Chronicles of Elyria rules out PvE servers, non-human races, and mages (sorta)

    
169

Chronicles of Elyria’s latest Kickstarter updates lean to the informational side. Up first is a run-down of its next stretch goal, Wards of the State, which is basically a fancy way of saying players who don’t want to begin as a member of a family as a trade-off in advantages (which seems a rather fundamental concept).

“A Ward sacrifices the financial and social support system which comes with a family, in exchange for additional character customization and more flexibility,” says Soulbound Studios. “Wards are able to select any gender and have a point distribution system they can use to set their starting skill values and character attributes.”

A follow-up post covers some of the game’s most frequently asked questions. Mages won’t be a character type you can select for yourself, and you won’t be playing anything but humans. Soulbound is making no room for a PvE server, either.

“There will not be a PvE server, nor will certain regions of the map (cities for example) be off-limits for PvP. That being said, based on the sheer number of people plus NPC guards in cities, we believe they will be a mostly safe place. Our Bounty system, with financial repercussions for crimes, is another thing to help combat griefing while still allowing for whole world PvP.”

newest oldest most liked
Subscribe to:
Nakua
Guest
Nakua

schmidtcapela Nakua ManastuUtakata Please everyone is impossible, but having choices is a good thing. If you don’t like ffa pvp mmo then  is ok but basjing a game just because it go this route make no sense when atm, 98% of mmo around have pve with consensual pvp, while only a mere 2% if not less have ffa pvp.

Since i’m not play any game atm because i’m sick of these themepark wow clones i’m happy that an indie dev sometimes make a niche game even for me.

schmidtcapela
Guest
schmidtcapela

TimothyTierless schmidtcapela Ironwu 
Some players enjoy that kind of environment. Such as about everyone that sticks with EVE long term, for example.

(Off-topic, but I believe that is why EVE will never manage to increase player retention through improving their early game. The environment EVE fosters is highly entertaining for a certain kind of player, but impossible to enjoy for most of the potential MMO player base. And changing the game to attract and keep the players that currently dislike EVE would likely drive their current ones away, as it would remove what makes EVE interesting for them.)

I do think the devs are deluding themselves if they think what they have planned will put a limit to griefing and attract otherwise PvE players, though. Often not even monetary loss can deter griefers; there are, for example, paid-for cheats for many online games whose main purpose is to grief the opposition, and many players are willing to not only pay for those cheats, but also to re-purchase the game every time they are banned, in order to get that particular high that comes from making someone else lose their temper and ragequit.

Or, in other words, if CoE is planning their economy and social mesh in a way that requires a healthy amount of PvE players to support it, they might be setting themselves for failure.

fluffymagicalunicorn
Guest
fluffymagicalunicorn

Nakua fluffymagicalunicorn ManastuUtakata Yes. That’s exactly what I mean and exactly what I want. You read my mind.

Strawman aside, I’m arguing that the definition of ‘sandbox’ does not necessitate the inclusion of a full loot PVP element. The conflation of these two traits, a sandbox and full PVP anytime anywhere, are ultimately bad…/for sandboxes/. It’s already creating the sort of stagnation in development that you see in many so-called ‘theme parks’. The current glut of full PVP ‘hardcore sandboxes’ are ultimately going to be dividing a pretty slender niche between themselves, and they are welcome to it.

Not having full loot or non-consensual PVP does not make a game automatically a ‘theme park’, nor does having full loot open PVP automatically make a game a sandbox. The conflation of these traits is ultimately harmful to game development and to player’s understandings and expectations. The phrase sandbox is in fact almost meaningless as is, given that it seems to be used, as we see here, as a way to toss in the box everything we love, and into the ‘theme park’ everything we dislike.

schmidtcapela
Guest
schmidtcapela

Nakua ManastuUtakata 
It’s cute how PvPers assume that players who don’t enjoy open PvP either never experienced it or can’t handle it.

Personally, I went through a decade where I explored every kind of MMO there is; sandbox, themepark, PvP, PvE, etc. I tried about everything from Free Realms to EVE.

And, sincerely, open, non-consensual PvP simply isn’t enjoyable for me, and as far as I can tell will never be. Not that I can’t do PvP; I play a fair amount of (arena or otherwise consensual) PvP games, usually I’m even good at them. It’s just that the open kind rarely ever has even matches (which makes it switch between boring and frustrating for me, depending on whether I have the advantage or not, with little middle ground), and I can’t bring myself to attack a player I’m not sure wants to fight to boot (which means that whenever non-consensual PvP is even possible I will never fight).

Or, in other words: I can handle free PvP just fine. It’s just terribly un-fun for me. And yeah, non-consensual PvP always ruins my enjoyment in every game that allows it, something I speak from experience.

deleted_72346310_TierlessTime
Guest
deleted_72346310_TierlessTime

schmidtcapela Ironwu  Good point, and it makes sense. Is it odd that it only makes me want to play it more LOL. They might have to adjust that $ amount. If its less than any other mmo the people will be happy to pay to grief

Nakua
Guest
Nakua

fluffymagicalunicorn Nakua ManastuUtakata So you basically wnat to turn sandbox into themepark.
You have already these kind of games around, Black Desert, ArcheAge, just as example, with a meaningless pvp where you lose nothing and gain nothing,you die you lose nothing, restart.

schmidtcapela
Guest
schmidtcapela

TimothyTierless Ironwu 
From what I heard it’s what, a soul lasts at least three months, no matter how wicked the player is or how many times he is killed? Which is, like, $30 per 3 months, or $10 per month, to play as the most dastard and incompetent griefer ever, and if the player is actually good at choosing targets and avoiding being killed he will have to pay even less?
At the same time you have a system where griefers pay more for the game than non-griefers, adding a financial reason for the devs to not tackle griefing beyond that system?

Seems like a griefer’s paradise for me. And a cheap one to boot, less expensive than doing the same thing in EVE.

fluffymagicalunicorn
Guest
fluffymagicalunicorn

Nakua ManastuUtakata I disagree. The sentiment that direct  PVP is required to make a sandbox and a sandbox has been rightly dispelled by a certain editorial on this board itself. The day we can STOP conflating ‘sandbox’ with ‘FFA Full Loot PVP!’ is the day everyone will be a lot bloody happier.

Nakua
Guest
Nakua

ManastuUtakata Nakua If you remove player interactions you turn a sandbox into a themepark, there is nothing to do apart killing mobs or build some holdings, then you log out bored.

Is pvp that made the world live, the conflict between players/clans/alliances, the risk and reward.

If you can’t handle free pvp then well, there is nothing i can do to convince you to try these games because yiu are already biased and already decided so. Have fun with your themepark brawlers.

ManastuUtakata
Guest
ManastuUtakata

Nakua ManastuUtakata 
I know that already. I am open to playing in any sandbox once they’ve removed any FFA PvP components, as long it’s something I would want to play to begin with.