Read more about Ashes of Creation ➜ https://ashesofcreation.mgn.tv
Discussing mmo Ashes Of Creation
0:00 INTRO
3:34 Discussion
7:08 Group Content
39:01 HellDivers And GMs
46:00 PvP Comissions Potential
51:44 Sieges Shouldn’t Be Fair
#mmorpg #gaming #ashesofcreation
Join this channel to get access to perks:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3b4UE2nLMSHHXjNCBkXJLw/join
Community Discord: https://discord.gg/EsfdACR7J9
Discord Username: NYCE Gaming# 6055 ( no space after # )
Sign up for Ashes Of Creation With my referral code: HI5ZG9WTR8FVCMYL
Ashes Of Creation Referral Link: ashesofcreation.com/r/HI5ZG9WTR8FVCMYL
Support The Channel by becoming a community member:
https://www.youtube.com/sponsor_channel/UC3b4UE2nLMSHHXjNCBkXJLw
Like & Subscribe for more
source
My MMO experience started with MUDs. There were quests and areas that required parties, yet not a requirement for enjoyable game play. Encouraging game play seems a wonderful bastion aga8nst playing with very like-able AI NCPs, bless their souls. 😉
59:00 I think the main point that is being made with this post is that if you want ONLY pvp ability to matter then that is what the arena is for – if you want pvp ability to matter as well as everything else in the world of Verra then those things should be considered during node/castle sieges.
I imagine that sieges will be the ultimate, climactic events in Verra, and so pvp ability should make a big difference, but not be the sole decider on the results of a siege.
About that zerg post: I disagree, that node sieges should not be numbers-restricted, but I totally agree with him that guild numbers should have an influence. Just in a different way. Let's say there is a Skill-PvP guild that can field 500 in a siege and a Pvx/Casual guild of double the size. They can't field more than 500 but they can prepare better with the number of players. They have more citizens, who are more inclined to PvE and collect the resources to be optimally prepared. I'm thinking of battering rams, ballista, defenses, buffs(like altars) that you can unlock via PvE/crafting, crafting buffs like pots and meals.
I think that would be what he wants to achieve. I disagree with Nyce in that respect though. When he says that the best gear should be attainable by PvPers, he misses the point. What OP meant was, that a smaller skilled PvP guild shouldn't be able to afford everything all at once. If you are a hardcore PvP guild and spent most of your time PvPing you should have to make concessions. You might be able to buy the best gear by 80% PvPing and 20% PvEing/crafting. But you can't also be good/have the mats for high end crafting, have the gold to also buy all your buffs, have the time to build siege stuff and develop your node etc.
That's where I think some of the current PvPers in the core community might have to rethink their PoV. PvP skill alone should not be the golden ticket to be dominant in AoC. Yes it should be the deciding factor in a 200 vs 200 battle, where both have the same gear/buffs and time invested in the game (weekly/overall).
PvPers are used to be able to get/buy everything through PvP and a little PvE side hustle though. I agree with OP that a guild with double the size of players should be able to get/work for some advantages, that a smaller guild just doesn't have the time/numbers to get. PvEers and PvPers should both be able to enjoy battles and gameplay loops. Some PvPers (even content creators) in our community have the attitude, that skill in PvP should be enough to win a battle ( duel or 500vs500). I disagree and think that Steven's vision for AoC/PvX is not in line with them. A hardcore PvPer has the skill advantage, but a hardcore PvEer can equalize the playing field somewhat by having the better gear/buffs/food/etc(aka investing their time in PvE/crafting). That's what OP means, when he says, that skill should only be one of the deciding factors to a battle/siege/encounter.
@Nyce-Gaming : You sound like the PvEers. WHY though? WHY does someone who enjoys PvE always have to be put in a box? Why can't PvEers get a PvP advantage if they rather spent their time in dungeons and not train duelling all day? Why is the time of PvEers always valued less, when it comes to battle equality? Why can't PvEers also have an advantage? Why can PvPers have it all: best gear, best buffs, mayorships, freeholds, dungeons, castles, richest guilds, most power, etc etc.
PvPers always whine about carebears, that just have to git good, if they say they just enjoy PvE more than PvP training and therefore are at a disadvantage when it comes to experience and skill in PvP. That doesn't mean, that he doesn't like or enjoy PvP, but he is always disadvantaged. Where is it written, that if you are good at PvP you are entitled to everything?
Don't get me wrong, I like PvP and think AoC is going to be a great game for PvPers. But I just think that you and some other hardcore PvPers sometimes misinterpret what Steven means with PvX. It doesn't only mean that PvEers might have to do more PvP, than they want to and come to enjoy it. It also means that PvPers might have to do more PvE than they want to. Like defending nodes against monster invasions, defending caravans, running caravans for siegemats, process/collect resources for node upgrades, manage the node/freehold etc etc. And they might come to like it, or leave for another game, where PvPskill is GOD.
Lots of things to say on this one.
I think ashes being open world will make it more solo friendly than most themeparks where the open world is useless, and instances block you from going solo. Of course I’m talking about real solo play, none of this “handholdy easy content” designed to be tackled solo.
Forced pvp flag quest only make ppl hate pvp even more, this has been tested in many MMO and it’s always taken as a chore ppl hate and feel forced to do them for the reward.
Math correction for else, not all node levels have citizenship, players will only be registered as citizens in nodes lvl3-6. Some nodes lvl0-2 will be vasslas of lvl 3 nodes, and will be unable to level up past stage 2.
Regarding balance in pvp, that’s for arenas, stuff like sieges and caravans will always be unbalanced, whoever has more ppl or influence/contacts/resources to get extra help will will most likely win… of course individual skill will be important, but I think these small groups on skilled players will shine mostly and mercenaries and not as node/castle owners.
Player bases don't stay loyal to games when they are solo player. Long term game success mandates having social aspects and a strong community feel to it. Solo players get bored and start looking for the next thing sooner rather than later. Don't get me wrong, I love me some solo play and am absolutely comfortable in the hermit life, but big picture thinking tells you building a solid foundation of a great community is a big part of long term planning. I mean just look at Voices of Vera crowd. Gamers are actively searching for other gamers to play and bond with. The online world is limitless. No game should try to be all things to all people. Prefer predominantly solo type of play? Cool. Find a game that suits you and party on my friend. That's not the core of what Ashes is about. There will be solo aspects for sure, but it won't be the majority of the experience. That's by design. Complaining about it is like seeing dog shit on the ground and stepping in it anyway, only to complain about your shoe getting dirty.
My opinion is that it is a shift to solo due to the fast-paced world now and barriers to blocked out time commitment for dungeons or other things that others rely upon your availability
Great video as always. In regards to the 'sieges shouldn't be fair' topic, I can see pros and cons.
Scenario 1 (Pro): A large guild is being a complete menace on the server, killing absolutely everyone in sight and locking people out of open world content. It would be really cool to see the server rally together and march on the castle gates during a siege. If a guild went and made that much of a negative reputation by being greedy in the world, then I think being outnumbered by people who have been slighted by them plays really well into the risk vs reward mentality. I think this is what the post meant when they said 'pvp skill shouldn't be the only thing that matters'. In a scenario like this the limited space in sieges only benefits the more aggressive guilds, because there is a cap on how many people can go against them.
Scenario 2 (Con): If there are no caps on sieges then solo or un-allied players would likely always choose to attack. I could be wrong about this, but I forsee random passers by signing up to attack because… why not? There is no negatives to PvPing in a siege, and they don't have strong alliances either way already.
In my humble opinion I would suspect that scenario 2 would happen much more often than scenario 1, and the attackers would almost always have a huge numbers advantage regardless of their political situation. That doesn't make sense in my opinion.,
I feel like we need to test it first, and if the castles seem to never switch hands then re-visit the situation. But ultimately I'm open to either way.