE in terms of content(which I suspect is one of the reasons that so many Asian games are PvP centric, in addition to their culture). I can't see them slighting PvP in favor of PvE(even with the profit incentive of there being more PvE players in the west). To do that they would have to change some basic aspects of their perspective. You've seen all of the howling from the gankers/griefers about the mere possibility of having less potential victims.
Now imagine coming from a culture where that is a fundamental part of the general perspective. That is also one of the reasons that Asian games tend to niche themselves in the west. Western audiences will not tolerate the level of ganking/griefing that is standard in the typical Asian games. The days of UO being the only game in town are long since past, and will never happen again. Games that wish to have the widest appeal in the west will offer both options. The PVPVE concept is inherently flawed in terms of the west, and no doubt this will be demonstrated over the next year or two. NCsoft must realize the inherent problems, or they'd have not come up with the Slayer system as a bandaid. But its at least a step in the right direction.
Mind showing me a study or some proof where it indicates Korean's culture favors PvP? while the west prefers PVE?
Really feels like your making things up to fit your own personal tastes
Studies? I'm not certain anyone has done any as yet, as I suspect you might be aware... ^^ My *opinions* on the subject are based on playing WAY too many Asian games over the years, and also conversations with players from those parts of the world. But I'm hardly alone in that perspective. Look at these links as just two others who have noticed the demographics and the perspectives involved.
As to the culture question, I'm wondering how much that has played into the decision to not offer PvE friendly servers. I think they just don't understand the Western perspective on this. It's confusing, though, because even if they lack a cultural understanding, you can easily look at Western titles that offer two rule sets and see that about 66%+ of the servers end up being PvE, rather than PvP.
Games that have had to merge down servers after blockbuster releases, followed by a steady bleed off, also seem to show that the PvP players bleed off more quickly. You might see two PvP servers after a merge down, vs. six or eight PvE servers.
Maybe their view of the West as "barbarians" and "cowboys" taints their perspective on this issue. They might like to think that we are even more war-like and less civilized, so surely we'd embrace PvP servers even more enthusiastically than they do in Korea? Just a curious thought.
I also wonder if NCSoft West dropped the ball on this. The head of NCSoft West is Korean and the former COO of the parent company, but the staff is largely Western. Maybe they just were too timid in representing the preferences of the Western audience and passing on the level of demand for more PvE friendly servers.
I honestly think it will prove to be a costly mistake, possibly to the tune of $50 million or more in potential first year revenue lost. It's also a shame for the hundreds of thousands, or even million+ Western players who might have found Aion a very compelling title if NCSoft had made the minuscule effort required to appeal to the PvE/casual player base.
"I suck at regular PvP so I wanna go gank the newbs... yo"
Always love it when people whine about players doing things the developers obviously intended them to do. It's like pussy clan boys crying over VOIP about being spawn camped in COD. People do it because they can. Deal with it.
"I suck at regular PvP so I wanna go gank the newbs... yo"
Always love it when people whine about players doing things the developers obviously intended them to do. It's like pussy clan boys crying over VOIP about being spawn camped in COD. People do it because they can. Deal with it.
LOL... Typical response pattern, which simply proves what I've said all along. Simply because one can do a thing, does not require that one actually do it. But those who use phrases like "pussy clan boys" aren't likely to understand such matters. I "deal with it" by refusing to pay to have bnet battle kiddies and mental barbarians inflicted on me.
Originally posted by Wraithone Originally posted by greymann Originally posted by bahamut1 "I suck at regular PvP so I wanna go gank the newbs... yo"
Always love it when people whine about players doing things the developers obviously intended them to do. It's like pussy clan boys crying over VOIP about being spawn camped in COD. People do it because they can. Deal with it.
LOL... Typical response pattern, which simply proves what I've said all along. Simply because one can do a thing, does not require that one actually do it. But those who use phrases like "pussy clan boys" aren't likely to understand such matters. I "deal with it" by refusing to pay to have bnet battle kiddies and mental barbarians inflicted on me.
When I asked if you were going to play, you ever answer?
As to the culture question, I'm wondering how much that has played into the decision to not offer PvE friendly servers. I think they just don't understand the Western perspective on this. It's confusing, though, because even if they lack a cultural understanding, you can easily look at Western titles that offer two rule sets and see that about 66%+ of the servers end up being PvE, rather than PvP. Games that have had to merge down servers after blockbuster releases, followed by a steady bleed off, also seem to show that the PvP players bleed off more quickly. You might see two PvP servers after a merge down, vs. six or eight PvE servers.
This really shouldn't be the issue...
L1 failed to attract a western audience of any size... L2 had the same result.. I think it was rather popular at first in the west but dropped off later.
So if NCSoft hadn't really made any statement about the goal of the game it would just seem to be another "ncsoft" game. Yet they claimed they wanted a larger western audience and that is the puzzle...
They have already designed penalty systems due to higher levels killing lower levels in the east. Which would lead to speculation that they had negative feedback in their normal market about the mechanics... which is odd since L1 and L2 were... well you can figure it out.
So the logic leap is that in the western market they will just run into a larger negative backlash.
It does NOT matter what my or anyone elses view of PvP is... Its going to be NCSoft who calls these things and that will be based on subscribers.
However, based on western gaming history... we will just see more complex penalty systems added over time. Which to me just seems like a waste of resources.
The Abyss functions much the same as "the frontier" in DAoC and would provide a solid PvP area/experience.
The first time I heard about rifts quite honestly my first thought was "what were they thinking..." as the outcome of rifts is quite obvious. From a business perspective.... they want the 90% income.. not the 10% and if you don't know what that relates to you have never worked in "the industry".
UO was my favorite MMO to this day.. the first two years or so. It was open pvp with full loot and I loved the game so I am not some anti pvp campaigner... I am a realist. UO according to EA hit its peak subscriber numbers long after I quit (was shortly after Age of Shadows they hit peak) and that was a while after Trammel... and we had a lot of penalty systems before Trammel.
Mistakes of the past and all that... I do believe that choice is a good thing and I think rifts should have been a "pvp ruleset" situation. As it just makes long term business sense and allows you to not waste time/resources on penalty systems when you cna use those resources to actually move your product forward.
Antarious, I agree with everything you wrote. Spot on.
I think it serves the community to discuss these things, so people can make an informed decision.
Some people are still in the mode of "buy anything even remotely promising and hope it ends up being a great game". A lot of us have been around long enough to become very jaded about MMORPGs and cautious about who we give our money to.
Sad thing is that I'll be playing this game, in spite of what for me are some serious flaws. However, I go in with the expectation that I won't be here for more than two or three months. A lot of people buying Aion with the hope of it turning into a year or two of enthusiastic play time are going to be disappointed. Some will be ecstatic about the game long term, but my guess is that the niche this game will end up supporting in the West will be a fairly small one and definitely a lot smaller than it could have been or should have been.
Comments
I prefer the word CareBear, thank you so much!
One wonders about the motivations of those who are so fanatically against expanding choices here... PvP and PvE servers exist in many, many games. It also expands the companies potential profits. The only down side I can see is the loss of unwilling/inexperienced victims for ganking/griefing...
Those "other games" are pve games with pvp tacked on. Thats a big difference.
As for me, I am vehemently against pve severs because I havnt had an mmo to play in literally years - because they are all trying to cadre to you. Maybe thats where the big money is....but thats not where I am at. Please, pretty please, let me have just one fucking mmo to play? There is a metric-crap-ton of WoWs out there for you; take your pick. But lets just allow this game to be what it is.
One wonders about the motivations of those who are so fanatically against expanding choices here... PvP and PvE servers exist in many, many games. It also expands the companies potential profits. The only down side I can see is the loss of unwilling/inexperienced victims for ganking/griefing...
Those "other games" are pve games with pvp tacked on. Thats a big difference.
As for me, I am vehemently against pve severs because I havnt had an mmo to play in literally years - because they are all trying to cadre to you. Maybe thats where the big money is....but thats not where I am at. Please, pretty please, let me have just one fucking mmo to play? There is a metric-crap-ton of WoWs out there for you; take your pick. But lets just allow this game to be what it is.
Have you tried Darkfall? Its full loot, full time PvP. Its a game totally dedicated to PvP and all that goes with it.
Darkfall is also a hacked, rubbish game, made by a rubbish company. Its a niche within a niche.
One wonders about the motivations of those who are so fanatically against expanding choices here... PvP and PvE servers exist in many, many games. It also expands the companies potential profits. The only down side I can see is the loss of unwilling/inexperienced victims for ganking/griefing...
Those "other games" are pve games with pvp tacked on. Thats a big difference.
As for me, I am vehemently against pve severs because I havnt had an mmo to play in literally years - because they are all trying to cadre to you. Maybe thats where the big money is....but thats not where I am at. Please, pretty please, let me have just one fucking mmo to play? There is a metric-crap-ton of WoWs out there for you; take your pick. But lets just allow this game to be what it is.
Why would PvE friendly servers effect your ability to play the core server in any way?
If anything, an alternate server type would head off the current development of more care bear systems for the game, which is one of the reasons why I, as a PvP leaning player, would prefer that there be two server types.
The most common proposal for a PvE friendly server type for Aion would still have PvP in the Abyss, but would limit PvP in the rift accessible PvE zones. There are a few options for this, all of which would be extremely simple for NCSoft to produce with minimal cost or effort.
The game would be essentially the same and would allow casuals and PvE leaning players (which is about 66% of the market in the West) the ability to enjoy the game with out rift enabled griefing. Not at all an unreasonable request from the fan base and one that would pay huge financial dividends for NCSoft. It would also help keep the core game more "pure" for those who will enjoy the PvPvE element of the game.
Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
One wonders about the motivations of those who are so fanatically against expanding choices here... PvP and PvE servers exist in many, many games. It also expands the companies potential profits. The only down side I can see is the loss of unwilling/inexperienced victims for ganking/griefing...
Those "other games" are pve games with pvp tacked on. Thats a big difference.
As for me, I am vehemently against pve severs because I havnt had an mmo to play in literally years - because they are all trying to cadre to you. Maybe thats where the big money is....but thats not where I am at. Please, pretty please, let me have just one fucking mmo to play? There is a metric-crap-ton of WoWs out there for you; take your pick. But lets just allow this game to be what it is.
Why would PvE friendly servers effect your ability to play the core server in any way?
If anything, an alternate server type would head off the current development of more care bear systems for the game, which is one of the reasons why I, as a PvP leaning player, would prefer that there be two server types.
The most common proposal for a PvE friendly server type for Aion would still have PvP in the Abyss, but would limit PvP in the rift accessible PvE zones. There are a few options for this, all of which would be extremely simple for NCSoft to produce with minimal cost or effort.
The game would be essentially the same and would allow casuals and PvE leaning players (which is about 66% of the market in the West) the ability to enjoy the game with out rift enabled griefing. Not at all an unreasonable request from the fan base and one that would pay huge financial dividends for NCSoft. It would also help keep the core game more "pure" for those who will enjoy the PvPvE element of the game.
But what it does do is reduce the number of unwilling/inexperienced victims available to be ganked/griefed. If there are PvP and PvE servers, those on the PvP servers are there by choice... And they tend to be the more experienced at PvP. Gankers/Griefers would consider this a Bad Thing(tm). Thats why so many of them would no doubt be on the PvE servers, attempting to find loop holes in the system. I've seen it in game after game.
NCsoft is Korean. The Asians have a completely different take on these things. Asian players have been conditioned to accept and expect, levels of ganking and griefing that would not only niche a game in the west, but would destroy its business model. If you think about it, you will see why. Content is one of THE most expensive parts of an MMO. In PvP heavy games, the players themselves provide much of the content. Meaning that the game isn't nearly as expensive to produce. Anyone who objects is met by howls of "Suck it up!" "Grow a Pair!". "Pussy!" "Grind Harder!" or other such nonsense(as seen in various parts of this thread).
One wonders about the motivations of those who are so fanatically against expanding choices here... PvP and PvE servers exist in many, many games. It also expands the companies potential profits. The only down side I can see is the loss of unwilling/inexperienced victims for ganking/griefing...
Those "other games" are pve games with pvp tacked on. Thats a big difference.
As for me, I am vehemently against pve severs because I havnt had an mmo to play in literally years - because they are all trying to cadre to you. Maybe thats where the big money is....but thats not where I am at. Please, pretty please, let me have just one fucking mmo to play? There is a metric-crap-ton of WoWs out there for you; take your pick. But lets just allow this game to be what it is.
Why would PvE friendly servers effect your ability to play the core server in any way?
If anything, an alternate server type would head off the current development of more care bear systems for the game, which is one of the reasons why I, as a PvP leaning player, would prefer that there be two server types.
The most common proposal for a PvE friendly server type for Aion would still have PvP in the Abyss, but would limit PvP in the rift accessible PvE zones. There are a few options for this, all of which would be extremely simple for NCSoft to produce with minimal cost or effort.
The game would be essentially the same and would allow casuals and PvE leaning players (which is about 66% of the market in the West) the ability to enjoy the game with out rift enabled griefing. Not at all an unreasonable request from the fan base and one that would pay huge financial dividends for NCSoft. It would also help keep the core game more "pure" for those who will enjoy the PvPvE element of the game.
In the immediate short term, you are entirely correct. Providing non-standard servers, such as Riftless servers or PvE only servers would have little to no effect on the standard servers and its players.
But three months, 6 months, a year down the road, when (if?) the game is established, you will now have Two sets of customers. PvPers and PvE'ers who are fine with some open world PvP, and those PvE'ers who will not tolerate any form of Open World pvp. And both will be wanting new content. Unfortunately, Developers have limited resources so one of those two sets is going to get "The Shaft" leaving them unhappy.
PvPvE and RVR development WILL be neglected in order to attract and retain the Riftless PvE'ers. Sure the game should probably develop PvE content AS WELL as PvPvE/RvR, but if there is a whole group who could care less about PvP...then that element will have less resources devoted to it then it would otherwise.
Splitting the servers will invariably lessen the experience for those of us who want a PvPvE...a good, triple A, well supported RVR type game.
And once again folks, keep in mind its not just riftless servers they are saying no to, its ALL non-standard servers be it Roleplaying, Super Extreme Hardcore, Full Loot, etc.
So yes. You may not mean to, but in wanting this you are wanting to limit the ability for us that want it to have a Good Solid Well Supported RVR game.
Hope that made sense and didnt come off as rude.
These three things doth a wise man fear: A storm at sea, a moonless night, and the anger of a gentle man
One wonders about the motivations of those who are so fanatically against expanding choices here... PvP and PvE servers exist in many, many games. It also expands the companies potential profits. The only down side I can see is the loss of unwilling/inexperienced victims for ganking/griefing...
Those "other games" are pve games with pvp tacked on. Thats a big difference.
As for me, I am vehemently against pve severs because I havnt had an mmo to play in literally years - because they are all trying to cadre to you. Maybe thats where the big money is....but thats not where I am at. Please, pretty please, let me have just one fucking mmo to play? There is a metric-crap-ton of WoWs out there for you; take your pick. But lets just allow this game to be what it is.
Why would PvE friendly servers effect your ability to play the core server in any way?
If anything, an alternate server type would head off the current development of more care bear systems for the game, which is one of the reasons why I, as a PvP leaning player, would prefer that there be two server types.
The most common proposal for a PvE friendly server type for Aion would still have PvP in the Abyss, but would limit PvP in the rift accessible PvE zones. There are a few options for this, all of which would be extremely simple for NCSoft to produce with minimal cost or effort.
The game would be essentially the same and would allow casuals and PvE leaning players (which is about 66% of the market in the West) the ability to enjoy the game with out rift enabled griefing. Not at all an unreasonable request from the fan base and one that would pay huge financial dividends for NCSoft. It would also help keep the core game more "pure" for those who will enjoy the PvPvE element of the game.
In the immediate short term, you are entirely correct. Providing non-standard servers, such as Riftless servers or PvE only servers would have little to no effect on the standard servers and its players.
But three months, 6 months, a year down the road, when (if?) the game is established, you will now have Two sets of customers. PvPers and PvE'ers who are fine with some open world PvP, and those PvE'ers who will not tolerate any form of Open World pvp. And both will be wanting new content. Unfortunately, Developers have limited resources so one of those two sets is going to get "The Shaft" leaving them unhappy.
PvPvE and RVR development WILL be neglected in order to attract and retain the Riftless PvE'ers. Sure the game should probably develop PvE content AS WELL as PvPvE/RvR, but if there is a whole group who could care less about PvP...then that element will have less resources devoted to it then it would otherwise.
Splitting the servers will invariably lessen the experience for those of us who want a PvPvE...a good, triple A, well supported RVR type game.
And once again folks, keep in mind its not just riftless servers they are saying no to, its ALL non-standard servers be it Roleplaying, Super Extreme Hardcore, Full Loot, etc.
So yes. You may not mean to, but in wanting this you are wanting to limit the ability for us that want it to have a Good Solid Well Supported RVR game.
Hope that made sense and didnt come off as rude.
That is a very good post. Although i am not going to play Aion i too could see no harm in having a few PVE servers but your post does show how it could overtime take away from the PVP aspect of the game. And at least for me, your post did not seem rude at all.
It's nice to know that some people out there can see past their own noses
My Thoughts on Content Locust
wow it's been a bout a month that ppl started QQing about the rifts, good to know it's still going QQ more plz
One wonders about the motivations of those who are so fanatically against expanding choices here... PvP and PvE servers exist in many, many games. It also expands the companies potential profits. The only down side I can see is the loss of unwilling/inexperienced victims for ganking/griefing...
Those "other games" are pve games with pvp tacked on. Thats a big difference.
As for me, I am vehemently against pve severs because I havnt had an mmo to play in literally years - because they are all trying to cadre to you. Maybe thats where the big money is....but thats not where I am at. Please, pretty please, let me have just one fucking mmo to play? There is a metric-crap-ton of WoWs out there for you; take your pick. But lets just allow this game to be what it is.
Why would PvE friendly servers effect your ability to play the core server in any way?
If anything, an alternate server type would head off the current development of more care bear systems for the game, which is one of the reasons why I, as a PvP leaning player, would prefer that there be two server types.
The most common proposal for a PvE friendly server type for Aion would still have PvP in the Abyss, but would limit PvP in the rift accessible PvE zones. There are a few options for this, all of which would be extremely simple for NCSoft to produce with minimal cost or effort.
The game would be essentially the same and would allow casuals and PvE leaning players (which is about 66% of the market in the West) the ability to enjoy the game with out rift enabled griefing. Not at all an unreasonable request from the fan base and one that would pay huge financial dividends for NCSoft. It would also help keep the core game more "pure" for those who will enjoy the PvPvE element of the game.
In the immediate short term, you are entirely correct. Providing non-standard servers, such as Riftless servers or PvE only servers would have little to no effect on the standard servers and its players.
But three months, 6 months, a year down the road, when (if?) the game is established, you will now have Two sets of customers. PvPers and PvE'ers who are fine with some open world PvP, and those PvE'ers who will not tolerate any form of Open World pvp. And both will be wanting new content. Unfortunately, Developers have limited resources so one of those two sets is going to get "The Shaft" leaving them unhappy.
PvPvE and RVR development WILL be neglected in order to attract and retain the Riftless PvE'ers. Sure the game should probably develop PvE content AS WELL as PvPvE/RvR, but if there is a whole group who could care less about PvP...then that element will have less resources devoted to it then it would otherwise.
Splitting the servers will invariably lessen the experience for those of us who want a PvPvE...a good, triple A, well supported RVR type game.
And once again folks, keep in mind its not just riftless servers they are saying no to, its ALL non-standard servers be it Roleplaying, Super Extreme Hardcore, Full Loot, etc.
So yes. You may not mean to, but in wanting this you are wanting to limit the ability for us that want it to have a Good Solid Well Supported RVR game.
Hope that made sense and didnt come off as rude.
+1
One wonders about the motivations of those who are so fanatically against expanding choices here... PvP and PvE servers exist in many, many games. It also expands the companies potential profits. The only down side I can see is the loss of unwilling/inexperienced victims for ganking/griefing...
Those "other games" are pve games with pvp tacked on. Thats a big difference.
As for me, I am vehemently against pve severs because I havnt had an mmo to play in literally years - because they are all trying to cadre to you. Maybe thats where the big money is....but thats not where I am at. Please, pretty please, let me have just one fucking mmo to play? There is a metric-crap-ton of WoWs out there for you; take your pick. But lets just allow this game to be what it is.
Why would PvE friendly servers effect your ability to play the core server in any way?
If anything, an alternate server type would head off the current development of more care bear systems for the game, which is one of the reasons why I, as a PvP leaning player, would prefer that there be two server types.
The most common proposal for a PvE friendly server type for Aion would still have PvP in the Abyss, but would limit PvP in the rift accessible PvE zones. There are a few options for this, all of which would be extremely simple for NCSoft to produce with minimal cost or effort.
The game would be essentially the same and would allow casuals and PvE leaning players (which is about 66% of the market in the West) the ability to enjoy the game with out rift enabled griefing. Not at all an unreasonable request from the fan base and one that would pay huge financial dividends for NCSoft. It would also help keep the core game more "pure" for those who will enjoy the PvPvE element of the game.
In the immediate short term, you are entirely correct. Providing non-standard servers, such as Riftless servers or PvE only servers would have little to no effect on the standard servers and its players.
But three months, 6 months, a year down the road, when (if?) the game is established, you will now have Two sets of customers. PvPers and PvE'ers who are fine with some open world PvP, and those PvE'ers who will not tolerate any form of Open World pvp. And both will be wanting new content. Unfortunately, Developers have limited resources so one of those two sets is going to get "The Shaft" leaving them unhappy.
PvPvE and RVR development WILL be neglected in order to attract and retain the Riftless PvE'ers. Sure the game should probably develop PvE content AS WELL as PvPvE/RvR, but if there is a whole group who could care less about PvP...then that element will have less resources devoted to it then it would otherwise.
Splitting the servers will invariably lessen the experience for those of us who want a PvPvE...a good, triple A, well supported RVR type game.
And once again folks, keep in mind its not just riftless servers they are saying no to, its ALL non-standard servers be it Roleplaying, Super Extreme Hardcore, Full Loot, etc.
So yes. You may not mean to, but in wanting this you are wanting to limit the ability for us that want it to have a Good Solid Well Supported RVR game.
Hope that made sense and didnt come off as rude.
I haven't seen a single title where offering two server types has had any impact on future development.
In Aion, the Abyss is the Abyss. It's going to be PvP on any server. No reason for PvE leaning servers to some how lead NCSoft away from expanding the Abyss.
The newly fleshed out third zone on each continent is 85% filled with high level PvE content and there are no rifts to those zones. No need to have rifts to every PvE zone, obviously.
I don't see any impact, based on the way this game is laid out and proposed PvE friendly rule sets, why providing PvE friendlier servers would have any impact on future development of the game.
Maybe you can give a specific example of something that would have to change in the design of future content because of adding an additional server type. (Keep in mind that no one asking for an alternate rule set is asking for a rule set completely free from Rifts).
Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
One wonders about the motivations of those who are so fanatically against expanding choices here... PvP and PvE servers exist in many, many games. It also expands the companies potential profits. The only down side I can see is the loss of unwilling/inexperienced victims for ganking/griefing...
Those "other games" are pve games with pvp tacked on. Thats a big difference.
As for me, I am vehemently against pve severs because I havnt had an mmo to play in literally years - because they are all trying to cadre to you. Maybe thats where the big money is....but thats not where I am at. Please, pretty please, let me have just one fucking mmo to play? There is a metric-crap-ton of WoWs out there for you; take your pick. But lets just allow this game to be what it is.
Why would PvE friendly servers effect your ability to play the core server in any way?
If anything, an alternate server type would head off the current development of more care bear systems for the game, which is one of the reasons why I, as a PvP leaning player, would prefer that there be two server types.
The most common proposal for a PvE friendly server type for Aion would still have PvP in the Abyss, but would limit PvP in the rift accessible PvE zones. There are a few options for this, all of which would be extremely simple for NCSoft to produce with minimal cost or effort.
The game would be essentially the same and would allow casuals and PvE leaning players (which is about 66% of the market in the West) the ability to enjoy the game with out rift enabled griefing. Not at all an unreasonable request from the fan base and one that would pay huge financial dividends for NCSoft. It would also help keep the core game more "pure" for those who will enjoy the PvPvE element of the game.
In the immediate short term, you are entirely correct. Providing non-standard servers, such as Riftless servers or PvE only servers would have little to no effect on the standard servers and its players.
But three months, 6 months, a year down the road, when (if?) the game is established, you will now have Two sets of customers. PvPers and PvE'ers who are fine with some open world PvP, and those PvE'ers who will not tolerate any form of Open World pvp. And both will be wanting new content. Unfortunately, Developers have limited resources so one of those two sets is going to get "The Shaft" leaving them unhappy.
PvPvE and RVR development WILL be neglected in order to attract and retain the Riftless PvE'ers. Sure the game should probably develop PvE content AS WELL as PvPvE/RvR, but if there is a whole group who could care less about PvP...then that element will have less resources devoted to it then it would otherwise.
Splitting the servers will invariably lessen the experience for those of us who want a PvPvE...a good, triple A, well supported RVR type game.
And once again folks, keep in mind its not just riftless servers they are saying no to, its ALL non-standard servers be it Roleplaying, Super Extreme Hardcore, Full Loot, etc.
So yes. You may not mean to, but in wanting this you are wanting to limit the ability for us that want it to have a Good Solid Well Supported RVR game.
Hope that made sense and didnt come off as rude.
I haven't seen a single title where offering two server types has had any impact on future development.
In Aion, the Abyss is the Abyss. It's going to be PvP on any server. No reason for PvE leaning servers to some how lead NCSoft away from expanding the Abyss.
The newly fleshed out third zone on each continent is 85% filled with high level PvE content and there are no rifts to those zones. No need to have rifts to every PvE zone, obviously.
I don't see any impact, based on the way this game is laid out and proposed PvE friendly rule sets, why providing PvE friendlier servers would have any impact on future development of the game.
Maybe you can give a specific example of something that would have to change in the design of future content because of adding an additional server type. (Keep in mind that no one asking for an alternate rule set is asking for a rule set completely free from Rifts).
Well three things.
I would argue that having riftless servers IS an alternate rule-set, as if you have a riftless server there is no (less of a?) need for any sort of Slayer/anti-gank system and such things.
Which brings up the second point. When the development team sits down to discuss who does what and who should be working on what, if you have riftless servers, then you have a problem: Putting a guy on helping to make rifts and the rift experience (and the anti-ganking systems) becomes something that instead of automatically happening, it must be debated. Do we put a guy on that to benefit half our servers, or do we take the guy and have him help finish PvE mid-level Instance zone? Or new skill set? or whatever they happen to work on.
The third point is this: Naming SPECIFICS is hard simply because Im not a member of the dev team so i have NO IDEA what there goals are and what projects they will be working on and putting resources towards. I just know that they will be dividing their resources to various areas of the game. Rifts and Open world PVP is something I want a lot of development time put towards to perfect them and add more interesting concepts to them. If only a portion of the servers even have rifts this becomes less likely to occur.
Oh and a fourth: Im positive you havent seen how having multiple server types has had an effect on development, simply because this isnt something that development teams advertise. "Oh yeah guys, were gonna be taking away all the resources we were planning on putting towards Roleplaying elements in the game because turns out the people on the PvP servers are whining about x, y or z" Its just not in their interest to say such things. Instead they just say 'Oh wow every area of the game is being worked on like craaaaazy' in hopes that the Roleplayer server people whove been wanting new roleplay options wont realize they are being bled of dev. resources.
Just cause you dont see it doesnt mean it isnt there.
Edit: Now I approve of expanding multiple elements in a game, dont get me wrong. I would love to see the PvE side of the game improved as well as the PvPvE and the Rift Concept. All I am saying is that, for me, the Rift Concept is interesting and I want to give it the absolute best chance it has at getting maximum amount of dev resources. Riftless servers would indirectly drain those resources.
These three things doth a wise man fear: A storm at sea, a moonless night, and the anger of a gentle man
One wonders about the motivations of those who are so fanatically against expanding choices here... PvP and PvE servers exist in many, many games. It also expands the companies potential profits. The only down side I can see is the loss of unwilling/inexperienced victims for ganking/griefing...
Those "other games" are pve games with pvp tacked on. Thats a big difference.
As for me, I am vehemently against pve severs because I havnt had an mmo to play in literally years - because they are all trying to cadre to you. Maybe thats where the big money is....but thats not where I am at. Please, pretty please, let me have just one fucking mmo to play? There is a metric-crap-ton of WoWs out there for you; take your pick. But lets just allow this game to be what it is.
Why would PvE friendly servers effect your ability to play the core server in any way?
If anything, an alternate server type would head off the current development of more care bear systems for the game, which is one of the reasons why I, as a PvP leaning player, would prefer that there be two server types.
The most common proposal for a PvE friendly server type for Aion would still have PvP in the Abyss, but would limit PvP in the rift accessible PvE zones. There are a few options for this, all of which would be extremely simple for NCSoft to produce with minimal cost or effort.
The game would be essentially the same and would allow casuals and PvE leaning players (which is about 66% of the market in the West) the ability to enjoy the game with out rift enabled griefing. Not at all an unreasonable request from the fan base and one that would pay huge financial dividends for NCSoft. It would also help keep the core game more "pure" for those who will enjoy the PvPvE element of the game.
In the immediate short term, you are entirely correct. Providing non-standard servers, such as Riftless servers or PvE only servers would have little to no effect on the standard servers and its players.
But three months, 6 months, a year down the road, when (if?) the game is established, you will now have Two sets of customers. PvPers and PvE'ers who are fine with some open world PvP, and those PvE'ers who will not tolerate any form of Open World pvp. And both will be wanting new content. Unfortunately, Developers have limited resources so one of those two sets is going to get "The Shaft" leaving them unhappy.
PvPvE and RVR development WILL be neglected in order to attract and retain the Riftless PvE'ers. Sure the game should probably develop PvE content AS WELL as PvPvE/RvR, but if there is a whole group who could care less about PvP...then that element will have less resources devoted to it then it would otherwise.
Splitting the servers will invariably lessen the experience for those of us who want a PvPvE...a good, triple A, well supported RVR type game.
And once again folks, keep in mind its not just riftless servers they are saying no to, its ALL non-standard servers be it Roleplaying, Super Extreme Hardcore, Full Loot, etc.
So yes. You may not mean to, but in wanting this you are wanting to limit the ability for us that want it to have a Good Solid Well Supported RVR game.
Hope that made sense and didnt come off as rude.
I haven't seen a single title where offering two server types has had any impact on future development.
In Aion, the Abyss is the Abyss. It's going to be PvP on any server. No reason for PvE leaning servers to some how lead NCSoft away from expanding the Abyss.
The newly fleshed out third zone on each continent is 85% filled with high level PvE content and there are no rifts to those zones. No need to have rifts to every PvE zone, obviously.
I don't see any impact, based on the way this game is laid out and proposed PvE friendly rule sets, why providing PvE friendlier servers would have any impact on future development of the game.
Maybe you can give a specific example of something that would have to change in the design of future content because of adding an additional server type. (Keep in mind that no one asking for an alternate rule set is asking for a rule set completely free from Rifts).
Well three things.
I would argue that having riftless servers IS an alternate rule-set, as if you have a riftless server there is no (less of a?) need for any sort of Slayer/anti-gank system and such things.
Which brings up the second point. When the development team sits down to discuss who does what and who should be working on what, if you have riftless servers, then you have a problem: Putting a guy on helping to make rifts and the rift experience (and the anti-ganking systems) becomes something that instead of automatically happening, it must be debated. Do we put a guy on that to benefit half our servers, or do we take the guy and have him help finish PvE mid-level Instance zone? Or new skill set? or whatever they happen to work on.
The third point is this: Naming SPECIFICS is hard simply because Im not a member of the dev team so i have NO IDEA what there goals are and what projects they will be working on and putting resources towards. I just know that they will be dividing their resources to various areas of the game. Rifts and Open world PVP is something I want a lot of development time put towards to perfect them and add more interesting concepts to them. If only a portion of the servers even have rifts this becomes less likely to occur.
Oh and a fourth: Im positive you havent seen how having multiple server types has had an effect on development, simply because this isnt something that development teams advertise. "Oh yeah guys, were gonna be taking away all the resources we were planning on putting towards Roleplaying elements in the game because turns out the people on the PvP servers are whining about x, y or z" Its just not in their interest to say such things. Instead they just say 'Oh wow every area of the game is being worked on like craaaaazy' in hopes that the Roleplayer server people whove been wanting new roleplay options wont realize they are being bled of dev. resources.
Just cause you dont see it doesnt mean it isnt there.
Edit: Now I approve of expanding multiple elements in a game, dont get me wrong. I would love to see the PvE side of the game improved as well as the PvPvE and the Rift Concept. All I am saying is that, for me, the Rift Concept is interesting and I want to give it the absolute best chance it has at getting maximum amount of dev resources. Riftless servers would indirectly drain those resources.
Interesting posts, thanks. But keep in mind that NCsoft is Korean. That means they have a cultural bias in favor of PvP and all that goes with it. PvP tends to be cheaper than PvE in terms of content(which I suspect is one of the reasons that so many Asian games are PvP centric, in addition to their culture). I can't see them slighting PvP in favor of PvE(even with the profit incentive of there being more PvE players in the west). To do that they would have to change some basic aspects of their perspective. You've seen all of the howling from the gankers/griefers about the mere possibility of having less potential victims.
Now imagine coming from a culture where that is a fundamental part of the general perspective. That is also one of the reasons that Asian games tend to niche themselves in the west. Western audiences will not tolerate the level of ganking/griefing that is standard in the typical Asian games. The days of UO being the only game in town are long since past, and will never happen again. Games that wish to have the widest appeal in the west will offer both options. The PVPVE concept is inherently flawed in terms of the west, and no doubt this will be demonstrated over the next year or two. NCsoft must realize the inherent problems, or they'd have not come up with the Slayer system as a bandaid. But its at least a step in the right direction.
One wonders about the motivations of those who are so fanatically against expanding choices here... PvP and PvE servers exist in many, many games. It also expands the companies potential profits. The only down side I can see is the loss of unwilling/inexperienced victims for ganking/griefing...
Those "other games" are pve games with pvp tacked on. Thats a big difference.
As for me, I am vehemently against pve severs because I havnt had an mmo to play in literally years - because they are all trying to cadre to you. Maybe thats where the big money is....but thats not where I am at. Please, pretty please, let me have just one fucking mmo to play? There is a metric-crap-ton of WoWs out there for you; take your pick. But lets just allow this game to be what it is.
Why would PvE friendly servers effect your ability to play the core server in any way?
If anything, an alternate server type would head off the current development of more care bear systems for the game, which is one of the reasons why I, as a PvP leaning player, would prefer that there be two server types.
The most common proposal for a PvE friendly server type for Aion would still have PvP in the Abyss, but would limit PvP in the rift accessible PvE zones. There are a few options for this, all of which would be extremely simple for NCSoft to produce with minimal cost or effort.
The game would be essentially the same and would allow casuals and PvE leaning players (which is about 66% of the market in the West) the ability to enjoy the game with out rift enabled griefing. Not at all an unreasonable request from the fan base and one that would pay huge financial dividends for NCSoft. It would also help keep the core game more "pure" for those who will enjoy the PvPvE element of the game.
In the immediate short term, you are entirely correct. Providing non-standard servers, such as Riftless servers or PvE only servers would have little to no effect on the standard servers and its players.
But three months, 6 months, a year down the road, when (if?) the game is established, you will now have Two sets of customers. PvPers and PvE'ers who are fine with some open world PvP, and those PvE'ers who will not tolerate any form of Open World pvp. And both will be wanting new content. Unfortunately, Developers have limited resources so one of those two sets is going to get "The Shaft" leaving them unhappy.
PvPvE and RVR development WILL be neglected in order to attract and retain the Riftless PvE'ers. Sure the game should probably develop PvE content AS WELL as PvPvE/RvR, but if there is a whole group who could care less about PvP...then that element will have less resources devoted to it then it would otherwise.
Splitting the servers will invariably lessen the experience for those of us who want a PvPvE...a good, triple A, well supported RVR type game.
And once again folks, keep in mind its not just riftless servers they are saying no to, its ALL non-standard servers be it Roleplaying, Super Extreme Hardcore, Full Loot, etc.
So yes. You may not mean to, but in wanting this you are wanting to limit the ability for us that want it to have a Good Solid Well Supported RVR game.
Hope that made sense and didnt come off as rude.
I haven't seen a single title where offering two server types has had any impact on future development.
In Aion, the Abyss is the Abyss. It's going to be PvP on any server. No reason for PvE leaning servers to some how lead NCSoft away from expanding the Abyss.
The newly fleshed out third zone on each continent is 85% filled with high level PvE content and there are no rifts to those zones. No need to have rifts to every PvE zone, obviously.
I don't see any impact, based on the way this game is laid out and proposed PvE friendly rule sets, why providing PvE friendlier servers would have any impact on future development of the game.
Maybe you can give a specific example of something that would have to change in the design of future content because of adding an additional server type. (Keep in mind that no one asking for an alternate rule set is asking for a rule set completely free from Rifts).
Well three things.
I would argue that having riftless servers IS an alternate rule-set, as if you have a riftless server there is no (less of a?) need for any sort of Slayer/anti-gank system and such things.
Which brings up the second point. When the development team sits down to discuss who does what and who should be working on what, if you have riftless servers, then you have a problem: Putting a guy on helping to make rifts and the rift experience (and the anti-ganking systems) becomes something that instead of automatically happening, it must be debated. Do we put a guy on that to benefit half our servers, or do we take the guy and have him help finish PvE mid-level Instance zone? Or new skill set? or whatever they happen to work on.
The third point is this: Naming SPECIFICS is hard simply because Im not a member of the dev team so i have NO IDEA what there goals are and what projects they will be working on and putting resources towards. I just know that they will be dividing their resources to various areas of the game. Rifts and Open world PVP is something I want a lot of development time put towards to perfect them and add more interesting concepts to them. If only a portion of the servers even have rifts this becomes less likely to occur.
Oh and a fourth: Im positive you havent seen how having multiple server types has had an effect on development, simply because this isnt something that development teams advertise. "Oh yeah guys, were gonna be taking away all the resources we were planning on putting towards Roleplaying elements in the game because turns out the people on the PvP servers are whining about x, y or z" Its just not in their interest to say such things. Instead they just say 'Oh wow every area of the game is being worked on like craaaaazy' in hopes that the Roleplayer server people whove been wanting new roleplay options wont realize they are being bled of dev. resources.
Just cause you dont see it doesnt mean it isnt there.
Edit: Now I approve of expanding multiple elements in a game, dont get me wrong. I would love to see the PvE side of the game improved as well as the PvPvE and the Rift Concept. All I am saying is that, for me, the Rift Concept is interesting and I want to give it the absolute best chance it has at getting maximum amount of dev resources. Riftless servers would indirectly drain those resources.
Interesting posts, thanks. But keep in mind that NCsoft is Korean. That means they have a cultural bias in favor of PvP and all that goes with it. PvP tends to be cheaper than PvE in terms of content(which I suspect is one of the reasons that so many Asian games are PvP centric, in addition to their culture). I can't see them slighting PvP in favor of PvE(even with the profit incentive of there being more PvE players in the west). To do that they would have to change some basic aspects of their perspective. You've seen all of the howling from the gankers/griefers about the mere possibility of having less potential victims.
Now imagine coming from a culture where that is a fundamental part of the general perspective. That is also one of the reasons that Asian games tend to niche themselves in the west. Western audiences will not tolerate the level of ganking/griefing that is standard in the typical Asian games. The days of UO being the only game in town are long since past, and will never happen again. Games that wish to have the widest appeal in the west will offer both options. The PVPVE concept is inherently flawed in terms of the west, and no doubt this will be demonstrated over the next year or two. NCsoft must realize the inherent problems, or they'd have not come up with the Slayer system as a bandaid. But its at least a step in the right direction.
Mind showing me a study or some proof where it indicates Korean's culture favors PvP? while the west prefers PVE?
Really feels like your making things up to fit your own personal tastes
Aion v3 "RELOADED" - A glimpse into the future of the MMO genre
"There is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer."
One wonders about the motivations of those who are so fanatically against expanding choices here... PvP and PvE servers exist in many, many games. It also expands the companies potential profits. The only down side I can see is the loss of unwilling/inexperienced victims for ganking/griefing...
Those "other games" are pve games with pvp tacked on. Thats a big difference.
As for me, I am vehemently against pve severs because I havnt had an mmo to play in literally years - because they are all trying to cadre to you. Maybe thats where the big money is....but thats not where I am at. Please, pretty please, let me have just one fucking mmo to play? There is a metric-crap-ton of WoWs out there for you; take your pick. But lets just allow this game to be what it is.
Why would PvE friendly servers effect your ability to play the core server in any way?
If anything, an alternate server type would head off the current development of more care bear systems for the game, which is one of the reasons why I, as a PvP leaning player, would prefer that there be two server types.
The most common proposal for a PvE friendly server type for Aion would still have PvP in the Abyss, but would limit PvP in the rift accessible PvE zones. There are a few options for this, all of which would be extremely simple for NCSoft to produce with minimal cost or effort.
The game would be essentially the same and would allow casuals and PvE leaning players (which is about 66% of the market in the West) the ability to enjoy the game with out rift enabled griefing. Not at all an unreasonable request from the fan base and one that would pay huge financial dividends for NCSoft. It would also help keep the core game more "pure" for those who will enjoy the PvPvE element of the game.
In the immediate short term, you are entirely correct. Providing non-standard servers, such as Riftless servers or PvE only servers would have little to no effect on the standard servers and its players.
But three months, 6 months, a year down the road, when (if?) the game is established, you will now have Two sets of customers. PvPers and PvE'ers who are fine with some open world PvP, and those PvE'ers who will not tolerate any form of Open World pvp. And both will be wanting new content. Unfortunately, Developers have limited resources so one of those two sets is going to get "The Shaft" leaving them unhappy.
PvPvE and RVR development WILL be neglected in order to attract and retain the Riftless PvE'ers. Sure the game should probably develop PvE content AS WELL as PvPvE/RvR, but if there is a whole group who could care less about PvP...then that element will have less resources devoted to it then it would otherwise.
Splitting the servers will invariably lessen the experience for those of us who want a PvPvE...a good, triple A, well supported RVR type game.
And once again folks, keep in mind its not just riftless servers they are saying no to, its ALL non-standard servers be it Roleplaying, Super Extreme Hardcore, Full Loot, etc.
So yes. You may not mean to, but in wanting this you are wanting to limit the ability for us that want it to have a Good Solid Well Supported RVR game.
Hope that made sense and didnt come off as rude.
I haven't seen a single title where offering two server types has had any impact on future development.
In Aion, the Abyss is the Abyss. It's going to be PvP on any server. No reason for PvE leaning servers to some how lead NCSoft away from expanding the Abyss.
The newly fleshed out third zone on each continent is 85% filled with high level PvE content and there are no rifts to those zones. No need to have rifts to every PvE zone, obviously.
I don't see any impact, based on the way this game is laid out and proposed PvE friendly rule sets, why providing PvE friendlier servers would have any impact on future development of the game.
Maybe you can give a specific example of something that would have to change in the design of future content because of adding an additional server type. (Keep in mind that no one asking for an alternate rule set is asking for a rule set completely free from Rifts).
Well three things.
I would argue that having riftless servers IS an alternate rule-set, as if you have a riftless server there is no (less of a?) need for any sort of Slayer/anti-gank system and such things.
Which brings up the second point. When the development team sits down to discuss who does what and who should be working on what, if you have riftless servers, then you have a problem: Putting a guy on helping to make rifts and the rift experience (and the anti-ganking systems) becomes something that instead of automatically happening, it must be debated. Do we put a guy on that to benefit half our servers, or do we take the guy and have him help finish PvE mid-level Instance zone? Or new skill set? or whatever they happen to work on.
The third point is this: Naming SPECIFICS is hard simply because Im not a member of the dev team so i have NO IDEA what there goals are and what projects they will be working on and putting resources towards. I just know that they will be dividing their resources to various areas of the game. Rifts and Open world PVP is something I want a lot of development time put towards to perfect them and add more interesting concepts to them. If only a portion of the servers even have rifts this becomes less likely to occur.
Oh and a fourth: Im positive you havent seen how having multiple server types has had an effect on development, simply because this isnt something that development teams advertise. "Oh yeah guys, were gonna be taking away all the resources we were planning on putting towards Roleplaying elements in the game because turns out the people on the PvP servers are whining about x, y or z" Its just not in their interest to say such things. Instead they just say 'Oh wow every area of the game is being worked on like craaaaazy' in hopes that the Roleplayer server people whove been wanting new roleplay options wont realize they are being bled of dev. resources.
Just cause you dont see it doesnt mean it isnt there.
Edit: Now I approve of expanding multiple elements in a game, dont get me wrong. I would love to see the PvE side of the game improved as well as the PvPvE and the Rift Concept. All I am saying is that, for me, the Rift Concept is interesting and I want to give it the absolute best chance it has at getting maximum amount of dev resources. Riftless servers would indirectly drain those resources.
Interesting posts, thanks. But keep in mind that NCsoft is Korean. That means they have a cultural bias in favor of PvP and all that goes with it. PvP tends to be cheaper than PvE in terms of content(which I suspect is one of the reasons that so many Asian games are PvP centric, in addition to their culture). I can't see them slighting PvP in favor of PvE(even with the profit incentive of there being more PvE players in the west). To do that they would have to change some basic aspects of their perspective. You've seen all of the howling from the gankers/griefers about the mere possibility of having less potential victims.
Now imagine coming from a culture where that is a fundamental part of the general perspective. That is also one of the reasons that Asian games tend to niche themselves in the west. Western audiences will not tolerate the level of ganking/griefing that is standard in the typical Asian games. The days of UO being the only game in town are long since past, and will never happen again. Games that wish to have the widest appeal in the west will offer both options. The PVPVE concept is inherently flawed in terms of the west, and no doubt this will be demonstrated over the next year or two. NCsoft must realize the inherent problems, or they'd have not come up with the Slayer system as a bandaid. But its at least a step in the right direction.
Mind showing me a study or some proof where it indicates Korean's culture favors PvP? while the west prefers PVE?
Really feels like your making things up to fit your own personal tastes
Studies? I'm not certain anyone has done any as yet, as I suspect you might be aware... ^^ My *opinions* on the subject are based on playing WAY too many Asian games over the years, and also conversations with players from those parts of the world. But I'm hardly alone in that perspective. Look at these links as just two others who have noticed the demographics and the perspectives involved.
tobolds.blogspot.com/2008/10/market-share-of-pvp.html
Ths relevant part of this is down in the interview further in(dealing with the difference between the east and the west).
rpgvault.ign.com/articles/544/544867p1.html
Note also how KO niched itself in the west, even with its Dev's being aware of some of the differences.
As to the culture question, I'm wondering how much that has played into the decision to not offer PvE friendly servers. I think they just don't understand the Western perspective on this. It's confusing, though, because even if they lack a cultural understanding, you can easily look at Western titles that offer two rule sets and see that about 66%+ of the servers end up being PvE, rather than PvP.
Games that have had to merge down servers after blockbuster releases, followed by a steady bleed off, also seem to show that the PvP players bleed off more quickly. You might see two PvP servers after a merge down, vs. six or eight PvE servers.
Maybe their view of the West as "barbarians" and "cowboys" taints their perspective on this issue. They might like to think that we are even more war-like and less civilized, so surely we'd embrace PvP servers even more enthusiastically than they do in Korea? Just a curious thought.
I also wonder if NCSoft West dropped the ball on this. The head of NCSoft West is Korean and the former COO of the parent company, but the staff is largely Western. Maybe they just were too timid in representing the preferences of the Western audience and passing on the level of demand for more PvE friendly servers.
I honestly think it will prove to be a costly mistake, possibly to the tune of $50 million or more in potential first year revenue lost. It's also a shame for the hundreds of thousands, or even million+ Western players who might have found Aion a very compelling title if NCSoft had made the minuscule effort required to appeal to the PvE/casual player base.
Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
Always love it when people whine about players doing things the developers obviously intended them to do. It's like pussy clan boys crying over VOIP about being spawn camped in COD. People do it because they can. Deal with it.
Always love it when people whine about players doing things the developers obviously intended them to do. It's like pussy clan boys crying over VOIP about being spawn camped in COD. People do it because they can. Deal with it.
LOL... Typical response pattern, which simply proves what I've said all along. Simply because one can do a thing, does not require that one actually do it. But those who use phrases like "pussy clan boys" aren't likely to understand such matters. I "deal with it" by refusing to pay to have bnet battle kiddies and mental barbarians inflicted on me.
Always love it when people whine about players doing things the developers obviously intended them to do. It's like pussy clan boys crying over VOIP about being spawn camped in COD. People do it because they can. Deal with it.
LOL... Typical response pattern, which simply proves what I've said all along. Simply because one can do a thing, does not require that one actually do it. But those who use phrases like "pussy clan boys" aren't likely to understand such matters. I "deal with it" by refusing to pay to have bnet battle kiddies and mental barbarians inflicted on me.
When I asked if you were going to play, you ever answer?
This really shouldn't be the issue...
L1 failed to attract a western audience of any size... L2 had the same result.. I think it was rather popular at first in the west but dropped off later.
So if NCSoft hadn't really made any statement about the goal of the game it would just seem to be another "ncsoft" game. Yet they claimed they wanted a larger western audience and that is the puzzle...
They have already designed penalty systems due to higher levels killing lower levels in the east. Which would lead to speculation that they had negative feedback in their normal market about the mechanics... which is odd since L1 and L2 were... well you can figure it out.
So the logic leap is that in the western market they will just run into a larger negative backlash.
It does NOT matter what my or anyone elses view of PvP is... Its going to be NCSoft who calls these things and that will be based on subscribers.
However, based on western gaming history... we will just see more complex penalty systems added over time. Which to me just seems like a waste of resources.
The Abyss functions much the same as "the frontier" in DAoC and would provide a solid PvP area/experience.
The first time I heard about rifts quite honestly my first thought was "what were they thinking..." as the outcome of rifts is quite obvious. From a business perspective.... they want the 90% income.. not the 10% and if you don't know what that relates to you have never worked in "the industry".
UO was my favorite MMO to this day.. the first two years or so. It was open pvp with full loot and I loved the game so I am not some anti pvp campaigner... I am a realist. UO according to EA hit its peak subscriber numbers long after I quit (was shortly after Age of Shadows they hit peak) and that was a while after Trammel... and we had a lot of penalty systems before Trammel.
Mistakes of the past and all that... I do believe that choice is a good thing and I think rifts should have been a "pvp ruleset" situation. As it just makes long term business sense and allows you to not waste time/resources on penalty systems when you cna use those resources to actually move your product forward.
Antarious, I agree with everything you wrote. Spot on.
I think it serves the community to discuss these things, so people can make an informed decision.
Some people are still in the mode of "buy anything even remotely promising and hope it ends up being a great game". A lot of us have been around long enough to become very jaded about MMORPGs and cautious about who we give our money to.
Sad thing is that I'll be playing this game, in spite of what for me are some serious flaws. However, I go in with the expectation that I won't be here for more than two or three months. A lot of people buying Aion with the hope of it turning into a year or two of enthusiastic play time are going to be disappointed. Some will be ecstatic about the game long term, but my guess is that the niche this game will end up supporting in the West will be a fairly small one and definitely a lot smaller than it could have been or should have been.
Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
