Ashes will not have PVE servers because the game itself is built around PVP and change. What they need to make sure they balance is the PKing debuffs with allowing PVP in the open world. I think they need some work on the PVP idea. For example the SWG Flagging system is great. However it has its flaws like allowing people to not be flagged and zerg a castle during a siege.
How I would fix this is use the SWG Flagging system, BUT in a node that is undersiege I would make everyone in that node flagged for PVP. The reason I would do that is because if you are in that zone during PVP you should be flagged and not protected by being in PVE mode. That I feel would be a good compromise.
I would also make certain areas full out PVP areas so if you are there you will be flagged but I wouldnt make it so critical to PVE play that it forces PVE players into PVP areas. I would make these areas lucrative like higher amounts of resources vs the PVE areas, but if a player does not want to engage in PVP and wants to get the same PVE resources just at a little slower rate then OK. They will take risk with their caravans, but I think reducing the ganking and greifing PVP play should come in mind. That does not mean that there will not be PVE players like myself in PVP areas getting more resources. I will be there. BUT I am going to bring friends who will own the solo or the 2 gankers in the area. Its called friends and if I bring 4 or 5 very good PVPers and you alone try to PK me, well so sad so sorry when they kill you.
Here's the thing, unflagged resource gathers can play real havoc with the economy as there is no way for flagged players to control access to them.
Contributes to hyperinflation, breeds botters who can only be stopped by mods, and a host of other issues.
If a game is trying to create a functioning economy having those who can influence but not be impacted in turn is a poor idea.
You dont have to have PVP to control the hyperinflation. Look at SWG and the resource gathering system. The game could have had PVP everywhere and there was no way to control resources and Hyperinflation was not a problem because gear broke beyond repair and had to be replaced. Yes the gear that was crafted by the best crafters was expensive, BUT if you worked with these crafters and help gather resources for them they gave you large discounts on the gear. O and Botting was allowed in SWG in the way of Harvesters. Which by the way will be in Ashes of Creation so Botting is not going to be an issue when you can use harvesters which gather resources for you offline.
The CORE problem of Ashes of creation is trying to make it so gear can always be repair which makes crafting completely useless. Yea they will make it so crafters can REPAIR gear, but that was tried in FFXIV 1.0 and was an epic fail. Crafters do not create Crafters for REPAIRING gear. We craft so we can make endless amounts of items to sell for a stream of revenue.
What you need is a SWG like resource Gathering system as well as gearing system. The Caravan system is were you can introduce PVP and unique ways to upgrade your resources and gear between nodes. Base Gathering resources should be easy to deal with.
Thank you for a lot of interesting points and I have re read a lot of things on the Ashes Website, the whole thing is like the Monthy Python Norwegian Blue Parrot. The Ashes team waxes poetically about all the lovely sandbox features, buildings, politics and on an on and downplays the fact that it is a node control PvP game. Unfortunately I am afraid that a lot of people will leave Ashes very early when their villages have been razed a few times and after facing whatever the political system results in (lots of opportunities for doing bad things there if you have firm control of power). When I think about it Camelot Unchained sounds more fun for a PvE player/crafter/builder (I played PvP on Naggy EQ2 so I am no pure PvE player, but my wife is).
Thank you for a lot of interesting points and I have re read a lot of things on the Ashes Website, the whole thing is like the Monthy Python Norwegian Blue Parrot. The Ashes team waxes poetically about all the lovely sandbox features, buildings, politics and on an on and downplays the fact that it is a node control PvP game. Unfortunately I am afraid that a lot of people will leave Ashes very early when their villages have been razed a few times and after facing whatever the political system results in (lots of opportunities for doing bad things there if you have firm control of power). When I think about it Camelot Unchained sounds more fun for a PvE player/crafter/builder (I played PvP on Naggy EQ2 so I am no pure PvE player, but my wife is).
But isn't Camelot Unchained also a predominantly pvp game?
I mean, if you are interested in what Camelot Unchained has to offer why not Ashes of Creation? What's really the difference?
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Thank you for a lot of interesting points and I have re read a lot of things on the Ashes Website, the whole thing is like the Monthy Python Norwegian Blue Parrot. The Ashes team waxes poetically about all the lovely sandbox features, buildings, politics and on an on and downplays the fact that it is a node control PvP game. Unfortunately I am afraid that a lot of people will leave Ashes very early when their villages have been razed a few times and after facing whatever the political system results in (lots of opportunities for doing bad things there if you have firm control of power). When I think about it Camelot Unchained sounds more fun for a PvE player/crafter/builder (I played PvP on Naggy EQ2 so I am no pure PvE player, but my wife is).
This is why they will need to do a lot of testing to make sure they have their core design so it does not hurt the pure PVE player as much as it can right now. In a Sandbox like Ashes the way you keep from having mindless boring game play is by having changes. This means players being ass holes and being corrupt and abusing their power on a node. This is why there should be a way to vote out a node major. They also need to be careful of being like ArcheAge where 1 large guild runs an entire server because no one can fight that 1 guild.
If done right this game can be successful. The Core problem with any Sandbox MMORPG having PVP is PVP will be unbalanced no matter what. I go back to my days on Wanderhome on SWG. At the start of the server Imps and Rebs were about even. After a while the PVP players all went Imp and then we seen Rebel cities crawling with Imps look for some PVP. Well when its 30 to 5 in favor of 1 side there is nothing you can do. This is the same BS that happens in ArcheAge. You cannot get away from it at all in a PVP focused Sandbox MMORPG.
The only MMORPG that has good PVP in it that I played were PVP worked well was UO. Thats because Fel is where all the PVP players were. If you didnt want to PVP you stayed in Tram and the other areas that were non PVP. If you wanted to PVP you took some friends to Fel into bucs den and fought people.
Its possible that if the world is large enough. Think in terms of the entire sides of SWG. Take all the planets together and if that is the sizes of Ashes of Creation that might help. Because while 1 faction did control PVP on Wanderhome when it came to City raiding. They lost a lot of bases because they would have multiple bases that went up for PVP at the same time. My small 6 man Commando guild was a part of a 18 guild alliance that destroyed many Imp bases because there was no way the imps can protect that many bases at 1 time. The world was too large to get help from 1 location to another. So we took 40 to 100 people to wipe out a base, we would only know 1 hour before and it was so hard to get support to that base when when we attacked that imp lost often.
So if the world is large yea a large guild could control the world but it would be very hard.
But isn't Camelot Unchained also a predominantly pvp game?
I mean, if you are interested in what Camelot Unchained has to offer why not Ashes of Creation? What's really the difference?
CU has safe areas, so you can build and craft for your side in peace. And its your decision if you want to go out in the contested lands. Huge difference.
But we do not really know how either Ashes or CU will turn out in the end so its all theoretical at the moment.
I agree with the content argument for one. You'd have to add more content and do it consistently, but it's more than that. In a lot of these games, PvP is an important element of the game and not a side activity. The developers want it to be a part of all the players' gameplay and they want it to be a focus of the game and of development.
If you open a PvE server, what's happened in a lot of games, is that it attracts a lot of PvE only players who then demand the developers focus more time on them. Over the years the game changes and morphs into something it wasn't at the beginning, and PvP is forgotten.
For PvP to be a focus it has to remain a priority and yes, that means some people won't like it and may not play, but that's the price developers have to pay if they want to keep their visions alive. Even WoW is a terrible example - at this stage of the game, world PvP is almost non-existent.
Glad somebody gets this around here. stop trying to shoehorn pve and pvp in the same game. why do pvers constantly act like they are being left out and have to always say what about us as if almost all mmos are not just PvE games anyway.I finally get why on some PvP games forums when someones say what about PvE everyone wants to lynch them.
a couple players in a field trying to murder each other by itself doesnt qualify as a pvp game,even if you think thats all games like crowfall and CU are gonna be about,your in for a big surprise.
ever ask yourself why do Legitimate PvP games have better crafting and economies with the exception of maybe SWG and ever notice how most PvE mmo's it's like the end of the world to PvE players if they were to lose an item or die,these things have a purpose in a real built from the ground up PvP game.
so by all means tell yourself what ever you want regarding what you think you understand regarding PvP games,but a properly designed PvP game for the most part is designed a certain way for many reasons.
also i see nothing wrong with wanting a pure PvE sandbox game if a team can actually blend all the systems and mechanics together so it flowed right and didnt cause the eternal tug of war that exists between PvE/PvP with most mmo's with PvP always being hung out to dry.
I agree with the content argument for one. You'd have to add more content and do it consistently, but it's more than that. In a lot of these games, PvP is an important element of the game and not a side activity. The developers want it to be a part of all the players' gameplay and they want it to be a focus of the game and of development.
If you open a PvE server, what's happened in a lot of games, is that it attracts a lot of PvE only players who then demand the developers focus more time on them. Over the years the game changes and morphs into something it wasn't at the beginning, and PvP is forgotten.
For PvP to be a focus it has to remain a priority and yes, that means some people won't like it and may not play, but that's the price developers have to pay if they want to keep their visions alive. Even WoW is a terrible example - at this stage of the game, world PvP is almost non-existent.
Glad somebody gets this around here. stop trying to shoehorn pve and pvp in the same game. why do pvers constantly act like they are being left out and have to always say what about us as if almost all mmos are not just PvE games anyway.I finally get why on some PvP games forums when someones say what about PvE everyone wants to lynch them.
a couple players in a field trying to murder each other by itself doesnt qualify as a pvp game,even if you think thats all games like crowfall and CU are gonna be about,your in for a big surprise.
ever ask yourself why do Legitimate PvP games have better crafting and economies with the exception of maybe SWG and ever notice how most PvE mmo's it's like the end of the world to PvE players if they were to lose an item or die,these things have a purpose in a real built from the ground up PvP game.
so by all means tell yourself what ever you want regarding what you think you understand regarding PvP games,but a properly designed PvP game for the most part is designed a certain way for many reasons.
also i see nothing wrong with wanting a pure PvE sandbox game if a team can actually blend all the systems and mechanics together so it flowed right and didnt cause the eternal tug of war that exists between PvE/PvP with most mmo's with PvP always being hung out to dry.
I would argue the contrary. In games like Final Fantasy 14 and World of Warcraft the PVPers feel left out more. FF14 originally didn't have PVP and its PVP isn't very engaging. WoW is deleting PVP servers in Battle for Azeroth.
Thank you for a lot of interesting points and I have re read a lot of things on the Ashes Website, the whole thing is like the Monthy Python Norwegian Blue Parrot. The Ashes team waxes poetically about all the lovely sandbox features, buildings, politics and on an on and downplays the fact that it is a node control PvP game. Unfortunately I am afraid that a lot of people will leave Ashes very early when their villages have been razed a few times and after facing whatever the political system results in (lots of opportunities for doing bad things there if you have firm control of power). When I think about it Camelot Unchained sounds more fun for a PvE player/crafter/builder (I played PvP on Naggy EQ2 so I am no pure PvE player, but my wife is).
But isn't Camelot Unchained also a predominantly pvp game?
I mean, if you are interested in what Camelot Unchained has to offer why not Ashes of Creation? What's really the difference?
I'll take a moment to field this one.
Now, this is just my feelings on the matter, but, as I see it, a game like Ashes of Creation is a PvE crafting/building game that hs it's PvE elements at the mercy of PvP players. Where Camelot Unchained is a RvR game, so, it's mainly a PvP game with some crafting components in it.
It's really a mindset change, for the player. Much in the same way someone might love playing an MOBA, and love the idea of battling it out with other players, on those terms of an MOBA.
But the idea of getting attacked while they are in the middle of PVE framing/building/harvesting a node, is about as fun as being beaten with a cheese grater. It kills the fun for that kind of game set up.
It's simply not an attractive game dynamic to them, and truth be told, no matter how many words are said on the subject, or how much anyone may love mixing their PvE with PvP, it won't make it more fun for them, nor keep them playing.
So, once people who enjoy PvE type crafting learn that AoC is game puts all their work and effort at the mercy of PvP players, it really will be a short time before they move on to some other game.
Even if the other game is PvP, how the PvP is set up and how it affects them, can make a world of difference to how they enjoy the game.
Its not a simple answer that you can put in a box, but in the end, it's more a question on how much control they have over the PvP, is it on their terms, is it in a way that is fair, these kinds of set ups, make all the difference for a game.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Absolutely agree with the original poster. PvP is so overdone, so saturated, I so look forward to a cooperative game world where my wife and I can take on professions and grow a production enterprise in peace. ESO got it right, with a separate world for structured PvP that we enjoyed thoroughly. Griefers and gankers have so many choices, let PvE players have the option to avoid non-consensual PvP for a change.
Men do not stop playing because they grow old. They grow old because they stop playing. -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Sandbox games focus on providing player driven play, rather than game driven. The more restrictions placed on player actions and interactions the less able they are to do that driving. Overly abundant PvP restrictions would run counter to what sandbox games strive to provide.
Sandbox games focus on providing player driven play, rather than game driven. The more restrictions placed on player actions and interactions the less able they are to do that driving. Overly abundant PvP restrictions would run counter to what sandbox games strive to provide.
How many people really want to play a full sandbox game then? What are the current "real-sandbox" games that people can play that are successful? List full-loot pvp-sandboxes that are successful? I am just curious and want to try some of the really successful ones.
Feel free to give EVE a try then, even has a F2P option.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
The reason why games like Ashes don't implement PVE only servers is easy to understand... it allows them to be lazy and not produce meaningful content. If you can make the game "PvP" then you don't have to have quests, dungeons, raids and other content for the PvE player. All of these games are basically focusing on the mechanics of combat and simple (at their core) reward systems like rankings, titles, cosmetic gear and other fluff that is untimately meaningless. Low amounts of story and other meaningful content.
It's lazy and it's cheap and low cost. Just look at the environments we've seen so far. Very little in the way of cities with good NPC content and interactions. Just landscapes with repetitive plant and animal life.
It's the way of the future. Shortcut overpriced crowdfunded games. The exception to this is Star Citizen.
Easy its all about $$ if LeetGanker33 has 5 accounts (bots) and is used them to make more gold then UberNewbKiller24. UberNewbKiller24 now has to spend the money on the other accounts and bot software, Speed Hacks, Radar Hacks to compete. Take away pvp you get
1. Number of bots dropping. 2. Gold farmer unemployment would rise 3. The available radar and speed hacks would drop
basically game developers know pvp = P2W no matter how they implement that in AoC it will be account / bot race to destroy the economy in favor of those guys with 5 + bots. Also get controlling interest in nodes via bots having the right to vote etc.
Sandbox games focus on providing player driven play, rather than game driven. The more restrictions placed on player actions and interactions the less able they are to do that driving. Overly abundant PvP restrictions would run counter to what sandbox games strive to provide.
How many people really want to play a full sandbox game then? What are the current "real-sandbox" games that people can play that are successful? List full-loot pvp-sandboxes that are successful? I am just curious and want to try some of the really successful ones.
Feel free to give EVE a try then, even has a F2P option.
Isn't Eve exactly what the OP doesn't want? Sure it has some PVE but at almost any time someone can attack you and take your stuff....That isn't the PVE most of us are looking for....What we want is a sandbox game that goes away from the traditional full loot PVP mindset and not many offer that...I think Ryzom is about the only sandbox I remember having a solid PVE experience without PVP involved.
I agree with the content argument for one. You'd have to add more content and do it consistently, but it's more than that. In a lot of these games, PvP is an important element of the game and not a side activity. The developers want it to be a part of all the players' gameplay and they want it to be a focus of the game and of development.
If you open a PvE server, what's happened in a lot of games, is that it attracts a lot of PvE only players who then demand the developers focus more time on them. Over the years the game changes and morphs into something it wasn't at the beginning, and PvP is forgotten.
For PvP to be a focus it has to remain a priority and yes, that means some people won't like it and may not play, but that's the price developers have to pay if they want to keep their visions alive. Even WoW is a terrible example - at this stage of the game, world PvP is almost non-existent.
Glad somebody gets this around here. stop trying to shoehorn pve and pvp in the same game. why do pvers constantly act like they are being left out and have to always say what about us as if almost all mmos are not just PvE games anyway.I finally get why on some PvP games forums when someones say what about PvE everyone wants to lynch them.
a couple players in a field trying to murder each other by itself doesnt qualify as a pvp game,even if you think thats all games like crowfall and CU are gonna be about,your in for a big surprise.
ever ask yourself why do Legitimate PvP games have better crafting and economies with the exception of maybe SWG and ever notice how most PvE mmo's it's like the end of the world to PvE players if they were to lose an item or die,these things have a purpose in a real built from the ground up PvP game.
so by all means tell yourself what ever you want regarding what you think you understand regarding PvP games,but a properly designed PvP game for the most part is designed a certain way for many reasons.
also i see nothing wrong with wanting a pure PvE sandbox game if a team can actually blend all the systems and mechanics together so it flowed right and didnt cause the eternal tug of war that exists between PvE/PvP with most mmo's with PvP always being hung out to dry.
First of all drop the arrogance, I played Lineage 2 for years, it was my first mmo, I'm pretty sure I know what a pvp game is.
The reason why games like Ashes don't implement PVE only servers is easy to understand... it allows them to be lazy and not produce meaningful content. If you can make the game "PvP" then you don't have to have quests, dungeons, raids and other content for the PvE player. All of these games are basically focusing on the mechanics of combat and simple (at their core) reward systems like rankings, titles, cosmetic gear and other fluff that is untimately meaningless. Low amounts of story and other meaningful content.
It's lazy and it's cheap and low cost. Just look at the environments we've seen so far. Very little in the way of cities with good NPC content and interactions. Just landscapes with repetitive plant and animal life.
It's the way of the future. Shortcut overpriced crowdfunded games. The exception to this is Star Citizen.
Not really.
It's called "focus". Focusing on having a great pvp experience, focusing on what matters in a pvp game.
Raids? Quests? That's about something else.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I agree 100% with OP. I have been saying the same thing for years it makes zero sense to limit your player base on a game you want to be successful. I hurts no one to add a server with PvE only and a PvP toggle if some one is feeling froggy.
Thought AoC looked awesome everything i read sounded awesome, until i saw that it was open pvp and then that's where i no longer care if it sinks or swims.
This is the PvP ERA and until it stats to dwindle and people want Hardcore PvE again we wont see anything for a while.
I pefer PvE, with battlegrounds, arenas or a toggle system. I have no problem doing PvP when i choose to do so, I do however not enjoy getting ganked by some one with
A) A larger wallet (OR mom and dads money) No commitments in real life C) The 13 year old that has A, B or both
Non forced pvp no pay 2 win as in zero cash shop or cosmetic cash shop ONLY then we are coolio I i die at that point the other player was better then me no problem.
Ashes of creation with a PVE server would probably be the perfect MMO. I enjoy pvp but usually only when its organized..like guild vs guild. Just roaming about and getting ganked...is as about as fun as walking down the street and getting robbed for my shoes or cellphone.
Sandbox games focus on providing player driven play, rather than game driven. The more restrictions placed on player actions and interactions the less able they are to do that driving. Overly abundant PvP restrictions would run counter to what sandbox games strive to provide.
How many people really want to play a full sandbox game then? What are the current "real-sandbox" games that people can play that are successful? List full-loot pvp-sandboxes that are successful? I am just curious and want to try some of the really successful ones.
I couldn't say how many precisely, but it is safe to say less people want a full-loot PvP sandbox than those that don't. It is also safe to say that most that play sandbox games want as much freedom as possible, including meaningful actions against other players.
The thing is, those that want a more regulated MMORPG experience with little in the way of meaningful player conflict are already abundantly covered. Though some may question the quality of these games, there are plenty of PvE focused games to go around.
What has been lacking for some time, which has been picked up by some developers, is the number of PvP-focused games on the market compared to at least the declared interest in them. As to whether and to what extent this interest is genuine, we will soon find out.
I think there will be enough interest for some of these games to survive, but likely not all, as I believe the concept is more interesting to some than the actual experience ends out being. I wouldn't be surprised if Camelot Unchained remains standing, due to the ties to DAoC.
EVE is probably the best example of a sandbox game with largely unrestricted PvP, and other in game player hostilities. It has a f2p mode now if you want to check it out. Albion Online is another option, but it also has a few limitations on PvP in some areas. You'll have to scrounge up a free trial key to give hat one a go.
Something that may be of greater interest to you, though it won't be ready to play for some time, is a MMORPG that intends to let all manner of players have their sandbox cake and eat it too.
Fractured is the name of the game. You might want to check it out:
Ashes will not have PVE servers because the game itself is built around PVP and change. What they need to make sure they balance is the PKing debuffs with allowing PVP in the open world. I think they need some work on the PVP idea. For example the SWG Flagging system is great. However it has its flaws like allowing people to not be flagged and zerg a castle during a siege.
How I would fix this is use the SWG Flagging system, BUT in a node that is undersiege I would make everyone in that node flagged for PVP. The reason I would do that is because if you are in that zone during PVP you should be flagged and not protected by being in PVE mode. That I feel would be a good compromise.
I would also make certain areas full out PVP areas so if you are there you will be flagged but I wouldnt make it so critical to PVE play that it forces PVE players into PVP areas. I would make these areas lucrative like higher amounts of resources vs the PVE areas, but if a player does not want to engage in PVP and wants to get the same PVE resources just at a little slower rate then OK. They will take risk with their caravans, but I think reducing the ganking and greifing PVP play should come in mind. That does not mean that there will not be PVE players like myself in PVP areas getting more resources. I will be there. BUT I am going to bring friends who will own the solo or the 2 gankers in the area. Its called friends and if I bring 4 or 5 very good PVPers and you alone try to PK me, well so sad so sorry when they kill you.
Here's the thing, unflagged resource gathers can play real havoc with the economy as there is no way for flagged players to control access to them.
Contributes to hyperinflation, breeds botters who can only be stopped by mods, and a host of other issues.
If a game is trying to create a functioning economy having those who can influence but not be impacted in turn is a poor idea.
When there are people gaining resources without restriction it tends to drive values down, not up, what does drive values up is when something stops or restricts those resources being gathered/sold, for reference, see Eve Online.
It wouldn't really be much of a sandbox if you can't PK whoever you please.
Pretty sure you aren't talking about Ashes. The devs have stated they aren't building a gankbox and that PKing is not considered a fun mechanic. If you're at all interested in Ashes, you need to read about it, because for the most part, it isn't what you think it is.
Ashes is ambitiously trying to create a balance between PvE builders and PvP destroyers and has put in a fairly hefty anti-PKing corruption system in an attempt to focus PvP players towards the core game mechanics of build/destroy. Time will tell how effective it is.
The node system looks to be designed to encourage significant PvE play involvement. PvE play builds the world. Which then cycles over to structured PvP, requiring siege declarations and prep time. This seems to eliminate the random PvP gang running in and destroying a village in 10 minutes. And you cannot kill NPCs except during sieges. So no hourly raiding to kill all the NPCs to ruin other players' enjoyment. My understanding is that it will take as much effort to tear something down as it took to build it. In other words, a balanced approach to the build/destroy cycle, in which the builders are just as likely to successfully defend their town/castle as the PvPers are to destroy it.
This is the essential core gameplay of Ashes. You can't have this if there isn't PvP. You just can't.
Themepark MMOs simply don't offer the kinds of interesting world building mechanics that sandboxes do. As a PvE player, I completely understand the desire to play in a such a dynamic world. But if you want that kind of world, it comes with PvP.
Because the core concept of the sandbox is freedom. Freedom to specialize how you want (combat, crafting, trading etc), freedom to advance how you want (non linear progression path) and ultimately, freedom to engage combat with who you want, where and when you want.
This doesn't mean all sandbox games must have free for all PvP but the very nature of the sandbox does inherently lean towards it.
Ashes will not have PVE servers because the game itself is built around PVP and change. What they need to make sure they balance is the PKing debuffs with allowing PVP in the open world. I think they need some work on the PVP idea. For example the SWG Flagging system is great. However it has its flaws like allowing people to not be flagged and zerg a castle during a siege.
How I would fix this is use the SWG Flagging system, BUT in a node that is undersiege I would make everyone in that node flagged for PVP. The reason I would do that is because if you are in that zone during PVP you should be flagged and not protected by being in PVE mode. That I feel would be a good compromise.
I would also make certain areas full out PVP areas so if you are there you will be flagged but I wouldnt make it so critical to PVE play that it forces PVE players into PVP areas. I would make these areas lucrative like higher amounts of resources vs the PVE areas, but if a player does not want to engage in PVP and wants to get the same PVE resources just at a little slower rate then OK. They will take risk with their caravans, but I think reducing the ganking and greifing PVP play should come in mind. That does not mean that there will not be PVE players like myself in PVP areas getting more resources. I will be there. BUT I am going to bring friends who will own the solo or the 2 gankers in the area. Its called friends and if I bring 4 or 5 very good PVPers and you alone try to PK me, well so sad so sorry when they kill you.
Here's the thing, unflagged resource gathers can play real havoc with the economy as there is no way for flagged players to control access to them.
Contributes to hyperinflation, breeds botters who can only be stopped by mods, and a host of other issues.
If a game is trying to create a functioning economy having those who can influence but not be impacted in turn is a poor idea.
Ok, but just to point out, there are other ways to do this.
Heck, off the top of my head there could be NPC pirates, bandits and have them attack players at important areas. In DArk and Light I was killed by several goblins and one of them looted my corpse.
There can also be NPC "buyers" who actually buy items from players and redistribute them to NPC factions to "use".
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Comments
The CORE problem of Ashes of creation is trying to make it so gear can always be repair which makes crafting completely useless. Yea they will make it so crafters can REPAIR gear, but that was tried in FFXIV 1.0 and was an epic fail. Crafters do not create Crafters for REPAIRING gear. We craft so we can make endless amounts of items to sell for a stream of revenue.
What you need is a SWG like resource Gathering system as well as gearing system. The Caravan system is were you can introduce PVP and unique ways to upgrade your resources and gear between nodes. Base Gathering resources should be easy to deal with.
Chi puo dir com'egli arde é in picciol fuoco.
He who can describe the flame does not burn.
Petrarch
I mean, if you are interested in what Camelot Unchained has to offer why not Ashes of Creation? What's really the difference?
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
If done right this game can be successful. The Core problem with any Sandbox MMORPG having PVP is PVP will be unbalanced no matter what. I go back to my days on Wanderhome on SWG. At the start of the server Imps and Rebs were about even. After a while the PVP players all went Imp and then we seen Rebel cities crawling with Imps look for some PVP. Well when its 30 to 5 in favor of 1 side there is nothing you can do. This is the same BS that happens in ArcheAge. You cannot get away from it at all in a PVP focused Sandbox MMORPG.
The only MMORPG that has good PVP in it that I played were PVP worked well was UO. Thats because Fel is where all the PVP players were. If you didnt want to PVP you stayed in Tram and the other areas that were non PVP. If you wanted to PVP you took some friends to Fel into bucs den and fought people.
Its possible that if the world is large enough. Think in terms of the entire sides of SWG. Take all the planets together and if that is the sizes of Ashes of Creation that might help. Because while 1 faction did control PVP on Wanderhome when it came to City raiding. They lost a lot of bases because they would have multiple bases that went up for PVP at the same time. My small 6 man Commando guild was a part of a 18 guild alliance that destroyed many Imp bases because there was no way the imps can protect that many bases at 1 time. The world was too large to get help from 1 location to another. So we took 40 to 100 people to wipe out a base, we would only know 1 hour before and it was so hard to get support to that base when when we attacked that imp lost often.
So if the world is large yea a large guild could control the world but it would be very hard.
But we do not really know how either Ashes or CU will turn out in the end so its all theoretical at the moment.
Chi puo dir com'egli arde é in picciol fuoco.
He who can describe the flame does not burn.
Petrarch
a couple players in a field trying to murder each other by itself doesnt qualify as a pvp game,even if you think thats all games like crowfall and CU are gonna be about,your in for a big surprise.
ever ask yourself why do Legitimate PvP games have better crafting and economies with the exception of maybe SWG and ever notice how most PvE mmo's it's like the end of the world to PvE players if they were to lose an item or die,these things have a purpose in a real built from the ground up PvP game.
so by all means tell yourself what ever you want regarding what you think you understand regarding PvP games,but a properly designed PvP game for the most part is designed a certain way for many reasons.
also i see nothing wrong with wanting a pure PvE sandbox game if a team can actually blend all the systems and mechanics together so it flowed right and didnt cause the eternal tug of war that exists between PvE/PvP with most mmo's with PvP always being hung out to dry.
Now, this is just my feelings on the matter, but, as I see it, a game like Ashes of Creation is a PvE crafting/building game that hs it's PvE elements at the mercy of PvP players. Where Camelot Unchained is a RvR game, so, it's mainly a PvP game with some crafting components in it.
It's really a mindset change, for the player. Much in the same way someone might love playing an MOBA, and love the idea of battling it out with other players, on those terms of an MOBA.
But the idea of getting attacked while they are in the middle of PVE framing/building/harvesting a node, is about as fun as being beaten with a cheese grater. It kills the fun for that kind of game set up.
It's simply not an attractive game dynamic to them, and truth be told, no matter how many words are said on the subject, or how much anyone may love mixing their PvE with PvP, it won't make it more fun for them, nor keep them playing.
So, once people who enjoy PvE type crafting learn that AoC is game puts all their work and effort at the mercy of PvP players, it really will be a short time before they move on to some other game.
Even if the other game is PvP, how the PvP is set up and how it affects them, can make a world of difference to how they enjoy the game.
Its not a simple answer that you can put in a box, but in the end, it's more a question on how much control they have over the PvP, is it on their terms, is it in a way that is fair, these kinds of set ups, make all the difference for a game.
Men do not stop playing because they grow old. They grow old because they stop playing. -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
It's lazy and it's cheap and low cost. Just look at the environments we've seen so far. Very little in the way of cities with good NPC content and interactions. Just landscapes with repetitive plant and animal life.
It's the way of the future. Shortcut overpriced crowdfunded games. The exception to this is Star Citizen.
1. Number of bots dropping.
2. Gold farmer unemployment would rise
3. The available radar and speed hacks would drop
basically game developers know pvp = P2W no matter how they implement that in AoC it will be account / bot race to destroy the economy in favor of those guys with 5 + bots. Also get controlling interest in nodes via bots having the right to vote etc.
Secondly, this really is a lot of opinion
Not really.
It's called "focus". Focusing on having a great pvp experience, focusing on what matters in a pvp game.
Raids? Quests? That's about something else.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Thought AoC looked awesome everything i read sounded awesome, until i saw that it was open pvp and then that's where i no longer care if it sinks or swims.
This is the PvP ERA and until it stats to dwindle and people want Hardcore PvE again we wont see anything for a while.
I pefer PvE, with battlegrounds, arenas or a toggle system. I have no problem doing PvP when i choose to do so, I do however not enjoy getting ganked by some one with
A) A larger wallet (OR mom and dads money)
C) The 13 year old that has A, B or both
Non forced pvp no pay 2 win as in zero cash shop or cosmetic cash shop ONLY then we are coolio I i die at that point the other player was better then me no problem.
The thing is, those that want a more regulated MMORPG experience with little in the way of meaningful player conflict are already abundantly covered. Though some may question the quality of these games, there are plenty of PvE focused games to go around.
What has been lacking for some time, which has been picked up by some developers, is the number of PvP-focused games on the market compared to at least the declared interest in them. As to whether and to what extent this interest is genuine, we will soon find out.
I think there will be enough interest for some of these games to survive, but likely not all, as I believe the concept is more interesting to some than the actual experience ends out being. I wouldn't be surprised if Camelot Unchained remains standing, due to the ties to DAoC.
EVE is probably the best example of a sandbox game with largely unrestricted PvP, and other in game player hostilities. It has a f2p mode now if you want to check it out. Albion Online is another option, but it also has a few limitations on PvP in some areas. You'll have to scrounge up a free trial key to give hat one a go.
Something that may be of greater interest to you, though it won't be ready to play for some time, is a MMORPG that intends to let all manner of players have their sandbox cake and eat it too.
Fractured is the name of the game. You might want to check it out:
https://fracturedmmo.com/
Oh yes, there is one piece of art with partial nudity on the site, so NSFW may apply.
Ashes is ambitiously trying to create a balance between PvE builders and PvP destroyers and has put in a fairly hefty anti-PKing corruption system in an attempt to focus PvP players towards the core game mechanics of build/destroy. Time will tell how effective it is.
The node system looks to be designed to encourage significant PvE play involvement. PvE play builds the world. Which then cycles over to structured PvP, requiring siege declarations and prep time. This seems to eliminate the random PvP gang running in and destroying a village in 10 minutes. And you cannot kill NPCs except during sieges. So no hourly raiding to kill all the NPCs to ruin other players' enjoyment. My understanding is that it will take as much effort to tear something down as it took to build it. In other words, a balanced approach to the build/destroy cycle, in which the builders are just as likely to successfully defend their town/castle as the PvPers are to destroy it.
This is the essential core gameplay of Ashes. You can't have this if there isn't PvP. You just can't.
Themepark MMOs simply don't offer the kinds of interesting world building mechanics that sandboxes do. As a PvE player, I completely understand the desire to play in a such a dynamic world. But if you want that kind of world, it comes with PvP.
Because the core concept of the sandbox is freedom. Freedom to specialize how you want (combat, crafting, trading etc), freedom to advance how you want (non linear progression path) and ultimately, freedom to engage combat with who you want, where and when you want.
This doesn't mean all sandbox games must have free for all PvP but the very nature of the sandbox does inherently lean towards it.
Heck, off the top of my head there could be NPC pirates, bandits and have them attack players at important areas. In DArk and Light I was killed by several goblins and one of them looted my corpse.
There can also be NPC "buyers" who actually buy items from players and redistribute them to NPC factions to "use".
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo