PvP Battlegrounds in Ashes

ArchivedUser

@JuHsTaN

Eh, ignore the trolls. Feeding them tends to encourage them.

@Azathoth

Azathoth said:

PvX.
If you want to PvP all day every day, you might want to play Ashes and another more PvP oriented game to get your fix.
If you want to PvE all day every day, you might want to play Ashes and another more PvE oriented game to get your fix.

Alternatively, if AoC is a game that does not meet the requirements of avid PvE player and avid PvP players, then these players should give AoC a pass and find a game that meets all of their requirements.

Your vision seems to be a recipe for failure, quite frankly.

Besides which, if theme-box MMOs can keep its PvP and PvE players fully engaged, I certainly do not see why AoC can not accomplish the same. FFS, Rift kept me fully engaged in PvP for years, despite Trion's incompetence in handling PvP content and the PvP community.

Now I'm being told that AoC will not measure up to even Rift's relatively poor performance?

Azathoth said:

I am not sure why people seem to want one game to do everything for them, or only accommodate what they want. Seems anti-intuitive to a game that is online and designed to be inviting to a massive amount of players playing together.

Well, if one MMO does not meet every one of a player's needs (within reasonable limits), that player will find another game that does. That is the reason the AoC is slated to have so many features to it. It appeals to those who like OWPvP, those who like more competitive PvP (Arenas), those who like questing, those who like gathering/crafting, those who like building, those who like playing the economy, etc.

Warfronts are nothing more than a more expansive Arena with more complex rule-sets. AoC is already slated to appeal to competitive PvP players, so why not improve on that feature based on the feed-back of those who enjoy competitive PvP (such as myself).

Azathoth said:

Yes, traveling with a caravan every time you play and only doing that will get boring. Hell, doing that monthly for 5 +years it will for sure be boring. Not all games can be fresh, new, and exciting their entire career.

This shouldn't even need to be said, but: games should not be boring.

If an element of the game is boring, then players will either not do that element, or they will do it under duress... until they eventually stop logging in.

I understand that you probably like the caravan system and its intended goals. I do too. But we need to be realistic about the way the mechanic is likely to be used when the game goes live. Fortunately, there is time to discuss the problems and find better ways to implement the systems to achieve the same goals.

Azathoth said:

Sieges are designed so when not in a siege you have something to work for. Or something to appreciate the PvE's in your node for working towards.

Go on... what are these activities that will surely engage a competitive PvP player like me?

Azathoth said:

Castles are the ultimate guild get-off. You own a castle, you have to defend it, you have to build up the surrounding areas, you have to destroy fortifications. This seems like nearly constant PvP.

From what I understand, Castles are subject to siege set-up times and cool downs. And are limited to 5 per server.

Azathoth said:

I hope everyone enjoys this game and can adjust their typical routine to fit a unique play style to help make Ashes the unique game it should be.

Hell no.

I hope that the game can appeal to and draw in as many people as possible in order to be successful. I hope that AoC includes engaging competitive PvP (Arenas/Warfronts) and compelling open world PvP that appeals to PvP players of all types. I hope that AoC will not artificially restrict a player's play style. I hope AoC will not force people into certain aspects of the game, but will instead encourage players to cross over into other aspects of the game by providing quality content and sensible incentives.

ArchivedUser

Eragale said:

@CyanideInsanity Structured PvP is boring and its not my preference . I've already seen how Structured PvP gets ... both Open-World & Instanced. Structured- PvP gets stale real quick. 

@Eragale

To each his own.

As I said in my earlier post, I've played thousands of Warfronts in Rift. It never got stale.

Part of that might have been the fact that I pugged quite a bit. I had quite a few friendly acquaintances and even some friends that I made via the Warfronts. I even PMed with them from time to time. But my preference was pugging. Each battle would be with a new mix-up of allies, fighting a new mix-up of enemies. Sometimes I'd have a guildie or three on my team, other times a guildie or three would be on the other side. Sometimes I'd be blue team (Guardians) and start from their spawn, other times I'd be red team (Defiants) and start from that side of the map.

Variety and good rule-sets are what made the Warfronts so replayable that I would still be playing Rift today if they hadn't completely given up on PvP balance.

I understand that other don't like structured PvP (like Warfronts). What I don't understand is their insistent opposition to it being included in the game. I'm not at all interested in home decoration or raiding, but you will never see me advocating for restrictions on what decorators or raiders can do. The idea seems foreign to me.

Besides, catering to many play styles would ensure that AoC has a larger quantity and variety of players that could come together to jointly participate in the development of each server world. More competitive PvP players means more player supporting the game financially, as well as more players exploring the other PvE and PvP content of AoC.

ArchivedUser

We arenas which are focused on competition for you. There is even a node type where leadership is decided in an arena.

I feel like most people who are against instanced pvp are against pvp becoming the same thing it did in wow. I know to me at least, wow pvp wasn't true MMO pvp. It used the rpg elements of wow (classes/gear) but for the most part, the pvp game mode was the same thing you would find in team fortress. The MMO world was reduced to a huge lobby you waiting in between matches. This is what we are against. We want the developers to focus on bringing pvp back into the MMO world. 

One thing i'd like to point out is you that you are focused on only a few of the pvp systems, ignoring the flagging system, node/guild wars, and other open world battlegrounds. We don't have the specifics on a lot of these systems but i think it's important to note that they are here.

It's hard to explain to those who have not experience it but there is a bigger picture to all this. The political wars that nodes and guilds will use these systems as tools to fight. In a lot of modern games, your objective is told to you by the game but here it will be a little more natural. There will be systems like limited resources, land, and the node system which will natural put us, the players, against each other. We will then use these pvp systems to fight over those things.

Unlike a instanced battleground where you would be told to raid a caravan to win the match, you will likely raid (or defend) a caravan for a greater reason like weaken an enemy node/guild or strengthen your own. The action will have a higher purpose beyond simply winning a match and with that, hopefully a greater feeling of meaning. 

As i said in the beginning, we have arenas but I want to convey there is more to the open pvp systems then a pvp match taking place in the open world.

ArchivedUser

McStackerson said:

The MMO world was reduced to a huge lobby you waiting in between matches. This is what we are against. We want the developers to focus on bringing pvp back into the MMO world. 

You might be surprised to hear this, but I support that goal as well. We just apparently disagree on how best to achieve that goal. I'll discuss that a bit more detail at the end.

Why OWPvP Fails

WoW suffered from a weakness that many other MMOs shared: poorly-designed and tacked-on OWPvP mechanics that were more of an after-thought than a central foundation of the game. WoW's OWPvP mechanics competed directly against its instanced Battlegrounds, and Battlegrounds came out the winner by a long shot.

Rift - a game with which I am much more familiar - suffered pretty much the same fate.

Ashes of Creation has already distinguished itself from these WoW, Rift, and other MMOs by making PvP an important component of the node system. Successful sieges will result in tangible and powerful rewards, and caravans (if they work out the problems) will create plenty of meaningful PvP encounters. I have very few fears about the future of AoC's OWPvP, as it will not be a tacked-on after-thought, but a central component of the game.

That said, it seems that a lot of people feel that structured PvP (Battlegrounds, Warfronts, or whatever other name we know it by) is a threat to AoC's OWPvP. And here I would disagree with them.

Structured PvP Is Not A Threat

The only way I see structured PvP becoming a threat to OWPvP is if the OWPvP is poorly designed or not compelling enough to entice participation. I very much want to see AoC's OWPvP succeed... but not at the expense of structured PvP, and not at the expense of additional PvP content for AoC's players.

Restricting alternative PvP content in order to strong-arm players into AoC's OWPvP is entirely the wrong approach to take. If AoC's OWPvP is to succeed, it must do so on its own merits.

Weed Out Weaknesses

And that brings us to the last point. We all want AoC to have successful and appealing OWPvP, but some of us disagree on how that can be achieved.

When I discovered that Caravan PvP was contingent upon people physically escorting those caravans, I was disheartened. When I started seeing people defend the set up with no mitigating information, I was flabbergasted.

Are we so desperate for OWPvP that we will turn blind eyes to blaring design flaws in the hopes that everything magically turns out wonderful when the game goes live?

I'd much rather see harsher critical analyses of these PvP systems so that if there are weaknesses, they will be discovered and opened to discussion, debate, and ultimately, improvement. In my opinion, this is the best way to ensure AoC releases with the most robust and compelling PvP (and PvE, of course) systems on the market.

ArchivedUser

Nice

ArchivedUser

@Nefelia

I like how you prefer to think of the instanced pvp with no impact on the world as the competitive pvp. By deffinition, it is the opposite.

Instanced, no risk, no reward, no effort required pvp today is competitive?

Setting up seige towns in prep for castle seige, massively organizing a war for control both politically and economically of an world area is not competitive?

Read more webster.

I'll set aside the fact that you seem to be the only one that isn't understanding the impact or importance of the caravan system. And thus disregard it as flawed based on nothing.

You are disregarding the pvp that is always availible every day with the least amount of effort (in owpvp) because it wasn't on wiki? Wtf sence does that make? Perhaps you aren't researched/educated yourself enough to have this debate friend. 

I cant help but feel that what you want breaks down very simply, and this is what a lot of us dont want;

1. You want to remake your favorite part of Rift.
2. You liked said part of Rift due to the lack of effort it took on your part, and you felt that was competitive enough.

-CS

ArchivedUser

@Nefelia

If you will only play a game that meets all your expectations, within whatever reason you decide, then by all means please play that style of game. I wish you the best of luck finding it and hope you enjoy it. Expectations on what makes a good game are subjective, within reason, and different depending on who you are. Ashes can't appeal to everyone.

Ashes is a PvX game, it appeals to PvX players. Players that enjoy both equally, or reasonable enough to consider that both PvE and PvP have their roles and one doesn't dominate the other. Ashes should not be a game that you can only PvP in, nor should you be able to play PvE the whole time without engaging in some PvP.

I am still not sure why people can't play more than one game at a time. I must have missed that gamer evolution phase. Luckily for me, I am able to play a game depending on the mood I am in and I am not stuck playing just one game until the next new one comes out. I'm sorry if you feel like just one game at a time is all you can handle.

As for escort missions those always get boring. In a perfect world and game nothing would ever be boring. At some point however most things become boring. That boring phase might not last long for some, might take longer for others to get there, and some players will be diverse enough with everything Ashes has to offer they might never get bored. My point was, doing the same thing every time you play and only doing that one thing, will likely get boring.

Siege activities. PvP preventing any potentially threatening node from leveling by hunting gratherers/miners/traders (not just caravans). PvP protecting others from doing the same to your node.

With castle sieges there is PvP to prevent current castle owners from leveling all their defenses. Sure, you can't declare a siege, but you can declare a guild war or just go to their zone and PvP anyways. Yes, there will only be 5 castles, so there should be near constant PvP in trying to own a castle. I guess some PvP guilds might say "oh well, they got the castle, I guess we won't ever have one." If that's the type of PvP guild you find yourself in, look for a more active one.

TL/DCTR: Sure, all your points make sense from your pov. As do mine from my own pov. All I was suggesting was to look at it from a more open perspective about what to expect. Or don't, I really don't care.

I do hope everyone finds enough about Ashes to love playing it.
If they don't, oh well, better luck next time

ArchivedUser

Edit:  For clarity, I will refer to structured PvP mini-games like WoW's battlegrounds and Rift's warfronts as 'arenas'.

Well yeah!  Structured PvP is an industry standard now. Did you see how I flipped out when I figured that there would be no structured PvP in AoC? It was such a shock to me that a game as promising as AoC would leave out such an important element of the MMO genre.

ChuckSteak said:

1. You want to remake your favorite part of Rift.

I'll rephrase this:  I expect my favourite part of Rift to be present in AoC for the same reason PvE players expect dungeons and raids to be present: they are industry standards. Arenas are roughly the PvP equivalent of dungeons. Leaving them out of the game would be rather upsetting to quite a few people.

I made the case for instanced arenas for the same reasons that people make the case for instanced dungeons: ease of access, convenience, and time. But that is a secondary concern that I am quite flexible on.

I understand the rationale for making dungeons part of the open world. That same reason does not translate well to arenas - which require even teams for the sake of fair competition - I can see how they could be implemented as enclosed parts of the world.

Perhaps we'll have to travel to gladiator arenas in major nodes or to other locations in the open world to participate in arena mini-games. Perhaps we'll even have to dish out some gold to participate in the matches. Maybe arena participation gives XP to the node, providing incentives for the construction of such a node. There are many possibilities here that I have not seen discussed.

ChuckSteak said:

2. You liked said part of Rift due to the lack of effort it took on your part, and you felt that was competitive enough.

To rephrase yet again:  I was able to participate in that part of Rift frequently because it was convenient and could be fit into small windows of play - especially on weekdays. Dungeons took significantly longer, and Raids were far too long to fit into my schedule.

Not everything in MMOs has to be meaningful work or set-up for future events. We are allowed to have 'meaningless' fun too, no? Or would you drive all of the more casual players away from AoC and have them spend their money elsewhere?

ChuckSteak said:

I like how you prefer to think of the instanced pvp with no impact on the world as the competitive pvp. By deffinition, it is the opposite.

Maybe we are working under different definitions. I consider structured Arenas and Battlegrounds to be more competitive because they provide a level playing ground for PvP players to compete against each other fairly. Very much like small sporting (or e-sport) matches.

Names are made, reputations built, stats kept, scoreboards maintained, champions throned and dethroned, etc.

ChuckSteak said:

I'll set aside the fact that you seem to be the only one that isn't understanding the impact or importance of the caravan system. And thus disregard it as flawed based on nothing.

You are disregarding the pvp that is always availible every day with the least amount of effort (in owpvp) because it wasn't on wiki? Wtf sence does that make?

I'll ignore your comments regarding caravans, since you misrepresented my position yet again.

As for the availability of OWPvP, I'll simply point out that it was available in Rift, WoW, and a host of other games in which OWPvP ended up failing spectacularly.

Rift was full of PvP players that complained about the lack of OWPvP, but they didn't scapegoat Warfronts for the lack of OWPvP activity. They laid the blame where it belonged: the poor design and implementation of Rift's OWPvP features.

Intrepid Studios has a choice. They can a) allow arenas to co-exist with open world PvP activities and let PvP players freely participate in whichever content they desire. Or b) they can restrict arenas in the hopes of strong-arming PvP players into particpating in the open world PvP activities.

Going with option 'b' will not make the open world PvP any more appealing than it already is. But it will sure-as-hell reduce the appeal of the game for a great deal of PvP players... thereby reducing the amount of PvP players that play AoC.

I understand that Steven Sharif has a vision for this game. But I also understand that Sharif wants to have a successful game, and not produce yet another 'old school' MMO that ultimately flops due to a lack of popular appeal. This is why AoC will be including popular industry-standard content like dungeons, raids, crafting, gathering, housing & decoration, OWPvP, and arenas.

The goal is to bring in as many people as possible and let them enjoy the product of Steven's vision and Intrepid Studio's hard work and dedication. There has to be a pretty solid reason to exclude any of the industry-standard content I have listed above, and thus far not a single person has pointed out any such reason.

Perhaps that should be the focus of any future rebuttal: focus narrowly on why you think AoC should scrap arenas. Give solid reasons, keeping the health, appeal, and financial success of AoC in mind.

ChuckSteak said:

Perhaps you aren't researched/educated yourself enough to have this debate friend.

1)  Stick to arguments.

2)  If I am misinformed, now is the time to correct me.

I am grateful to those who provide factual information, and add to the discussion.

ArchivedUser

Edit:  For clarity, I will refer to structured PvP mini-games like WoW's battlegrounds and Rift's warfronts as 'arenas'.

@Azathoth

Azathoth said:

Ashes is a PvX game, it appeals to PvX players.

Niche games that only appeal to niche audiences ultimately fail. Everything I have seen about AoC's development seems to suggest that this will not be a niche game, and that it will be successful.

Azathoth said:

Ashes should not be a game that you can only PvP in, nor should you be able to play PvE the whole time without engaging in some PvP.

Oh? Where did I say that I intend to only PvP in AoC?

Even in Rift I would take breaks from the Warfronts and go do some gathering, artifact hunting, crafting, mob smashing, etc. Given that AoC is guaranteed to have much more compelling PvE options, I fully intend to involve myself in them.

However, arenas are an industry standard feature of the MMO genre, and I see no reason that Intrepid Studios would choose to exclude them from AoC.

Azathoth said:

I am still not sure why people can't play more than one game at a time. I must have missed that gamer evolution phase.

Some people get really invested in their MMOs. Some wish to remain competitive, others occupy themselves with numerous alts Some get involved in administrative duties within their guilds, while others spend more time role-playing and bulding social connections. Some explore multiple aspects of the game and keep themselves occupied with their fingers in many pies, others specialize a bit more and spend the rest of their time creating content (guides, Youtube videos, Twitch, etc).

You didn't miss any evolution, you just have different preferences and priorities than me. Many people would agree with my way of gaming, and many would agree with yours. Your way is not the only way, and neither is mine.

However, in the context of this discussion, do recognize that there are plenty of people who will not settle for a shallow investment in their MMO, and this informs developers when they are creating their games.

As I said before: niche games limit their audience. Given the scope and ambition of AoC, I doubt they are aiming for a niche audience.

Azathoth said:

As for escort missions those always get boring. In a perfect world and game nothing would ever be boring. At some point however most things become boring. That boring phase might not last long for some, might take longer for others to get there, and some players will be diverse enough with everything Ashes has to offer they might never get bored. My point was, doing the same thing every time you play and only doing that one thing, will likely get boring.

The thing about boring tasks in a game is that very few people actually want to do them. If a mechanic relies on people doing boring tasks, it is a flawed mechanic. We should be discussing ways to improve the mechanic or mitigate the boredom, rather than just accepting the boredom and dismissing people's concerns about how well that mechanic will play out at launch and afterwards.

I am honestly baffled here. Alpha 1 has not even started yet, and you are defending the largest flaw in the caravan system rather than discussing possible design and community solutions to that problem. AoC has another full year of development before release. This is the time to discuss problems and how they can be resolved in order to make for a better game at release. You are doing no one any favours by blindly accepting short-comings in the game

Once alpha starts, I fully intend on finding any flaw and problem in the game and reporting each one to IS with brutal honesty. I'll do this because I want AoC to be a phenomenal success at launch and for many, many years after.

ArchivedUser

Alpha 1 has not started yet, so I am not saying Caravans will be amazing, nor am I saying they will be boring. My point is if all you do every time you sit down to play a game is the same thing, that thing will get boring. You did see the part you quoted where I said "...most things become boring..."

Alpha 1 is not even out, neither of us have Alpha-0 privileges, and yet you are claiming there is a flaw in a system you haven't touched.

PvX is not a niche community. It is a game that allows PvP and PvE players.
I never said all you want is PvP, I was explaining how I see PvX. As in, a game that is not 100% PvP nor 100% PvE. I wasn't implying about your life... that time.

As for peeps that want to invest all their gaming time and resources into one game, they can do that. Expecting one game to nail everything they want to be perfect so they don't ever have to go play another game for years and years, imo, is an unfair expectation.

Just because I want a certain type of game, and Ashes is close enough that with some tweaks it could be really close to my perfect game, doesn't mean I am going to come here and say Ashes is flawed. Everything is flawed, nothing is perfect.

If you want to express your input on what would make a game, that you haven't played, better then I am going to respond on why the same game (which I haven't played) is already good.

That's the point of the forums, civil discussion and dissenting opinions.

ArchivedUser

@Azathoth

Hello again. 

To get right into it: I ignored your point about “most things become boring” due to the fact that caravan escort may very well start boring. Slowly walking from point ‘a’ to point ‘b’ is not exactly riveting game play, and is significantly different from engaging content that loses its appeal due to heavy repetition. More on that later.

Alpha 1 may not be out yet, but I have already started thinking about the potential flaws in the system that I want to test. As such, I am looking at the game features as they are described in the wiki and various media and thinking about how they would actually play out in a populated game world. In particular, I am looking for potential problems.

Caravans jumped out as one of the more blatant of the potential problems. I've spent a bit of time ruminating on how players could adapt their play and band together to mitigate the inherent problems. I've come up with quite a few promising possibilities, mostly centered on the timing of the caravans and ways to ensure PvP players have a more personal reason to accompany the caravans.

I didn't exactly invent the wheel with my ideas, but the fact that no one posted any actual solutions indicates that people are not really thinking about the issue. Or at least, the people who responded to my posts have not done any critical thinking on the issue.

Azathoth said:

PvX is not a niche community. It is a game that allows PvP and PvE players.
I never said all you want is PvP, I was explaining how I see PvX. As in, a game that is not 100% PvP nor 100% PvE.

My issue is with your apparent insistence that PvP and PvE players have to be actively involved in the other ‘realm’ of game play in order to achieve their goals.

I have issue with this because Rift tried that approach in one of its later expansions: forcing PvP players to run dungeons and raids in order to attain top end PvP gear at a decent rate. PvE players were similarly forced to PvP in order to maximize their gear gains.

It was disastrous, and left everybody unhappy.

I understand that AoC will have a healthy mix of PvP and PvE content, much of which overlaps. But there will still be ways in which PvE or PvP players can limit their exposure to modes of play they do not enjoy. For instance, PvP players can choose to forego dungeons and raids f they so choose, and limit their PvE exposure to whatever elements of PvE they prefer. Similarly, PvE players will not be forced to participate in arenas, nor will they be forced to kill 'x' amount of corrupted players to improve their gear. There will be many ways in which players can progress their characters, and players will be given the agency to choose which paths they take.

Perhaps I am misinterpreting your message due to my past experience with Rift's terribly executed attempt at 'cross-fertilizing' PvP and PvE. I understand that these elements will mix in AoC, and I very much look forward to that. I probably won't touch dungeons and raids, but I expect to enjoy gathering, crafting, managing a freehold, questing, exploring, arenas, and OWPvP in all of its forms.

If the content is good, chances are that I will enjoy it and participate in it frequently.

But not everything has to be tied into the mechanics of the dynamic world. There is plenty of room for more casual (or 'meaningless' as some have called it) fun. AoC doesn't strictly need dungeons or raids, as their function can be replaced by rare/elite/world bosses. But they are included because dungeons and raids are a very popular standard feature of MMOs. Same goes for arenas, or housing that you can walk into and decorate. They are not strictly necessary, but they are very popular standard features of MMOs.

These features will help bring more players into the game - players that can be left to discover and explore the core content on their own terms and at their own pace. And if player 'a' never leaves the arenas, or player 'b' never leaves the dungeons, then so be it. At least they are paying $15 every month to support the game so the developers and continue to spend resources on maintaining and improving the game for the rest of us.

Azathoth said:

That's the point of the forums, civil discussion and dissenting opinions.

Agreed.

ArchivedUser

@Nefelia You are the hero none us knew we needed.

ArchivedUser

@Nefelia
I don't disagree with most of what you said. Imo a PvX should require a little bit of both, otherwise it should be an MMO with PvP servers and PvE servers and I don't want that for Ashes.

I never played Rift, but part of the issue could have been an existing game with certain rules suddenly changed. From what I have read on the forums change is not something everybody can just jump on board with. I have been in the middle of a few games when things have changed and it has made me wish I wasn't invested, even though in the end the changes weren't horrible.

Either way, once i get into the Alpha and test combat and as more content opens to test I will happily debate more strongly on what I think should stay, change, or go.

Also, hello

ArchivedUser

This is the only worry I have with regards to Ashes, although the PvP activities we know about (WPvP battlegrounds and caravans) both sound incredibly cool it's all going to be wholly dependent on being in the right area of the map and dependent on their being plenty of other players willing to fight alongside you against another group.

I see structured battlegrounds in a similar vein to instanced arenas as having a definite use for those that want a bit of mindless PvP outside of the usual WPvP that we'll see.

I don't think it's going to go well if PvP ends up being far too situational and doesn't give PvP-leaning players an outlet to scratch that PvP itch.

ArchivedUser

Most PvP will not be log in then immediately PvP.
Searching for Caravans and learning routes is meant to be somewhat more difficult as those shipping their goods choose routes/times they think are the safest.

PvE is different, PvE is almost immediate upon entering the game.

I see this as a legitimate concern of the PvP crowd. I also think that Ashes has never been marketed as a PvP only game and I am glad it's not a game where PvP's can just log in and immediately start attacking people without some thought.

ArchivedUser

Battlegrounds, Warfronts, Warzones, whatever you want to call them. They need to be in this game. There is a huge portion of players that love instanced PvP.

ArchivedUser

Instanced PVP that Ashes has said will be in, Is a Castle Sieges, and Arena. Nothing more nothing less. Separating the pvp giving instanced battlegrounds etc, invite ques for battlegrounds and dungeons etc, which intrepid has already said is against their vision. So I think this topic has been talked to death with multiple of these threads.

ArchivedUser

double post

ArchivedUser

gundel said:

Instanced PVP that Ashes has said will be in, Is a Castle Sieges, and Arena. Nothing more nothing less. Separating the pvp giving instanced battlegrounds etc, invite ques for battlegrounds and dungeons etc, which intrepid has already said is against their vision. So I think this topic has been talked to death with multiple of these threads.

I have to disagree, since there doesn't seem to be solid information on what types of pvp will be supported, or are being aimed for or strictly denied. I haven't seen any "This is the exact types of pvp we will support, following these specific rulesets, etc, but these other types are out". There will be arenas, which apparently are instanced. Or maybe not? IDK, there seems to be conflicting answers. No/no, and there shouldn't be/there are in the form of arenas.

Instanced battlegrounds are against the game vision, but isn't that exactly what the instanced arenas are? Sure, AFAIK battlegrounds in regards to AoC are basically any open world pvp areas, but whats the difference between those other than one being anywhere and the other being specifically instanced?

Then there's also possibly going to be crossserver arenas, which may include matchmaking. https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Arenas#Server_vs_server .

ArchivedUser

CyanideInsanity said:

Whats the difference between those other than one being anywhere and the other being specifically instanced?

What's the difference between questing in an open world MMO and doing instanced missions(i.e. warframe)? Are those exactly the same or while objective wise they are the same/similar, they are difference experiences? 

Not saying one is better but personally i prefer open world because the fights and scenery generally as well as it feels more immersive and part of the world. You can get also involved in other random encounters while traveling across the world to different battlegrounds which can mix up play.

ArchivedUser

gundel said:

Instanced PVP that Ashes has said will be in, Is a Castle Sieges, and Arena. Nothing more nothing less. Separating the pvp giving instanced battlegrounds etc, invite ques for battlegrounds and dungeons etc, which intrepid has already said is against their vision. So I think this topic has been talked to death with multiple of these threads.

Steven said castle seiges will be open world, not instanced! : D

ArchivedUser

McStackerson said:

CyanideInsanity said:

Whats the difference between those other than one being anywhere and the other being specifically instanced?

What's the difference between questing in an open world MMO and doing instanced missions(i.e. warframe)? Are those exactly the same or while objective wise they are the same/similar, they are difference experiences? 

Not saying one is better but personally i prefer open world because the fights and scenery generally as well as it feels more immersive and part of the world. You can get also involved in other random encounters while traveling across the world to different battlegrounds which can mix up play.

I'm not making a statement about one over the other, I'm actually asking what the difference is, at least in how gundel sees it, or even IS if they've given a more in-depth explanation. This is the exact reason why I disagree with the notion this subject has been talked to death (probably could be pushed to being in one thread and not multiple threads though). Instanced arenas are likely to be in the game, but instanced battlegrounds are against the vision of the game? Yet wouldn't the arenas be just that, instanced battlegrounds?

ArchivedUser

gundel said:

Instanced PVP that Ashes has said will be in, Is a Castle Sieges, and Arena. Nothing more nothing less. Separating the pvp giving instanced battlegrounds etc, invite ques for battlegrounds and dungeons etc, which intrepid has already said is against their vision. So I think this topic has been talked to death with multiple of these threads.

Castle seiges will not be instanced, open world! https://youtu.be/UqWsNeemuQI

ArchivedUser

@Eroenne Ah I see your getting confused regarding the video states the Node Siege being open/ not instanced. I was referring to Castle Sieges where it will be semi- instanced where only the attackers/defenders who have been signed up etc and approved of the leaders with a certain cap that hasn't been stated yet. When I am speaking of semi instanced it is where people are not flagged for the castle siege cannot participate its a soft instance (phasing). 

The video that you provided is mainly talking about Node Sieges not Castle where Steven talks about Castle Sieges is talking about Siege equipment. Either way we will find out all about these systems in A1 testing.
Here is the Steven talking about Specifically Castle Sieges: around 16min mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xg2l6DJgHV0&feature=youtu.be&t=21m55s

ArchivedUser

Oh ok,  I was under the impression that anyone could show up at a siege and fight but only the ones signed up to defend or attack could scribe and take the castle.  

ArchivedUser

Azathoth said:

Most PvP will not be log in then immediately PvP.
Searching for Caravans and learning routes is meant to be somewhat more difficult as those shipping their goods choose routes/times they think are the safest.

Log out next to an arena. Log back in later. Bam, instant PvP.

Similarly, log out at a quest hub (tavern, for instance). Log back in later. Bam, instant PvE.

But yes, I get what you are saying. The PvP that has an impact on the development of the server will not be instantaneous. If you want to enrich your node while impoverishing a rival node, you need to find their caravans and then make an effective plan before you assault them. 

gundel said:

Instanced PVP that Ashes has said will be in, Is a Castle Sieges, and Arena. Nothing more nothing less. Separating the pvp giving instanced battlegrounds etc, invite ques for battlegrounds and dungeons etc, which intrepid has already said is against their vision. So I think this topic has been talked to death with multiple of these threads.

Invite queues is a separate issue entirely.

PvE players will need to travel to dungeons in order to do dungeons. I don't think it is too much to ask for PvP players to travel to arenas to do arenas. What a lot of us are asking for is for more complex and interesting rule-sets for arenas than just Deathmatches. That is all.

Now, some people have said that AoC's arenas will have a variety of rule-sets to reproduce the dynamic fun that can be found in other MMOs' Warfronts/Battlegrounds/etc. If that is indeed the case, then the mass of PvP players asking for Warfronts/Battlegrounds/etc will have one less concern about AoC.

Back to the invite queues: make them contingent on being at an actual arena and there is no issue. PvP players will have to make their way to an arena just as PvE players will need to make their way to a dungeon. Given the demand for arenas with advanced rule-sets, I don't see an alternative to making them instanced due to space issues and the demand they are likely to have. And that is fine: not everything needs to be crammed into the open world.

McStackerson said:

Not saying one is better but personally i prefer open world because the fights and scenery generally as well as it feels more immersive and part of the world. You can get also involved in other random encounters while traveling across the world to different battlegrounds which can mix up play.

I don't think Intrepid Studios needs to worry about people ignoring the open world in favour of instanced arenas. A lot of us will spend a decent amount of time in arenas as they tend to have a great deal of replay value (interesting rule-sets, fairly divided teams for competitive play, randomized team composition, randomized spawn assignment). Even so, AoC promises to have some compelling open world content - both for PvE and PvP - that we will want to get involved with.

I'm looking forward to having so much compelling content to explore, but not enough time to do it all. 

ArchivedUser

Nefelia said:

PvE players will need to travel to dungeons in order to do dungeons. I don't think it is too much to ask for PvP players to travel to arenas to do arenas. What a lot of us are asking for is for more complex and interesting rule-sets for arenas than just Deathmatches. That is all.

Now, some people have said that AoC's arenas will have a variety of rule-sets to reproduce the dynamic fun that can be found in other MMOs' Warfronts/Battlegrounds/etc. If that is indeed the case, then the mass of PvP players asking for Warfronts/Battlegrounds/etc will have one less concern about AoC.

Back to the invite queues: make them contingent on being at an actual arena and there is no issue. PvP players will have to make their way to an arena just as PvE players will need to make their way to a dungeon. Given the demand for arenas with advanced rule-sets, I don't see an alternative to making them instanced due to space issues and the demand they are likely to have. And that is fine: not everything needs to be crammed into the open world.

That's the thing, just like raids that takes planning and preparation so will much of the PvP content like caravan raiding, city sieges and castle sieges.

I think World of Warcraft in vanilla had the right balance when it came to the Battlegrounds/Arena system when it first launched, if you wanted to do the Warsong Gulch Battleground for example you'd physically have to travel to Ashenvale Forest where the Battleground was based and you'd be able to enter the portal to the instanced battleground, a similar system could work very well.

Since we already have the typical deathmatch arena that will be getting added it would be fantastic to see other popular rulesets and arena types like Capture the Flag (Warsong Gulch) and King of the Hill (Arathi Basin).

Just like players won't be able to raid dungeons constantly they won't be able to raid cities, castles and caravans constantly either so having an option other than mindlessly ganking players in the open world is going to have to be available if you're going to want to keep the interests of PvP oriented players.

The open-world PvP for the most part is going to be the PvP equivalent to raids, it's going to be the the more 'end-game' style that will take planning and preparation to pull off successfully and just like PvE will have plenty of combat in the open world outside of raids, this equivalent behaviour is obviously discouraged for PvP (Corruption) so having an alternative that will be undoubtedly popular for players can only mean good things.

ArchivedUser

Azathoth said:

Most PvP will not be log in then immediately PvP.
Searching for Caravans and learning routes is meant to be somewhat more difficult as those shipping their goods choose routes/times they think are the safest.

Log out next to an arena. Log back in later. Bam, instant PvP.

Similarly, log out at a quest hub (tavern, for instance). Log back in later. Bam, instant PvE.

But yes, I get what you are saying. The PvP that has an impact on the development of the server will not be instantaneous. If you want to enrich your node while impoverishing a rival node, you need to find their caravans and then make an effective plan before you assault them. 

gundel said:

Instanced PVP that Ashes has said will be in, Is a Castle Sieges, and Arena. Nothing more nothing less. Separating the pvp giving instanced battlegrounds etc, invite ques for battlegrounds and dungeons etc, which intrepid has already said is against their vision. So I think this topic has been talked to death with multiple of these threads.

Invite queues is a separate issue entirely.

PvE players will need to travel to dungeons in order to do dungeons. I don't think it is too much to ask for PvP players to travel to arenas to do arenas. What a lot of us are asking for is for more complex and interesting rule-sets for arenas than just Deathmatches. That is all.

Now, some people have said that AoC's arenas will have a variety of rule-sets to reproduce the dynamic fun that can be found in other MMOs' Warfronts/Battlegrounds/etc. If that is indeed the case, then the mass of PvP players asking for Warfronts/Battlegrounds/etc will have one less concern about AoC.

Back to the invite queues: make them contingent on being at an actual arena and there is no issue. PvP players will have to make their way to an arena just as PvE players will need to make their way to a dungeon. Given the demand for arenas with advanced rule-sets, I don't see an alternative to making them instanced due to space issues and the demand they are likely to have. And that is fine: not everything needs to be crammed into the open world.

McStackerson said:

Not saying one is better but personally i prefer open world because the fights and scenery generally as well as it feels more immersive and part of the world. You can get also involved in other random encounters while traveling across the world to different battlegrounds which can mix up play.

I don't think Intrepid Studios needs to worry about people ignoring the open world in favour of instanced arenas. A lot of us will spend a decent amount of time in arenas as they tend to have a great deal of replay value (interesting rule-sets, fairly divided teams for competitive play, randomized team composition, randomized spawn assignment). Even so, AoC promises to have some compelling open world content - both for PvE and PvP - that we will want to get involved with.

I'm looking forward to having so much compelling content to explore, but not enough time to do it all. 

ArchivedUser

PVP, in Ashes, holds meaning and weight.  so I'm not sure how outside of training areas , instanced PVP would do anything but detract from that as people flock to the safe option.

ArchivedUser

I think what most people forget is that PvP and PvE are one half of the core of the game, Without PvE, you lack a reason for PvP player to fight in a meaningful way and without PvP, the economy becomes stagnant, and trade becomes less important. No matter your View on how PvP will work in ashes you have to accept that you can not have one without the other in a meaning full way at least.