Thank you to all who participated in our August 20 play test! If you joined in, please remember to leave your feedback and bug reports on the forums here: https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/categories/apoc-bug-reports

What there will be for competitive PvP players?

I know there will be arena mode for competitive PvP gaming, but that is so basic stuff, that i was wondering will there be also something else? I dont take to count node sieges, castle fights or caravans. Those are not actually competitive (what i mean) and most likely happens also too occasionally. 
«1

Comments

  • Well, arena's are fake pvp so far. No gain or loss as of yet.

    Your castles are your primary competitive PvP as the Victor's get the castle. 

    Your caravans would be the next thing as there is also a gain and loss tied to the actions. Albeit less Impactfull to the area overall compared to a castle siege.

    The last thing would be interclan warfare. I'm sure this mechanic will exist and winning the war would be some form of pvp based results.
  • Short answer: Nothing. Beyond what has already been stated.

    Longer answer: Like tab targetting and massive bro-on-bro battles go play Camelot Unchained. Want to be action twitcher brah, go play Crowfall. When both of them release later this year or early next, peak, flail around, then burn out you will have all sorts of feedback to come back to these forums and bemoan the fact that "Crowfail would have been awesome if they had only listened to those of us that are experts at competitive pvp!" about 3 months from planned release. Then you can regale us with your stories and tell us how the "hardcore pvp crowd" don't fail their games, but it is them damn pve people that ruin all the fun. (Neither game will have significant pve.)
  • Ferryman said:
    I know there will be arena mode for competitive PvP gaming, but that is so basic stuff, that i was wondering will there be also something else? I dont take to count node sieges, castle fights or caravans. Those are not actually competitive (what i mean) and most likely happens also too occasionally. 
    Being competitive is an act of demonstrating that one is better then another right?  Then how can sieges of castles or caravans not be considered competitive?  In order to take them over or keep them you have to be the better of the two groups.  That to me is competition.  It's a mind set.




  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited June 2018
    What are you thinking of as a competitive pvp activity?
     
    The competitive pvp will happen through the meaningful conflict in the game. Competitive pvp will use the different systems like flagging, caravans, war declaration, and sieges to fight over land and resources. There will be a little more to it then getting a higher arena rating. On top of that, the arena system and community run tournaments will probably provide a way for people to show off their leet skills.

  • Sieges could be considered kind of competitive of course, but those might happen too rarely and you will play with all kind of random people, which takes some competitive aspect off the case. So i ment more like arena, but something at larger scale than that. One example is like rated battlegrounds in WoW. I am not sure if i want exactly same like that and i mostly asked because i wasnt sure if i had miss something. I remember some video of battleground designing, but i dont actually know or remember what was the case back then.

    But lets say if 10 to 20 players (for example) from our guild wants to do weekly some organized PvP content is that possible? Now maybe i am asking something like castle sieges will actually be, but i remember those are open only once in 3 weeks..? And are those castle sieges GvG or more like GvGvGvGvG...?

  • Being competitive is an act of demonstrating that one is better then another right?  
    What are you thinking of as a competitive pvp activity?
    I would put competitive to category where both or several sides at same fight are premaid groups. Not just organized group against pugs. Yeah maybe this is closest what i ment.
  • The castle gets sieged every 4 weeks but the 3 nodes connected to the castle will be  sieged one at a time in the 3 weeks prior. So there is basically a siege every week. I'm under the impression that they are GvGvG+

    For organized group combat, outside of arenas and tournaments, that will probably happen organically in the world as groups fight over farming spots and resources. It's kind of hard to tell atm but to me, it sounds like competitive groups will probably be going to the most contested/valuable pve spawns and fighting as they farm.
  • I found the video i was looking for and it was all about arenas. I just remembered that one snowy and burning town with catapult fires, which looks actually more like a battleground, but most likely it is also just an arena too.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPbFmK31AE8

    What comes to my experience of open world PvP games, the OWPvP battles are hardly competitive if you think of that from equal fight point of view. There can and will of course be some good somehow equal fights, but in most cases other group will just outnumber the other and it goes more to ganking section. Also there is corruption system, which will prevent lots of fights to happen. Especially if both or other groups are with non-combatant status. That might be good way to max corruption in one fight.  :D
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited June 2018
    Yea, it's hard to tell how it will play out. This isn't a full loot game so taking a zerg into a zone to kill people won't get you much and with corruption, it wont always be worth it. Also, with the flagging system, players will be more likely to fight back if they think they have a chance to win. If you role in with a massive zerg, they will have more reason to die and let you get corruption then trying to defend their farming spot. On top of all that, their is the reputation you will get for zerging and enemies you will make. 

    But as i said, hard for me to tell. I'm sure we will have our groups that zerg and even have those times that we will want to zerg but i also think the system discourages it in multiple ways. In the system, you want your opponent to fight back so you don't get a penalty and a good way to get your opponent to fight back is to give them a fair fight. I don't think a lot of fights will 100% equal but think they will be closer in numbers and more competitive.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited June 2018
    From what I understand for a competitive PvPer, you have arenas that reward titles. Not really the best but that's what they have. On the plus side, it will also be the path to reaching leadership in military nodes. So you have these two activities.
    But that's for a close enviroment, compettitive PvP aspect which naturally cannot be affected or affect the outside world.
    PvP outside the "competitive" ones above seems to be either guild, or group based, vs another guild or node, and of course the bandits attacking caravans. These are less fair, less balanced, but ultimately they have to be to affect the world.
    See it this way, you can't have an even playing field in a progression-based world can you? In all honesty though, PvPers will control the political landspace of Ashes, so it's hard to complain no?
    Edit: Corruption only comes in play when you are trying to assault people not willing to fight back. Caravans, sieges, warring nodes (two nodes that declared war on to each other) and such I'd wager would be free from corruption.
  • In regards to castle sieges, while others are able to join up, they will - for the most part - be guild based.

    It takes time, effort and resources to build up to a siege. It isn't the sort of thing a random player would join on impulse as they likely wouldn't be prepared and stand to gain nothing from a siege regardless of how it turns out.

    For the most part, sieges will be a guild or alliance vs another guild or alliance. Rather than trying to top some stupid arbitrary "leaderboard" as a result, the reward of a siege is the fact that you now own your castle.

    Every player on the server will know who the top 5 PvP guilds on the server are, as they will be the 5 guilds in castles. Having said castle also makes you and your guild a target of any guild wishing to claim a top 5 spot. With the way castles work, you will potentially have a multi-hour siege every weekend to defend against, and a node to build up during the week that will require activity that will attract further, smaller scale PvP.

    Needless to say, keeping a castle as a guild will take up a serious amount of time, and require a lot of PvP.
  • Ferryman said:

    Being competitive is an act of demonstrating that one is better then another right?  
    What are you thinking of as a competitive pvp activity?
    I would put competitive to category where both or several sides at same fight are premaid groups. Not just organized group against pugs. Yeah maybe this is closest what i ment.
    Ok, this is a siege. Here how it will work, even if it takes a while for people who have never surged before to figure it out. 

    If you are in a competitive PvP clan. Your siege will be well thought out. Your groups will be premade groups, most likely these same people will group as a constant party. You will fight against other good clans with premade groups, or you will roll over noobs untill they figure it out. This would satisfy your premade group requirement. Been s

    Any arena type thing like wow had would be unfortunate if it were in this game. That was all fake meaningless pvp with no impact on the game world. Just for some kids to run around saying they were pvp masters...yayy? A fight with no premise, reward, or consequence.
  • Noaani said:
    Every player on the server will know who the top 5 PvP guilds on the server are, as they will be the 5 guilds in castles. Having said castle also makes you and your guild a target of any guild wishing to claim a top 5 spot. With the way castles work, you will potentially have a multi-hour siege every weekend to defend against, and a node to build up during the week that will require activity that will attract further, smaller scale PvP.

    Needless to say, keeping a castle as a guild will take up a serious amount of time, and require a lot of PvP.
    Well having only 5 castles will leave castle sieges mostly to top guilds. That will leave lots of guilds outside of the fun. However i found some information from wiki of other open world objectivies and scenarios to fight for. Also about OW battlegrounds just for fighting. This is not open upped much, but looks like there will be some kind of battlegrounds with familiar mechanics, but implemeted to open world and have meaning. Really niiiice. Lets say there could be some kind of smaller objectivies like towers, mines, quarries and such which actually gives some benefit if owned. Now this was exactly what i was hoping. :)

    "In the game info section you mention "hunting grounds" as a battle ground. What will be considered hunting grounds and how common will they be?

    1. 45:17
    2. Contextually, I believe he’s referring to in the open world as you go out to kill monsters, npcs, do other quests, whatever, that there will be battlegrounds there. When I refer to battlegrounds I’m referring to, I know I have a different definition for battlegrounds, I view a battleground as a place where there is some dynamic occurring that involves player versus player activity. That dynamic can be objective based or it could just be an all out brawl. So, I see a guild war being in a sense a battleground because I intend to put open world objectives for guild wars that players can participate in. There I can see the battlegrounds coming to fruition. I see a castle sieges, node sieges, caravans, those are all what I see as the primary battleground systems in the open world. I know that can sometimes be an oxymoron, because sometimes people consider the battleground an antithesis of open world. It’s literally an instance you enter that is a battleground. Because my desire is to stay away from heavy instancing, I would like for the design we’ve come up with to illustrate open world activity from a battleground point of view. Keeping the same mechanics and objectives in place, but just having them in place in the open world. So, that’s kind of why I have a differing definition of battlegrounds."

  • Any arena type thing like wow had would be unfortunate if it were in this game. That was all fake meaningless pvp with no impact on the game world. Just for some kids to run around saying they were pvp masters...yayy? A fight with no premise, reward, or consequence.

    And there will be some kind of reward system as well. However most likely just cosmetics. But what means FFA?
  • FFA = free for all
  • FFA = free for all
    That is brutal. 
  • Ferryman said:

    Being competitive is an act of demonstrating that one is better then another right?  
    What are you thinking of as a competitive pvp activity?
    I would put competitive to category where both or several sides at same fight are premaid groups. Not just organized group against pugs. Yeah maybe this is closest what i ment.
  • Ferryman said:

    Being competitive is an act of demonstrating that one is better then another right?  
    What are you thinking of as a competitive pvp activity?
    I would put competitive to category where both or several sides at same fight are premaid groups. Not just organized group against pugs. Yeah maybe this is closest what i ment.
    Ok, this is a siege. Here how it will work, even if it takes a while for people who have never surged before to figure it out. 

    If you are in a competitive PvP clan. Your siege will be well thought out. Your groups will be premade groups, most likely these same people will group as a constant party. You will fight against other good clans with premade groups, or you will roll over noobs untill they figure it out. This would satisfy your premade group requirement.

    Any arena type thing like wow had would be unfortunate if it were in this game. That was all fake meaningless pvp with no impact on the game world. Just for some kids to run around saying they were pvp masters...yayy? A fight with no premise, reward, or consequence.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited June 2018
    Ferryman said:
    Noaani said:
    Every player on the server will know who the top 5 PvP guilds on the server are, as they will be the 5 guilds in castles. Having said castle also makes you and your guild a target of any guild wishing to claim a top 5 spot. With the way castles work, you will potentially have a multi-hour siege every weekend to defend against, and a node to build up during the week that will require activity that will attract further, smaller scale PvP.

    Needless to say, keeping a castle as a guild will take up a serious amount of time, and require a lot of PvP.
    Well having only 5 castles will leave castle sieges mostly to top guilds. That will leave lots of guilds outside of the fun. However i found some information from wiki of other open world objectivies and scenarios to fight for. Also about OW battlegrounds just for fighting. This is not open upped much, but looks like there will be some kind of battlegrounds with familiar mechanics, but implemeted to open world and have meaning. Really niiiice. Lets say there could be some kind of smaller objectivies like towers, mines, quarries and such which actually gives some benefit if owned. Now this was exactly what i was hoping. :)

    If a PvP player is not in a PvP guild, they are not a competitive PvP player.

    Arenas and such are not competitive content, they are side content for when you have a few minutes to kill. People that look at them as being actually competitive don't stand a chance in a real PvP setting.

    Steven often talks about caravans and sieges as "battlegrounds", that is likely what was being referred to on the wiki pages you have read.
  • @Noaani Arenas can be easily called competitive content if you play that to be at the top. People who are good in arena PvP have no chance in real PvP setting??? Really absurd argument. If you are really good in one kind of PvP setting, you will be good in other PvP settings as well. 

    I really hope you are wrong with your battleground guessing. If there is only really large scale PvP battlegrounds like node and castle sieges, which also happens kind of rarely, then PvP side will be a little bit boring. There is nothing wrong with large scale PvP battles and i think those,are are awesome, but i think we still miss some smaller scale battlegrounds, which can be made daily or few times in week.

    And if devs have not planned anything like this, then i will suggest to implement some. I see lots of opportunities to add meaningfull small objectives all around the world, where small/medium size PvP groups can fight to control those. 
  • Ferryman said:
    @Noaani Arenas can be easily called competitive content if you play that to be at the top. People who are good in arena PvP have no chance in real PvP setting??? Really absurd argument. If you are really good in one kind of PvP setting, you will be good in other PvP settings as well. 

    I really hope you are wrong with your battleground guessing. If there is only really large scale PvP battlegrounds like node and castle sieges, which also happens kind of rarely, then PvP side will be a little bit boring. There is nothing wrong with large scale PvP battles and i think those,are are awesome, but i think we still miss some smaller scale battlegrounds, which can be made daily or few times in week.

    And if devs have not planned anything like this, then i will suggest to implement some. I see lots of opportunities to add meaningfull small objectives all around the world, where small/medium size PvP groups can fight to control those. 
    What is meaningful about daily battle grounds?  How would they affect the world?  What would/could they contribute to  the on going developing life of the new world?

  • What is meaningful about daily battle grounds?  

     Lol. What is meanigfull about playing games? fun - nothing more and nothing less. 
    Daily battle grounds and arenas to gain titles, ranking and mayby some rare materials/items but mostly to simply have lots of fun(and keep players entertained). 
    Ofc u can add some mechanics like buffs in sieges for unique pvp titles, :D top 10 arena players can have unique auras to boost allies ect. (they lose it when they stop being at the top to keep it competetive) ect.


  • Szejm said:
    What is meaningful about daily battle grounds?  

     Lol. What is meanigfull about playing games? fun - nothing more and nothing less. 
    Daily battle grounds and arenas to gain titles, ranking and mayby some rare materials/items but mostly to simply have lots of fun(and keep players entertained). 
    Ofc u can add some mechanics like buffs in sieges for unique pvp titles, :D top 10 arena players can have unique auras to boost allies ect. (they lose it when they stop being at the top to keep it competetive) ect.


    Ok. I know what battle grounds and titles are.  I've played my share and  have had my titles.  I guess I worded it wrong.  What do they have to do with building the new world,  the story, the lore.   If that's what people want then why leave WoW?  I dunno. Maybe I have gotten the idea or a new world to build and conquer all wrong.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited June 2018
    Intrepid is still in the Process of " setting the premise for the stage " - as evident of their Action-Combat iterations that we have yet to see. As much as i would like to join-in on this Thread ... /i don't think its time yet

    Because I'm still hoping ( beyond comprehension ) ... I'm seriously am still hoping that there's lots of " Elevation in Exploration "
    For example ...

    imagine being ambushed from above the Treetops 
    Imgine being able to travel on each of these Levels - it'll practically add new dimensions of exploration

    Something i mentioned further in this thread. Page 1 & Page 2
  • Ferryman said:
    @Noaani Arenas can be easily called competitive content if you play that to be at the top. People who are good in arena PvP have no chance in real PvP setting??? Really absurd argument. If you are really good in one kind of PvP setting, you will be good in other PvP settings as well. 

    I really hope you are wrong with your battleground guessing. If there is only really large scale PvP battlegrounds like node and castle sieges, which also happens kind of rarely, then PvP side will be a little bit boring. There is nothing wrong with large scale PvP battles and i think those,are are awesome, but i think we still miss some smaller scale battlegrounds, which can be made daily or few times in week.

    And if devs have not planned anything like this, then i will suggest to implement some. I see lots of opportunities to add meaningfull small objectives all around the world, where small/medium size PvP groups can fight to control those. 
    What is meaningful about daily battle grounds?  How would they affect the world?  What would/could they contribute to  the on going developing life of the new world?

    I will open it up what i had in my mind. It would be nice to have PvP content to small and medium size groups and mostly for premaid (guild) groups, but why not some to pugs as well. I want to keep Ashes base idea of meaningfull conflict. This can be done by adding different kind of objectivies around the world. These objectivies are something players can fight to get control. There can be objectives like quarries, towers, watchtowers, mines, temples, valleys, caves, lighthouses, hideouts and such. These objectives can be unlocked, locked, destroyed, changed, evolved with nodes progression. These battlegrounds can be pure open world, instanced or mix of both.

    But when you get the control of objective, it can give the controllers some benefits X amount of time until the battleground open ups to fight again. This X amount of time can be in some cases hours, days or week depending of the objective and how often devs wants these fights to happen. Maybe controlled objectives are rich gathering veins like mines, quarries, valleys or maybe these gives small temporal boosts to gathering, processing, crafting. Maybe cave is private dungeon to controllers or gate to secret part of underrealm. Maybe watchtowers and lighthouses helps bandits to notify ongoing caravans or in other hand help caravans to avoid bandits. 

    These are just few examples, but i see only possibilities how these kind of battlegrounds can be meaningfull and somehow competitive as well. No one should be forced to PvP via these BGs and these can be totally optional and consensual fights. Still the results effects to surrounding world more or less. 
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited June 2018
    Ferryman said:
    I really hope you are wrong with your battleground guessing. If there is only really large scale PvP battlegrounds like node and castle sieges, which also happens kind of rarely, then PvP side will be a little bit boring. There is nothing wrong with large scale PvP battles and i think those,are are awesome, but i think we still miss some smaller scale battlegrounds, which can be made daily or few times in week.

    And if devs have not planned anything like this, then i will suggest to implement some. I see lots of opportunities to add meaningfull small objectives all around the world, where small/medium size PvP groups can fight to control those. 
    You seem to be looking at battlegrounds as if this were WoW.

    You talk about them in terms of scheduled or planned events, with one a day limits or quests. I also get the feeling you think they are instanced as per WoW battlegrounds.

    That is not what they mean when Intrepid refer to battlegrounds. A battleground is essentially a part of the world where - for whatever reason - the flagging/corruption system do not apply to PvP combat, and players joining in must pick a side to join (at least in the case of some).

    This includes sieges - if a random player walks up to a city that is being sieged, they are given the option to join, and asked to pick a side. This isn't an instance, it simply happens to the actual town.

    Now, while it may be rare that your home node gets sieged, and it may be the case that metropoles are sieged rarely, sieges themselves will not be rare. Since players are able to participate in any siege they wish, and since sieges have to be declared days before they take place - allowing for players to plan - I see no reason why players wouldn't be able to participate in several sieges a week if they wish to do so.

    On top of that, caravans are battlegrounds. The area around a caravan has the flagging/corruption system removed in regards to attacking or defending the caravan. Players would be able to make either attacking or defending caravans they major - or indeed ONLY - in game activity if they wish.

    Further, there are guild wars which will function as a limited battleground in that flagging/corruption is removed, but only against members of a guild you are at war with. There is talk about there also being a node war system, which would presumably function the same but against a node rather than a guild.

    There has also been mention of other possible battlegrounds that have not been discussed. My theory on this (and it is just a theory) is that these will be open world raid level PvE targets where the area around them has the flagging/corruptioon system removed making it effectively a battleground, which will turn the otherwise PvE encounters in to giant PvP targets.

    Now, all of the above is in reference to "battlegrounds", but not to an "arena". Unlike WoW, where these terms are interchangeable, in Ashes they have very different meanings.

    Ashes will have an arena. Presumably those arenas will be used to determine the rulers of military nodes - but outside that they serve no actual function in the world.

    That isn't to say players won't have access to them outside of that, as they will. However, the outcome of a fight in an arena (other than for military node leadership) has no bearing at all in the world.

    If it has no bearing on the world, it has no meaning outside of what meaning players place on it themselves. However, since Ashes will have a multitude of PvP options in the open world, and since these PvP options will have an actual influence on the world, people topping arena PvP ladders will be looked at as little more than people that couldn't handle real PvP.

    People topping arena ladders in games with no point to open world PvP have something of a reason to brag or whatever. People topping arena ladders in games that have a reason and point to open world PvP, however, do not.

    If you PvP to top an artificial ladder, and I PvP to become a literal in game monarch - complete with dragon mount - who do you think will walk away thinking their PvP was more meaningful?
  • @Noaani ;  You've stated it very well.
    Noaani said:
    Ferryman said:
    I really hope you are wrong with your battleground guessing. If there is only really large scale PvP battlegrounds like node and castle sieges, which also happens kind of rarely, then PvP side will be a little bit boring. There is nothing wrong with large scale PvP battles and i think those,are are awesome, but i think we still miss some smaller scale battlegrounds, which can be made daily or few times in week.

    And if devs have not planned anything like this, then i will suggest to implement some. I see lots of opportunities to add meaningfull small objectives all around the world, where small/medium size PvP groups can fight to control those. 
    You seem to be looking at battlegrounds as if this were WoW.

    You talk about them in terms of scheduled or planned events, with one a day limits or quests. I also get the feeling you think they are instanced as per WoW battlegrounds.


    If you PvP to top an artificial ladder, and I PvP to become a literal in game monarch - complete with dragon mount - who do you think will walk away thinking their PvP was more meaningful?

  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited June 2018
    Noaani said:

    Ashes will have an arena. Presumably those arenas will be used to determine the rulers of military nodes - but outside that they serve no actual function in the world.

    It'll basically be different. I'd always thought the Military Node Leader will be decided by an all-out Tournament - each citizens attending the Tournament. 


    For example
    • In the Bleach Anime ... The Original Gotei 13 were actually a band of "skilled-thugs" who later became protectors later on

    Sooo yeah ... i'd imagine that the Leader would be " the strongest " . But Guild Politics will still be a factor to consider. Such as " a rigged tournament ". And probably other things.

    In a nutshell, the image below, along with the Context in the image above ... is ultimately how i view the Military Node ... kinda similar to Bleach's Seireitei  :D


    EDIT: While i originally envision the Tournaments being 1-on-1 ... it could also be other types. Such as Battle Royales, Survival of the Fittest, Solo-Hunting , Group-Hunting-Parties via who can retrieve the most amount of dead-creatures + taken into account how much its worth & the rarity of getting it. And other types ... can't come to mind right now, but you get the gist of it

  • Noaani said:
    " ... people topping arena PvP ladders will be looked at as little more than people that couldn't handle real PvP.... "
    i agree with this in more ways than one. Arena PvP is stupid easy - initially its interesting. But later it'll get too predictable and dull. To where its no longer a challenge. 

    Open-World PvP is very sporadic and guarantee won't get Dull
  • Btw, i also thought that the Military Node Tourney won't be instanced - I figured it'll be part of the Open-World for everyone to see & watch
Sign In or Register to comment.