So before Asmongold got attacked and swamped the developer was unable to figure this out for themselves when they were told this would happen over and over again. What kind of clueless developer is this?
Look at the various quotable quotes the developer used when told this is a likely scenario. So the only time they take notice is when it is happening live and in front of thousands of viewers. What happened to the bragging about the game not being for you and so on. Doesn't apply it seems when they can see their game tanking in real time.
I love it when Sharif got mud on his face for this because of all that grandstanding about PvP he did.
So before Asmongold got attacked and swamped the developer was unable to figure this out for themselves when they were told this would happen over and over again. What kind of clueless developer is this?
Look at the various quotable quotes the developer used when told this is a likely scenario. So the only time they take notice is when it is happening live and in front of thousands of viewers. What happened to the bragging about the game not being for you and so on. Doesn't apply it seems when they can see their game tanking in real time.
I love it when Sharif got mud on his face for this because of all that grandstanding about PvP he did.
You know when it comes to streamers I would take great pleasure in taking one of them down, just as well I am not playing yet.
Any game where any player is subject to pvp is a pvp game. Lineage 2 had pve and was indeed, a pvp game. Heck, Darkfall had pve and was a pvp game.
If people want to pve in peace then don't play a game where pvp affects you. But of course, players "do this to themselves."
They are banning people so he can "learn the game." I reinstate my earlier comment above regarding what they should do about him.
Clearly the devs want him to be able to PVE in peace or why ban people that are just PVPing as the game intended?
Your theory, that every game is a pvp game that has pvp, is flawed. Diablo has PVP, Wow has pvp, FFXIV has pvp. LOL I guess they are all PVP games.
The devil is in the details ...
"Any game where any player is subject to pvp is a pvp game."
If a pve player can be affected by pvp whether they want to do this activity or not, it's a pvp game.
This is basically for pve players who don't want to play such a game. Not some "official bit of naming protocol."
Aion, for all the nonsense that the developers said where "the players can choose how to play" was a pvp game because not only were there pvp areas (the abyss) but invasions could happen in any of the pve areas.
If a pve player wants to play a game all they have to do is look at how pvp is implemented. If they can't avoid it because of the design, it's a pvp game.
They want him left alone because they want the attention that particular streamer can give them. Until they change their system, it is what it is.
Post edited by Sovrath on
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I wonder why for a streamer the typical advice of "Git Gud" wasn't sufficient.
This is also direct at kitarad btw..
While you seem to think the "streamer asked" for special treatment, which I highly doubt is what happened it was more the dev wanting to hide some major flaws.
I mean seriously wtf people, we have in this very forum told devs over and over and over and over many, many times when they were full of poop, when their systems, budget and plans etc etc ad nauseam were unrealistic and would end badly and how many times have devs actually listened?
Very rarely indeed and you all know it. I have said it before and I am sure some few will remember but lots of devs have huge ego's and will tell you..
"welp the game isn't for you so dont play, the game isn't for poor scrubs so go get a job if its too expensive, etc etc"....
...and all due to "dev arrogance" of they know best, they know better than we do what we like and how we should enjoy a game to the point that more often that not freedom of choice in said games are removed even though some may claim you can "play your own way".
How many devs actually admit they were wrong until the last minute and or simply let a game fail and squeeze the last bit of cash out of it they can...LOL
Here we have a dev at least getting a clue before a game is out and failing finally, I would hope anyways, seeing they might be wrong and should have listened to some folks telling them so and peeps want to piss and moan about it?
....Cause boohoo its a streamer that made the rotten potato stick to his face and maybe opened his eyes somewhat instead of a few people pissing and moaning in a game forum...LOL
Dunno I dont think I will play this as the systems and the way the game is made I have reservations about but I do know lots of people are interested in it so I do hope for their sakes the devs do make changes that lead to a half decent game for them.
Frankly who gives a crap why they changed their minds on stuff and hopefully they keep changing their minds on other stuff too.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
I also find it ironic that someone could pay to play the game, play within the rules of the game only to be told by a dev they need to stop killing someone in a pvp game or they will be banned. The irony....
Any game where any player is subject to pvp is a pvp game. Lineage 2 had pve and was indeed, a pvp game. Heck, Darkfall had pve and was a pvp game.
If people want to pve in peace then don't play a game where pvp affects you. But of course, players "do this to themselves."
They are banning people so he can "learn the game." I reinstate my earlier comment above regarding what they should do about him.
Clearly the devs want him to be able to PVE in peace or why ban people that are just PVPing as the game intended?
Your theory, that every game is a pvp game that has pvp, is flawed. Diablo has PVP, Wow has pvp, FFXIV has pvp. LOL I guess they are all PVP games.
The devil is in the details ...
"Any game where any player is subject to pvp is a pvp game."
If a pve player can be affected by pvp whether they want to do this activity or not, it's a pvp game.
This is basically for pve players who don't want to play such a game. Not some "official bit of naming protocol."
Aion, for all the nonsense that the developers said where "the players can choose how to play" was a pvp game because not only were there pvp areas (the abyss) but invasions could happen in any of the pve areas.
If a pve player wants to play a game all they have to do is look at how pvp is implemented. If they can't avoid it because of the design, it's a pvp game.
They want him left alone because they want the attention that particular streamer can give them. Until they change their system, it is what it is.
The devil is indeed in the details. I like to PvP and had a blast doing it in DAOC and ESO. And yet, those are not PvP games according to your definition. There needs to be some distinction between those types of games. A qualifying adjective that further describes what kind of PvP is in the games.
Maybe call DAOC and ESO "optional" PvP games, and call Ashes I don't know, maybe "non-optional" or "forced" PvP.
And there are games that are PvP only, like Fortnite, that have been very successful. I would call those PvP or "PvP-only" games.
Once Ashes implements a safe PvE zone it has ceased to be a PvP game according to your definition and has become an "optional PvP" game. Players get to choose whether and when they want to PvP. This is the most successful type of game and it is interesting that they are moving to that even before the game releases.
I also find it ironic that someone could pay to play the game, play within the rules of the game only to be told by a dev they need to stop killing someone in a pvp game or they will be banned. The irony....
Have you considered this is an alpha and as such if the rules of the game are not working or doing their job as intended indeed people maybe be told to stop doing xy or z. I mean the irony... ¯ \_(ツ)_/¯
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Asmongold never asked the developer for protection in fact I watched him talking about it and he was not happy it turned out that way. The Ashes of Creation sub Reddit though were pissed as hell at him for showing up the faulty situation and perhaps taking away their future fun past time of ganking newbies. Many were angry that he used his easily recognizable name and that he did it on purpose to destroy the launch of that test. So many really crazy theories I have no inclination of sharing but some posters are truly unhinged.
First, I'm hard on open world full loot PvP games with vertical progression because the developers try to fix the issue in ways that betray a total mis-read of the problem. I get equally annoyed with the gank crowd that seem to feel like they're owed something.
However, I fully support what the developers are trying to do in AoC and I want them to succeed. I want developers to keep hammering on this problem until a fix is developed. I think the first people to nail this are going to do very well. It won't be easy, and it may be impossible - however, while attempting to do the impossible you sometimes come up with wonderful things.
I also find it ironic that someone could pay to play the game, play within the rules of the game only to be told by a dev they need to stop killing someone in a pvp game or they will be banned. The irony....
Have you considered this is an alpha and as such if the rules of the game are not working or doing their job as intended indeed people maybe be told to stop doing xy or z. I mean the irony... ¯ \_(ツ)_/¯
lol, yes...we are testing open world pvp. Just dont kill this 1 dude, or you will be banned. Pfft. Whatever.
I also find it ironic that someone could pay to play the game, play within the rules of the game only to be told by a dev they need to stop killing someone in a pvp game or they will be banned. The irony....
Have you considered this is an alpha and as such if the rules of the game are not working or doing their job as intended indeed people maybe be told to stop doing xy or z. I mean the irony... ¯ \_(ツ)_/¯
There is no irony in a PvP centric MMO not knowing how the PvP is supposed to work after 8 years of development.
But, but not to worry, there's still many more years of development for them to figure that out.
I was already skeptical about another open PvP MMO, now I'm 100% staying away. What makes developers think they can have this kind of gank-oriented PvP and succeed when every other one has failed?
Point blank: Ganking isn't real PvP.
It's a form of griefing, as there is no challenge and no reward. The ONLY "reward" they're receiving is in hoping they have made the person on the other end of the video game upset. That is pathetic and shouldn't be encouraged in games. You're not "good". It's like "hunting" with grenades. Walk up to where you know something is, and hit it with an overwhelming force it has no chance to fight against. It's pretty sad.
Time and time again, players abandon this type of garbage. And that will happen again, because they haven't learned from others' mistakes.
Any game where any player is subject to pvp is a pvp game. Lineage 2 had pve and was indeed, a pvp game. Heck, Darkfall had pve and was a pvp game.
If people want to pve in peace then don't play a game where pvp affects you. But of course, players "do this to themselves."
They are banning people so he can "learn the game." I reinstate my earlier comment above regarding what they should do about him.
Clearly the devs want him to be able to PVE in peace or why ban people that are just PVPing as the game intended?
Your theory, that every game is a pvp game that has pvp, is flawed. Diablo has PVP, Wow has pvp, FFXIV has pvp. LOL I guess they are all PVP games.
The devil is in the details ...
"Any game where any player is subject to pvp is a pvp game."
If a pve player can be affected by pvp whether they want to do this activity or not, it's a pvp game.
This is basically for pve players who don't want to play such a game. Not some "official bit of naming protocol."
Aion, for all the nonsense that the developers said where "the players can choose how to play" was a pvp game because not only were there pvp areas (the abyss) but invasions could happen in any of the pve areas.
If a pve player wants to play a game all they have to do is look at how pvp is implemented. If they can't avoid it because of the design, it's a pvp game.
They want him left alone because they want the attention that particular streamer can give them. Until they change their system, it is what it is.
The devil is indeed in the details. I like to PvP and had a blast doing it in DAOC and ESO. And yet, those are not PvP games according to your definition. There needs to be some distinction between those types of games. A qualifying adjective that further describes what kind of PvP is in the games.
No, they are.
what I’m saying is that any game where a pve player has to contend with pvp should, for them, be considered a pvp game.
And they should not play it.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I also find it ironic that someone could pay to play the game, play within the rules of the game only to be told by a dev they need to stop killing someone in a pvp game or they will be banned. The irony....
Have you considered this is an alpha and as such if the rules of the game are not working or doing their job as intended indeed people maybe be told to stop doing xy or z. I mean the irony... ¯ \_(ツ)_/¯
lol, yes...we are testing open world pvp. Just dont kill this 1 dude, or you will be banned. Pfft. Whatever.
Pfft yourself, do you know what an alpha is for?
Exactly this kind of crap to be able to fix things that are not working.
This BS false outrage cause they warned people to leave the streamer alone...as if they were doing so in a released game and playing favorites just shows those that are whinging about it are low IQ in logic.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Any game where any player is subject to pvp is a pvp game. Lineage 2 had pve and was indeed, a pvp game. Heck, Darkfall had pve and was a pvp game.
If people want to pve in peace then don't play a game where pvp affects you. But of course, players "do this to themselves."
They are banning people so he can "learn the game." I reinstate my earlier comment above regarding what they should do about him.
Clearly the devs want him to be able to PVE in peace or why ban people that are just PVPing as the game intended?
Your theory, that every game is a pvp game that has pvp, is flawed. Diablo has PVP, Wow has pvp, FFXIV has pvp. LOL I guess they are all PVP games.
The devil is in the details ...
"Any game where any player is subject to pvp is a pvp game."
If a pve player can be affected by pvp whether they want to do this activity or not, it's a pvp game.
This is basically for pve players who don't want to play such a game. Not some "official bit of naming protocol."
Aion, for all the nonsense that the developers said where "the players can choose how to play" was a pvp game because not only were there pvp areas (the abyss) but invasions could happen in any of the pve areas.
If a pve player wants to play a game all they have to do is look at how pvp is implemented. If they can't avoid it because of the design, it's a pvp game.
They want him left alone because they want the attention that particular streamer can give them. Until they change their system, it is what it is.
The devil is indeed in the details. I like to PvP and had a blast doing it in DAOC and ESO. And yet, those are not PvP games according to your definition. There needs to be some distinction between those types of games. A qualifying adjective that further describes what kind of PvP is in the games.
No, they are.
what I’m saying is that any game where a pve player has to contend with pvp should, for them, be considered a pvp game.
And they should not play it.
DAOC and ESO both have full PvE experiences where players don't have any contact with PvP at all. My guess is that a minority of players in those games chose to do PvP and a majority don't. The player has a choice to PvP or not.
Ashes is the kind of game where the player gets no choice, they are subject to PvP at all times whether they want to or not, I call that forced PvP. That is a different kind of game than DAOC or ESO and shouldn't be lumped in with them.
Probably moot in this case since Ashes is adding a PvE zone where players don't have to PvP unless they want to. That's their first stab at a fix for the ganking problem in forced PvP games.
Any game where any player is subject to pvp is a pvp game. Lineage 2 had pve and was indeed, a pvp game. Heck, Darkfall had pve and was a pvp game.
If people want to pve in peace then don't play a game where pvp affects you. But of course, players "do this to themselves."
They are banning people so he can "learn the game." I reinstate my earlier comment above regarding what they should do about him.
Clearly the devs want him to be able to PVE in peace or why ban people that are just PVPing as the game intended?
Your theory, that every game is a pvp game that has pvp, is flawed. Diablo has PVP, Wow has pvp, FFXIV has pvp. LOL I guess they are all PVP games.
The devil is in the details ...
"Any game where any player is subject to pvp is a pvp game."
If a pve player can be affected by pvp whether they want to do this activity or not, it's a pvp game.
This is basically for pve players who don't want to play such a game. Not some "official bit of naming protocol."
Aion, for all the nonsense that the developers said where "the players can choose how to play" was a pvp game because not only were there pvp areas (the abyss) but invasions could happen in any of the pve areas.
If a pve player wants to play a game all they have to do is look at how pvp is implemented. If they can't avoid it because of the design, it's a pvp game.
They want him left alone because they want the attention that particular streamer can give them. Until they change their system, it is what it is.
The devil is indeed in the details. I like to PvP and had a blast doing it in DAOC and ESO. And yet, those are not PvP games according to your definition. There needs to be some distinction between those types of games. A qualifying adjective that further describes what kind of PvP is in the games.
No, they are.
what I’m saying is that any game where a pve player has to contend with pvp should, for them, be considered a pvp game.
And they should not play it.
DAOC and ESO both have full PvE experiences where players don't have any contact with PvP at all. My guess is that a minority of players in those games chose to do PvP and a majority don't. The player has a choice to PvP or not.
Ashes is the kind of game where the player gets no choice, they are subject to PvP at all times whether they want to or not, I call that forced PvP. That is a different kind of game than DAOC or ESO and shouldn't be lumped in with them.
Probably moot in this case since Ashes is adding a PvE zone where players don't have to PvP unless they want to. That's their first stab at a fix for the ganking problem in forced PvP games.
I don’t believe in forced “anything.” When it comes to games.
don’t mean to minimize your opinion but I think it’s ridiculous to say a game play element is “forced “
If we’re to accept that then any game activity one doesn’t like is “forced.”
ridiculous.
players need to look “at the box” and understand what the game is about. Then they should not play a game where certain game play elements are not to their taste.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Any game where any player is subject to pvp is a pvp game. Lineage 2 had pve and was indeed, a pvp game. Heck, Darkfall had pve and was a pvp game.
If people want to pve in peace then don't play a game where pvp affects you. But of course, players "do this to themselves."
They are banning people so he can "learn the game." I reinstate my earlier comment above regarding what they should do about him.
Clearly the devs want him to be able to PVE in peace or why ban people that are just PVPing as the game intended?
Your theory, that every game is a pvp game that has pvp, is flawed. Diablo has PVP, Wow has pvp, FFXIV has pvp. LOL I guess they are all PVP games.
The devil is in the details ...
"Any game where any player is subject to pvp is a pvp game."
If a pve player can be affected by pvp whether they want to do this activity or not, it's a pvp game.
This is basically for pve players who don't want to play such a game. Not some "official bit of naming protocol."
Aion, for all the nonsense that the developers said where "the players can choose how to play" was a pvp game because not only were there pvp areas (the abyss) but invasions could happen in any of the pve areas.
If a pve player wants to play a game all they have to do is look at how pvp is implemented. If they can't avoid it because of the design, it's a pvp game.
They want him left alone because they want the attention that particular streamer can give them. Until they change their system, it is what it is.
The devil is indeed in the details. I like to PvP and had a blast doing it in DAOC and ESO. And yet, those are not PvP games according to your definition. There needs to be some distinction between those types of games. A qualifying adjective that further describes what kind of PvP is in the games.
No, they are.
what I’m saying is that any game where a pve player has to contend with pvp should, for them, be considered a pvp game.
And they should not play it.
DAOC and ESO both have full PvE experiences where players don't have any contact with PvP at all. My guess is that a minority of players in those games chose to do PvP and a majority don't. The player has a choice to PvP or not.
Ashes is the kind of game where the player gets no choice, they are subject to PvP at all times whether they want to or not, I call that forced PvP. That is a different kind of game than DAOC or ESO and shouldn't be lumped in with them.
Probably moot in this case since Ashes is adding a PvE zone where players don't have to PvP unless they want to. That's their first stab at a fix for the ganking problem in forced PvP games.
I don’t believe in forced “anything.” When it comes to games.
don’t mean to minimize your opinion but I think it’s ridiculous to say a game play element is “forced “
If we’re to accept that then any game activity one doesn’t like is “forced.”
ridiculous.
players need to look “at the box” and understand what the game is about. Then they should not play a game where certain game play elements are not to their taste.
If you don't like the word "forced" we could use other synonyms, like involuntary. DAOC and ESO have voluntary PvP, Ashes has involuntary PvP. Mandatory, required, compulsory, nonelective, etc.
People aren't forced to play Ashes, but if they do play they will be forced to PvP whether they want to or not. It's nonelective, compulsory, mandatory. Not like DAOC or ESO, where PvP is optional, not mandatory or compulsory.
If you don't like the word "forced" we could use other synonyms, like involuntary. DAOC and ESO have voluntary PvP, Ashes has involuntary PvP. Mandatory, required, compulsory, nonelective, etc.
People aren't forced to play Ashes, but if they do play they will be forced to PvP whether they want to or not. It's nonelective, compulsory, mandatory. Not like DAOC or ESO, where PvP is optional, not mandatory or compulsory.
Signing into a game with open world PvP and complaining about getting ganked is exactly the same thing as going to the PvP zone in DAOC and complaining about being ganked.
This distinction matters because "forced" is carries the connotation that the aggressor is doing something wrong, when in fact, the game is being played as designed.
If you don't like the word "forced" we could use other synonyms, like involuntary. DAOC and ESO have voluntary PvP, Ashes has involuntary PvP. Mandatory, required, compulsory, nonelective, etc.
People aren't forced to play Ashes, but if they do play they will be forced to PvP whether they want to or not. It's nonelective, compulsory, mandatory. Not like DAOC or ESO, where PvP is optional, not mandatory or compulsory.
Signing into a game with open world PvP and complaining about getting ganked is exactly the same thing as going to the PvP zone in DAOC and complaining about being ganked.
This distinction matters because "forced" is carries the connotation that the aggressor is doing something wrong, when in fact, the game is being played as designed.
Right, the clue is the adjective "open-world" for PvP. DAOC and ESO offer good PvP experiences and a player could PvP full time and have fun. But that's not the same as Ashes.
It's not enough to say "PvP" game, DAOC and ESO have PvP. Forced, open-world, non-consensual, whatever you want to call it is different. As long as the game is advertised as open-world PvP then players know what to expect.
It's funny that the response Ashes has to the inevitable problems with open-world PvP is to move to a hybrid system like DAOC or ESO that have PvE and PvP zones allowing the player to choose.
First off, "gank" isn't a defined term. Everyone thinks they know what it is, but the fact is that the meaning changes frequently depending upon who is doing the talking. Furthermore, any attempt at definition leaves out the human component and reduces it to mere math, which is silly.
What I mean is, let's say I have a high value target. A fellow with a bounty on his head who is difficult to catch without a large group outside of town. I get information that this guy is going to be alone in a mine for 1/2 hr. and finally get a posse together and track him down.
So, thanks to the "rules of ganking", because I didn't make the fight fair in an arena, instead of buying/selling information, or guild intrigue, or traitors, or any of that, my victory is now a "gank". The entire world of possibilities has been reduced to your mathematical evaluation of a "gank".
The need to keep everything absolutely "fair" (a moving target at best), some of the greatest moments in these games are measured and regulated to a "gank".
First off, "gank" isn't a defined term. Everyone thinks they know what it is, but the fact is that the meaning changes frequently depending upon who is doing the talking. Furthermore, any attempt at definition leaves out the human component and reduces it to mere math, which is silly.
What I mean is, let's say I have a high value target. A fellow with a bounty on his head who is difficult to catch without a large group outside of town. I get information that this guy is going to be alone in a mine for 1/2 hr. and finally get a posse together and track him down.
So, thanks to the "rules of ganking", because I didn't make the fight fair in an arena, instead of buying/selling information, or guild intrigue, or traitors, or any of that, my victory is now a "gank". The entire world of possibilities has been reduced to your mathematical evaluation of a "gank".
The need to keep everything absolutely "fair" (a moving target at best), some of the greatest moments in these games are measured and regulated to a "gank".
Silly.
On the flip side, in one open-world PvP game I played the griefers camped the respawn point. You died and were respawned, and then killed before you could move. So you respawned and were killed before you could move, again. So you respawned and got killed before you could move at which point I quit and uninstalled the game.
Like pornography, ganking is hard to define but you know it when you see it
olepi said: On the flip side, in one open-world PvP game I played the griefers camped the respawn point. You died and were respawned, and then killed before you could move. So you respawned and were killed before you could move, again. So you respawned and got killed before you could move at which point I quit and uninstalled the game.
Like pornography, ganking is hard to define but you know it when you see it
Sure, you picked an easy example.
I once went searching for some dangerous PKs in UO (and found them). They would hide in at the crossroads and not step out of hiding if a posse rolled by. To lure them out, it was necessary to send a lone player out - as bait - so they could attempt to "gank" the lone player, only to have the posse about 20 seconds behind to roll in and "gank" the pks.
We can have that kind of fun or we can have everyone standing around evaluating if what is about to happen is a type of electronic rape, as some have suggested.
Also, at times you have to kill the noob because he's stealing resources from your territory or acting as a scout.
So before Asmongold got attacked and swamped the developer was unable to figure this out for themselves when they were told this would happen over and over again. What kind of clueless developer is this?
Look at the various quotable quotes the developer used when told this is a likely scenario. So the only time they take notice is when it is happening live and in front of thousands of viewers. What happened to the bragging about the game not being for you and so on. Doesn't apply it seems when they can see their game tanking in real time.
I love it when Sharif got mud on his face for this because of all that grandstanding about PvP he did.
According to some people in the Ashes sub, streamers own all the nodes. I'm skeptical that is literally true, but it wouldn't surprise me. Stephen apparently has zero problems if streamers don't let the normies learn to play and own nodes as long as he gets his PR.
I also find it ironic that someone could pay to play the game, play within the rules of the game only to be told by a dev they need to stop killing someone in a pvp game or they will be banned. The irony....
Have you considered this is an alpha and as such if the rules of the game are not working or doing their job as intended indeed people maybe be told to stop doing xy or z. I mean the irony... ¯ \_(ツ)_/¯
lol, yes...we are testing open world pvp. Just dont kill this 1 dude, or you will be banned. Pfft. Whatever.
Pfft yourself, do you know what an alpha is for?
We know now. It's obviously PR to sell more expensive access packages.
If you don't like the word "forced" we could use other synonyms, like involuntary. DAOC and ESO have voluntary PvP, Ashes has involuntary PvP. Mandatory, required, compulsory, nonelective, etc.
People aren't forced to play Ashes, but if they do play they will be forced to PvP whether they want to or not. It's nonelective, compulsory, mandatory. Not like DAOC or ESO, where PvP is optional, not mandatory or compulsory.
Signing into a game with open world PvP and complaining about getting ganked is exactly the same thing as going to the PvP zone in DAOC and complaining about being ganked.
This distinction matters because "forced" is carries the connotation that the aggressor is doing something wrong, when in fact, the game is being played as designed.
Ganking the helpless is wrong even if is legal to do so.
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
Comments
Look at the various quotable quotes the developer used when told this is a likely scenario. So the only time they take notice is when it is happening live and in front of thousands of viewers. What happened to the bragging about the game not being for you and so on. Doesn't apply it seems when they can see their game tanking in real time.
I love it when Sharif got mud on his face for this because of all that grandstanding about PvP he did.
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
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Maybe call DAOC and ESO "optional" PvP games, and call Ashes I don't know, maybe "non-optional" or "forced" PvP.
And there are games that are PvP only, like Fortnite, that have been very successful. I would call those PvP or "PvP-only" games.
Once Ashes implements a safe PvE zone it has ceased to be a PvP game according to your definition and has become an "optional PvP" game. Players get to choose whether and when they want to PvP. This is the most successful type of game and it is interesting that they are moving to that even before the game releases.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
Have you considered this is an alpha and as such if the rules of the game are not working or doing their job as intended indeed people maybe be told to stop doing xy or z. I mean the irony... ¯ \_(ツ)_/¯
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
First, I'm hard on open world full loot PvP games with vertical progression because the developers try to fix the issue in ways that betray a total mis-read of the problem. I get equally annoyed with the gank crowd that seem to feel like they're owed something.
However, I fully support what the developers are trying to do in AoC and I want them to succeed. I want developers to keep hammering on this problem until a fix is developed. I think the first people to nail this are going to do very well. It won't be easy, and it may be impossible - however, while attempting to do the impossible you sometimes come up with wonderful things.
lol, yes...we are testing open world pvp. Just dont kill this 1 dude, or you will be banned. Pfft. Whatever.
Point blank: Ganking isn't real PvP.
It's a form of griefing, as there is no challenge and no reward. The ONLY "reward" they're receiving is in hoping they have made the person on the other end of the video game upset. That is pathetic and shouldn't be encouraged in games. You're not "good". It's like "hunting" with grenades. Walk up to where you know something is, and hit it with an overwhelming force it has no chance to fight against. It's pretty sad.
Time and time again, players abandon this type of garbage. And that will happen again, because they haven't learned from others' mistakes.
what I’m saying is that any game where a pve player has to contend with pvp should, for them, be considered a pvp game.
And they should not play it.
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
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Ashes is the kind of game where the player gets no choice, they are subject to PvP at all times whether they want to or not, I call that forced PvP. That is a different kind of game than DAOC or ESO and shouldn't be lumped in with them.
Probably moot in this case since Ashes is adding a PvE zone where players don't have to PvP unless they want to. That's their first stab at a fix for the ganking problem in forced PvP games.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
don’t mean to minimize your opinion but I think it’s ridiculous to say a game play element is “forced “
If we’re to accept that then any game activity one doesn’t like is “forced.”
ridiculous.
players need to look “at the box” and understand what the game is about. Then they should not play a game where certain game play elements are not to their taste.
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
People aren't forced to play Ashes, but if they do play they will be forced to PvP whether they want to or not. It's nonelective, compulsory, mandatory. Not like DAOC or ESO, where PvP is optional, not mandatory or compulsory.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
This distinction matters because "forced" is carries the connotation that the aggressor is doing something wrong, when in fact, the game is being played as designed.
It's not enough to say "PvP" game, DAOC and ESO have PvP. Forced, open-world, non-consensual, whatever you want to call it is different. As long as the game is advertised as open-world PvP then players know what to expect.
It's funny that the response Ashes has to the inevitable problems with open-world PvP is to move to a hybrid system like DAOC or ESO that have PvE and PvP zones allowing the player to choose.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
First off, "gank" isn't a defined term. Everyone thinks they know what it is, but the fact is that the meaning changes frequently depending upon who is doing the talking. Furthermore, any attempt at definition leaves out the human component and reduces it to mere math, which is silly.
What I mean is, let's say I have a high value target. A fellow with a bounty on his head who is difficult to catch without a large group outside of town. I get information that this guy is going to be alone in a mine for 1/2 hr. and finally get a posse together and track him down.
So, thanks to the "rules of ganking", because I didn't make the fight fair in an arena, instead of buying/selling information, or guild intrigue, or traitors, or any of that, my victory is now a "gank". The entire world of possibilities has been reduced to your mathematical evaluation of a "gank".
The need to keep everything absolutely "fair" (a moving target at best), some of the greatest moments in these games are measured and regulated to a "gank".
Silly.
Like pornography, ganking is hard to define but you know it when you see it
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
I once went searching for some dangerous PKs in UO (and found them). They would hide in at the crossroads and not step out of hiding if a posse rolled by. To lure them out, it was necessary to send a lone player out - as bait - so they could attempt to "gank" the lone player, only to have the posse about 20 seconds behind to roll in and "gank" the pks.
We can have that kind of fun or we can have everyone standing around evaluating if what is about to happen is a type of electronic rape, as some have suggested.
Also, at times you have to kill the noob because he's stealing resources from your territory or acting as a scout.
If people don't like it, don't play.
We know now. It's obviously PR to sell more expensive access packages.
"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