If this is really a PvP game

  1. Why is progression is solely based on PvE?

  2. Why is there no PvP content to level up characters?

  3. Why is gear only obtainable through PvE related activities?

This basic idea of having a mostly PvE game (1-59), to the funnel people into PvP at 60 seems quite flawed to me. Which brings me to the question–

-Why was it hard to anticipate the anger of the PvErs with this +30% mechanism when the objective is quite transparent, a near zero-cost way to try to add more fodder into the open realm pvp (that is not really rewarding in any case) in a system that is almost entirely PvE with regards to basic progression.

17 Likes

They just need to section a part of the map or add a section that has 24/7 pvp for any level to go to and earn xp from kills/missions/farming resources etc.

Flagging pve for 30% extra luck is just dumb.

10 Likes

pvp faction missions give xp. i did some when leveling. sometimes had to hide in bushes from people though

1 Like

New World Anthem’s definition of pvp is ganking pve players just trying to gather flowers, that’s some pretty engaging pvp…die flower boy…i am king of this flower spot…yes me…die gathererererrrrrssss!

11 Likes

this isn’t a pvp game.

I don’t know why ppl keep referring to it as a PvP game.

I’m not being sarcastic in anyway.

They are desperately trying to integrate PVP aspects to this because all the actual PvP people who got tricked into buying this game are now leaving.

4 Likes

Game was made PVE between Alpha and Beta. Its PvE with some PvP thrown in, currently PvP is broken since every patch seems to break something…was mages…since patch its muskets but hard to tell since wars are unplayable due to lag with return of the slideshow lag from the first few weeks.

The bonus to luck and gathering is helping, I am seeing more people flagging but would say only a few encounters are small PvP most are groups jumping people while doing PvE, most individuals are not flagging unless its a zerg which defeats the purpose.

2 Likes

Nail hit with hammer. So much this.

Why, oh why do I have to suffer through some of the worse PVE content I have ever experience just to able to do what I want to be doing. If they had just added a below 60 version of Outpost rush with XP the game would be sooooooooo much better.

2 Likes

No. This game was made PvX between the first Alpha - when PKers (note the difference between PKers and PvPers, please) decided that slaughtering and camping lowbies non-stop for the lulz was their idea of a good time - and the rest of the Alpha iterations.

It’s not a PvE game, it’s not a PvP game, it’s PvX. If you want to PvP then PvP. If you want to PvE then PvE. If you want to do both then do both.

You’ve been here since July 2020 - you know better. C’mon man.

6 Likes

Don’t say this! Dumb people might be offended.

1 Like

because its not a pvp game, thats why

This is AGS’s entire problem and I don’t know why they’re afraid of solving it.

Reward players for PvPing.

Not for being flagged and presenting themselves as targets for ganks. Reward players for actually PvPing, on their own terms, in an intentional way, where the act of killing players is the objective which produces the reward, and everyone participating is interested in that objective.

Anything else generates animosity between the PvE and PvP community and is actively harmful to the player-base.

As it stands currently, with no incentives or rewards offered for killing players, being killed in PvP feels like being the victim of a spiteful and toxic action. You get some durability damage and have your time wasted, and the killer didn’t do it for any reason other than to inflict that upon you.

“Incentivizing” people to volunteer to be targets in that system is absurd.

I have always been a PvP-oriented player in every MMO I’ve played, but in New World, I’d rather make truces with flagged players doing faction missions or gathering. I respect that other players are probably adults making the most of their limited free time, and I don’t have any interest in taking that away from them.

There is no reason to kill another player in this game.

4 Likes

What? You gain XP and Weapon damage, And LOOT from killing players. In what PvE game do you gain the same thing from killing players as you do mobs?

There’s PvP Faction Missions, Wars, Invasions… There’s EVERYTHING avalible to 60 as everyone else with the exception of Out Post Rush.

This is actually the only game that you get loot of players in the same way you do mobs… What other PvE game does that?

Its a flawed thinking that PVP games can’t have PVE content. Hunt Showdown is my favorite multiplayer shooter.

New Worlds end game content is PVP. Nothing else can hold interest for long.

A player should be worth substantially more than a mob. You’re robbing a real human being of time and detracting from their gameplay experience when you kill them, first of all, and second, a player is much more difficult to kill than any otherwise soloable mob, and much less abundant and farmable.

The reward offered is pathetic compared to the cost and risk involved for both sides in a PvP engagement. To tout that you might get loot equivalent to a mob as a positive is laughable.

And the XP doesn’t matter, we’re all 60 with max weapons.

1 Like

To address your points:

I have killed people and gotten nothing from it, so I assume its an RNG the same as in mobs? …

PvP faction missions are not actual pvp content. They create a chance for a pvp encounter.

It is quite unlikely to be picked for a war if you are low level, and you need to be 50 to signup for Invasion (same issue, unlikely to be picked).

Farmings mobs is, I believe, quite a bit more efficient in loot gathering than trying to progress gear from players 1-59, or even level 60 watermarking.

There is no reliable PvP content in the game at the moment for lower level players to progress systematically.

1 Like

I agree. The loot was much better then a mob, but I’m sure they had to be careful with this… Imagine the exploitation possible if a player received a significant amount of anything from a pvp kill.

So your saying I’m right, but… what… Every single thing you said was FALSE, but you’ll argue that I’m wrong because you don’t like the way it has affected you…

Other games solve this problem by making the reward for killing the same player considerably worse for a certain period of time, making players not worth rewards for certain periods of time after flagging or after being killed, and so on.

It is up to AGS to make PvP rewarding enough that people are motivated to opt in to fighting players, while preventing it from being exploited.

I am guessing you are not level 60. The last player I got a loot drop from gave me something like 504 GS, and my HWMs are around 560-570ish. Players drop much worse loot than mobs in my limited experience, in addition to being significantly more challenging, and the fact that fighting them puts their – and my own – valuable time at stake.

Nobody is saying you’re right. Your points were clearly refuted, but you did not take the time to read and comprehend their responses.

No because the claim was these things didn’t exist…

Now that they’ve been refuted, the claim has changed that the rewards arn’t good enough… Which i agreed… But that’s not the same “These PvP things don’t exists, therefore this is a PvE only game”

A reward which is not good enough for anyone to care about pursuing intentionally is a reward which, for all practical and realistic interpretations, does not exist.

A reward which is inaccessible due to limitations on how many players can participate in an activity (War, Invasion, etc.) and intentional curation of those players, is a reward which, for all practical and realistic interpretations, does not exist.

A reward which is irrelevant at max level, which is where all players will inevitable end up (experience, weapon mastery), is a reward which, for all practical and realistic interpretations, does not exist.

It’s like ordering sprinkles on your ice cream, getting exactly 2 sprinkles, taking it back to the counter to ask for more sprinkles, and to have them tell you “no, you have sprinkles right there.”

Two sprinkles is, literally, ‘sprinkles,’ but it is not what anyone means when they order sprinkles.