The idea of flag based PvP in Ashes is that you have a specific reason to kill a specific player
And I suggested having quests that lead to players having conflicting interests and thus engaging in PvP naturally.
I also suggested direct PvP quests.
Both are reasons to kill others.
What's the problem and how is this incompatible with AoC?
is a game where you go out looking for some random person to kill because you have a bit of text in your quest journal that tells you to.
That's exactly what large numbers of players are going to do regardless and you're going to have guild wars going on, so no, you're going to have Vietnam style PvP anyway.
As I said I'm not a big fan of the ''just look for x players in your level range to kill'' quests but I think its only fair to give people who take the first change to kill others in wpvp an extra bonus for doing what they like (and are going to do anyway).
But you seem to completley ignore my main suggestion which is (see blow)
The game is introducing specific PvP systems (caravans, wars, sieges, arena, battlegrounds) specifically to retain the meaning of open world PvP - to make it so people have no excuse to just kill people for no reason, even if they are able.
My main suggestion was creating the framework for people to kill eachother in the world because of conflicting interests created by quests, how's that different with any of the other systems? It isn't.
Honestly, nor is the ''look for wpvp'' system either.
And I suggested having quests that lead to players having conflicting interests and thus engaging in PvP naturally.
In my experience of MMO's, and just the internet in general, people do not need artificial mechanics to generate conflict. Generating quests that cause pretend, temporary conflict with a player that has an opposing quest is literally what Ashes isn't about.
Intrepid already have many levers they can pull to encourage or discourage people turning that existing conflict in to PvP. They don't need to also artificially generate more conflict. If they find that there is a lack of PvP in the game once it launches (they will have a target of how much they want), then they can pull on those levers to lower the threshold at which players turn real disagreements in to PvP, rather than just opposing quests or other artificial conflict.
Whats artificial about my suggested extra method and not the other methods (battlegrounds and areans, sieges, guild wars, etc)?
Define artificial.
if you and I have opposing quests and are in the same area to do those quests, resulting in us wanting to attack each other, that is artificial. The reason we want to kill each other is nothing to do with each other, it is to do with a quest. If that quest didn't exist, we would have no reason to kill each other, and thus the whole thing is artificial.
If you and I are in opposing guilds and we come across each other, that is not artificial. If you and I just dislike each other and want to attack each other, it is not artificial.
if you and I have opposing quests and are in the same area to do those quests, resulting in us wanting to attack each other, that is artificial.
1. How is it more artificial than other systems that will be in the game, such as caravans, or sieges, or arenas and bgs?
2. I don't find it artificial as the competition for resources (in my given example NPCs) is a very natural source of conflict. Regardless, I still fail to understand why you think it wouldnt be good for the game.
If what you want is a niche PvP game instead of a PvX game - there are niche PvP games you can play.
I worry that AOC's vision for PvX is going to be even more "niche" than the niche PvP games you are describing. NW's recent success with its flagging system shows that there is a HUGE population of people interested in the sort of faction and flagging system NW had developed -- NW just did a crappy job with it.
In contrast, many of those people who just want to pve or pvp are not going to be interested in a pvx game. I think AOC would be much more successful if they meld together pvp, pve and pvx.
The system of node/guild/etc. identity could fit into this and make it possible, where you are always able to kill people from other nodes, for example. And maybe that's where PvP missions could fit in -- "Kill x # of people from a competing node."
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
If what you want is a niche PvP game instead of a PvX game - there are niche PvP games you can play.
Quote me saying this.
Quote me saying AoC should switch from PvX to exclusively PvP.
"Personally I love the fact this game's niche is PvP."
"Yeah but I suggested quests that will award xp and/or other rewards for killing x players in your level range."
TL;DR Having pvp be more objective focused sounds like a good idea, and I feel like leveling through pvp should be just as viable as, say, gathering or exploring. This would allow players greater flexibility and freedom in how they approach the game.
One of the earliest things Steven said about Ashes that I specifically remember (so, 2017), is that players can not play Ashes if they just want to PvE, nor if they just want to PvP.
While adding these quests won't make it so players can just PvP, the point he made stands. PvP is not for creating progression in Ashes. It is about redistribution of progression that has already been created.
You aren't supposed to go in to this game with a PvP mindset.
I do agree that the game would suffer if there were one predominant way to level, I also don't see we can't have pvp compliment pve progression. Of course, it doesn't need to be through quests specifically, we can leverage mechanics that are already planned for the game. For example, we could have bounties and arenas offer considerable xp. You are correct about what Steven said, yet why must a player's time leveling be an exception to that guideline?
Though, what do you mean by redistribution of already existing progression? From what I read the closest thing OP says to redistribution is competition. From which, I assume, the winner gets more rewards or xp. Sure, players could die during the event and potentially lose xp, but that's part of the considerable risk of doing pvp. I don't feel like I entirely understand this point and would appreciate if you could elaborate further.
While the game is much more than just pvp, when the game shows off and brags about its sieges and epic battles, it naturally attracts players who are interested in that kind of content. It seems kind of off putting to pull them in with with that and then tell them they have to do one hundred hours of PvE leveling before they can engage with that content.
You are correct about what Steven said, yet why must a player's time leveling be an exception to that guideline?
It isn't an exception.
There is no crossover in what PvE and PvP rewards in Ashes.
PvE generates wealth (coin, materials, items etc), and generates experience. PvP simply redistributes it.
PvP doesn't generate anything at all in Ashes. If you kill a player and they drop materials, those materials were generated in PvE, and simplhy redistributed in your direction via PvP.
The same is effectively true with experience. You do gain some experience in PvP when you kill a player (at least that is the current plan). However, it is not a lot of experience, and it is experience that the player you kill loses (they gain debt experience, but that simply means they lose experience they are about to gain, rather than experience they have already gained).
Thus, PvP is never generating anything new in the game. Everything in the game world (materials, items, coin, buildings, mounts, experience, ships, everything) is generated in PvE, and has the chance of being redistributed via PvP.
Changing it so that PvP generates new things (in this case, experience) completely changes the game.
I'm not sure why you were looking through the OP for any reference towards this, as it is a basic function of the design of the game.
If your quests were not in the game, nothing would be broken. They would exist solely for the purpose of existing, and do not matter.
PvE quests creating conflicting interests between players so PvP happens wouldn't exist just for hte purpose of existing, they would exist for the purpose of encouraging players to do something fun, PvP.
PvP quests asking you to kill X amount of players in your level range would simply reward you for something you (a pvper) will realistically do anyway every chance you get. So it would allow people who want to lvl based on pvp (or also based on pvp) to do so. It wouldn't exist just for he purpose of existing.
For example, we could have bounties and arenas offer considerable xp. You are correct about what Steven said, yet why must a player's time leveling be an exception to that guideline?
From which, I assume, the winner gets more rewards or xp. Sure, players could die during the event and potentially lose xp, but that's part of the considerable risk of doing pvp.
Exatly.
Don't want to PvP? Don't.
But you're not going to be as successful with said quests.
You are correct about what Steven said, yet why must a player's time leveling be an exception to that guideline?
It isn't an exception.
There is no crossover in what PvE and PvP rewards in Ashes.
PvE generates wealth (coin, materials, items etc), and generates experience. PvP simply redistributes it.
PvP doesn't generate anything at all in Ashes. If you kill a player and they drop materials, those materials were generated in PvE, and simplhy redistributed in your direction via PvP.
Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting, but hasn't Stephen expressed an interest in adding a progression system for arenas? In a 2017 interview, at about the 26:30 mark, he says that you might get pvp related potions and advancements. Is that not item generation and progression through pvp? Even if those rewards stay within the pvp system, I think that farming arenas for potions generates some value does it not?
While reading through the wiki, I recently discovered that objective based pvp events, such as caravans and castle sieges, don't lose you any experience so unless they don't generate any xp, then would it not be reasonable to assume that a player can progress through leveling? While yes, much of the in game wealth will probably be produced during PvE, I'm generally talking about experience, and with no xp sink on objectives, the only way that xp progression can be prevented during them is preventing players from gaining xp from them in the first place, and I just don't see Intrepid doing that.
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Ashes has a bunch of different types of progression.
Ironhope is hoping to have quests that increase Adventurer progression through xp gained from PvP.
PvE quests creating conflicting interests between players so PvP happens wouldn't exist just for hte purpose of existing, they would exist for the purpose of encouraging players to do something fun, PvP.
PvE quests give players the option (and usually this option is more advantageous) to cooperate, rather than compete or conflict.
PvP quests obviously aren't giving this option.
The only way cooperation would work in a PvP quesr scenario is to trade kills, and this is something Intrepid would need to design to prevent, as opposed to promote a cooperative approach.
0
Options
AzryilMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The only way cooperation would work in a PvP quesr scenario is to trade kills, and this is something Intrepid would need to design to prevent, as opposed to promote a cooperative approach.
I don't think that is strictly true. It may be the most efficient way if all your after is killing X number of players quests, but PvP quests could be related to other PvP objectives in the game like Sieges or Caravans. Additionally players could group up to fight other players in the world. I think the bigger issue with PvP quests may be the nature of how respawning work and how large the world is, you won't realistically be able to get multiple kills off the same player unless the PvP takes place right next to a town so it could end up taking a long time to get many kills unless large groups of players are fighting each other in the world.
0
Options
Geophysical NinjaMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
While yes, much of the in game wealth will probably be produced during PvE, I'm generally talking about experience, and with no xp sink on objectives, the only way that xp progression can be prevented during them is preventing players from gaining xp from them in the first place, and I just don't see Intrepid doing that.
You are correct that the current plan is to not lose experience in caravans and such.
However, there are two different points to make in relation to why Intrepid most likely won't award experience for them.
The first point is that when running a personal caravan (the type that will be most common, and the only real type worth discussing), the only people that stands to lose anything at all are the owner of the caravan itself, and the person that owns the materials in the caravan (usually the same person, but not always).
If you and I are just minding our own business out in Verra, and a caravan comes along, I could chose to attack it, and you could chose to defend it. Then, we could both just ignore the caravan and farm each other for experience. Neither of us stand to lose anything regardless of what happens to the caravan, there is no experience or item loss, and so any experience gained is just pure exploited experience.
The second point is in relation to the actual point and intent Intrepid have behind having no experience loss in such events.
The point of running a caravan is to move materials you have from one point to another (again, personal caravans). The point of attacking a caravan is supposed to be to claim some or all of those materials. You will notice that neither of these - the person running the caravan or the person attacking the caravan - have PvP as a specific point behind their actions from a game design purpose.
In these situations, PvP is the method for the action, not the point of the action. Understanding that this is the entire games philosophy is key to understanding the game.
Now, Intrepid looked at this and they decided they wanted to make it so a random person coming across a caravan under attack or a node siege or some such was not given specific reasons to not assist on one side or the other. The biggest reason they would have for not assisting is the death penalty. So, if you remove that death penalty, these random passers by are more likely to assist.
Again though, this isn't an assist in the PvP, it is an assist with the caravan, or the siege, the PvP is just the method or means - the caravan or siege is the object of that assistance, that is the important thing. They are going out of their way to make it so that players have no material reason (experience counts ass a material reason, fun doesn't) to join or not join an attack or defense of a caravan or a siege, other than specifically for the object of that action.
If you cast a rational and unbiased eye over the above second point, it makes no real sense to award experience for kills in these PvP settings. Perhaps experience for winning a siege is in order, or experience for taking a caravan, but these are the objects, not the PvP itself - and even then I would only go so far as to say perhaps. Adding experience as a reward in any capacity adds a material reason other than the object, which Intrepid are trying to avoid.
I am assuming you were lacking the context of Intrepids reasons for removing death penalties on caravans and such. Without that context, your perspective here could make sense. It is still easily exploitable, but it could make sense (or at least be a very valid point to argue).
However, when you take on board that context, awarding experience for such things seems to be an unlikely scenario, at best.
I think the bigger issue with PvP quests may be the nature of how respawning work and how large the world is, you won't realistically be able to get multiple kills off the same player
Other than knowing corrupt players respawn randomly when killed, we don't really know all that much about respawning. Non-corrupt players respawn at the closest location.
Corruption isn't a factor in the types of PvP we are talking about here, so spawn locations will be somewhat known.
0
Options
Geophysical NinjaMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
So everything you described is basically forced PvP, which Ashes has, but in the form of PvP Themes.
Forced....
... do you come into a niche pvp game and expect to level out there in the world without world pvp?
WoW Vanilla esentially did what I just suggested (but with different systems), sending players with conflicting interests in the same areas to encourage wpvp.... and people back then and in modern times (with the release of WoW classic) loved it.
I mean, that's what this kind of game is supposed to be, an adventure. Adventures are intrinsincly challenging.
But no, it wouldn't be forced. In the example I gave you can just not pick the PvP quest or you can just let the players of the competitor quest-giver community ruin the npc furts so you spend 10 times more time on the quest. I guess that would be an option too.
Either that, or the things you have mentioned involve killing other players through the flagging system, which would be detrimental to your development due to corruption.
I guess you would just have to look for people who are flagged for PvP and ignore the hippies.
This is not a niche PvP game. This is, and has always been described as a PvX game. There will be designed PvP content, and there will be designed PvE content.
From Steven:
Ashes is a comprehensive game. It is not a PvP focused or a PvE focused, it is a comprehensive PvX game and as a result these systems are all interconnected and have to coexist with one another with certain types of mechanisms that can provide that give and take, that push and shove
Dramatic changes to the core systems as described throw that designed system away.
While yes, much of the in game wealth will probably be produced during PvE, I'm generally talking about experience, and with no xp sink on objectives, the only way that xp progression can be prevented during them is preventing players from gaining xp from them in the first place, and I just don't see Intrepid doing that.
You are correct that the current plan is to not lose experience in caravans and such.
However, there are two different points to make in relation to why Intrepid most likely won't award experience for them.
The first point is that when running a personal caravan (the type that will be most common, and the only real type worth discussing), the only people that stands to lose anything at all are the owner of the caravan itself, and the person that owns the materials in the caravan (usually the same person, but not always).
If you and I are just minding our own business out in Verra, and a caravan comes along, I could chose to attack it, and you could chose to defend it. Then, we could both just ignore the caravan and farm each other for experience. Neither of us stand to lose anything regardless of what happens to the caravan, there is no experience or item loss, and so any experience gained is just pure exploited experience.
Having participation play a primary role in gaining is already a common way to ensure that players are participating in events instead of going AFK and gaining xp for no effort. For example, in GW2 and FF14, you have to actively contribute to get any reward from their open world events, with greater reward tiers for varying levels of participation, being capped at the highest tier, upon completion of the event. So, within this context, if you're raiding a caravan your participation will increase as you damage and kill other players to secure the objective before getting your reward at the end of the event, in this case the successful attack or defense of the caravan.
When it comes to what attackers have to lose, they have an inherent time sink in raiding the caravan and the opportunity cost of doing other things in the world. Not to mention any consumables like buffs or potions to gain an advantage.
While yes, much of the in game wealth will probably be produced during PvE, I'm generally talking about experience, and with no xp sink on objectives, the only way that xp progression can be prevented during them is preventing players from gaining xp from them in the first place, and I just don't see Intrepid doing that.
The second point is in relation to the actual point and intent Intrepid have behind having no experience loss in such events.
The point of running a caravan is to move materials you have from one point to another (again, personal caravans). The point of attacking a caravan is supposed to be to claim some or all of those materials. You will notice that neither of these - the person running the caravan or the person attacking the caravan - have PvP as a specific point behind their actions from a game design purpose.
In these situations, PvP is the method for the action, not the point of the action. Understanding that this is the entire games philosophy is key to understanding the game.
Now, Intrepid looked at this and they decided they wanted to make it so a random person coming across a caravan under attack or a node siege or some such was not given specific reasons to not assist on one side or the other. The biggest reason they would have for not assisting is the death penalty. So, if you remove that death penalty, these random passers by are more likely to assist.
Again though, this isn't an assist in the PvP, it is an assist with the caravan, or the siege, the PvP is just the method or means - the caravan or siege is the object of that assistance, that is the important thing. They are going out of their way to make it so that players have no material reason (experience counts ass a material reason, fun doesn't) to join or not join an attack or defense of a caravan or a siege, other than specifically for the object of that action.
If you cast a rational and unbiased eye over the above second point, it makes no real sense to award experience for kills in these PvP settings. Perhaps experience for winning a siege is in order, or experience for taking a caravan, but these are the objects, not the PvP itself - and even then I would only go so far as to say perhaps. Adding experience as a reward in any capacity adds a material reason other than the object, which Intrepid are trying to avoid.
I am assuming you were lacking the context of Intrepids reasons for removing death penalties on caravans and such. Without that context, your perspective here could make sense. It is still easily exploitable, but it could make sense (or at least be a very valid point to argue).
However, when you take on board that context, awarding experience for such things seems to be an unlikely scenario, at best.
With the idea of PvP being a means to an end instead of an end to itself, couldn't you expand that to encompass the game? Players don't raid to play through challenging content, the just do it for the loot, going through it is just a means to an end. Players don't wander the forest or explore the caves, they just do it to get the resources. Taking that line of thought down to its conclusion leaves us a game devoid of the fantasy of a fantasy game, where instead of playing the game to slay dragons or make friends, it's about maximizing resource acquisition.
For many players, they want the experience of taking down a dragon, or exploring the depths, or robbing that unfortunate soul who thought they could cheap out on that escort. Players should choose how they want to play in a sandbox mmorpg without without feeling like the way they're playing isn't valid, which does seem align with how leveling, and the greater game as a whole, is being designed in general. Admittedly, I didn't know this when I wrote my first post, but PvP is already planned to grant players experience, so a player could decide to lean towards PvP and still progress through the game's leveling system without being handicapped too hard.
I understand that you don't simply want people to be murder hobos and run down every caravan and its uncle to rush through the leveling process, and I would agree with you that shouldn't happen. But, PvP is a valid activity and players shouldn't be punished for engaging in it by falling behind everyone else.
As a side note, "rational and unbiased eye over the above second point, it makes no real sense to award experience for kills in these PvP settings", "Without that context, your perspective here could make sense." really? It's a bit difficult to have fruitful conversation when someone implies a sense of superiority over someone else. We're both just people writing several paragraph long forum posts for something we're excited for, and we can both learn from each other if we move forward in a more civil manner.
Having participation play a primary role in gaining is already a common way to ensure that players are participating in events instead of going AFK and gaining xp for no effort. For example, in GW2 and FF14, you have to actively contribute to get any reward from their open world events, with greater reward tiers for varying levels of participation, being capped at the highest tier, upon completion of the event. So, within this context, if you're raiding a caravan your participation will increase as you damage and kill other players to secure the objective before getting your reward at the end of the event, in this case the successful attack or defense of the caravan.
When it comes to what attackers have to lose, they have an inherent time sink in raiding the caravan and the opportunity cost of doing other things in the world. Not to mention any consumables like buffs or potions to gain an advantage.
Based on this response, I am going to assume I didn't do an overly good job of explaining things - as most of this has nothing at all to do with anything.
So, rather than try and go over any of this, I'll attempt to reiterate my previous point.
If a player is out in the world, and a caravan comes past, Intrepid want them to join the fight *IF* they have reason to care about that caravan. It may be that the caravan is coming from or going to a node where they do business and they don't want supply interrupted. It could be that they do business there and they DO want supply interrupted.
The key thing is, if that person has a reason to want to join the fight on either side, they should be able to without issue.
Intrepid aren't concerned if people that don't have any skin in the game don't join the fight. In fact, it seems to me that they are quite happy to keep those people out of the fight.
The object of caravans is not to get as much PvP participation as possible, it is to add some risk to the transfer of materials. it is worth noting that if too many caravans fail to reach their destination, the games economy (and likely the game itself) will grind to a very definite halt - and more people joining in on caravans means more caravans not making it to their destination.
As a side note, "rational and unbiased eye over the above second point, it makes no real sense to award experience for kills in these PvP settings", "Without that context, your perspective here could make sense." really? It's a bit difficult to have fruitful conversation when someone implies a sense of superiority over someone else. We're both just people writing several paragraph long forum posts for something we're excited for, and we can both learn from each other if we move forward in a more civil manner.
I was suggesting that you look at it with that rational and unbiased eye (as I assume you are able to do that), not that I am doing that and you can't.
As I said, I am assuming you were missing the reasoning behind why Intrepid have removed the death penalty from caravans and such. When you put that reasoning back in place, and look at the whole situation with that rational and unbiased eye, not having experience gained on kills in such PvP situations seems the only real option.
If they have experience on PvP kills for caravans, they create a situation that players can exploit for experience gain, and also create a reward that will see people join caravans for reasons other than the caravan itself. If they do not have experience gain but also have no experience loss, then they create a situation where people will only join in on the caravan (attack or defense) if they have reason to do so, but there is no barrier to them doing so (lost opportunity cost is not really a reason- either people will have something planned and will just do that anyway, or they will have nothing planned and so would likely have done nothing in that time).
So again, look over it with that rational and unbiased eye, and see what you see.
Ashes has a bunch of different types of progression.
Ironhope is hoping to have quests that increase Adventurer progression through xp gained from PvP.
XP, items, reputation leading to items, yeah the general quest stuff.
Ashes has a bunch of different types of progression.
Ironhope is hoping to have quests that increase Adventurer progression through xp gained from PvP.
XP, items, reputation leading to items, yeah the general quest stuff.
Steven has specifically said PvP will not reward this kind of thing.
One day you will understand what this game is about. That day is not today - but I have hope.
then your point about quests being a core, basic aspect of the game is redundant
Lets recap.
I said PvP quests would be cool.
You said they wouldn't because it would be artificial.
I proved they're as artificial as the other systems of the game such as caravan, sieges or guild wars.
You said that yes those are also artificial but it's okay because they're core aspects of the game.
Well, quests are core aspects of the game too.
So I'm back at:
There is no difference between PvP quests and the other systems we already got in the game.
It's completely in the game's spirit.
Comments
Quote me saying this.
Quote me saying AoC should switch from PvX to exclusively PvP.
And I suggested having quests that lead to players having conflicting interests and thus engaging in PvP naturally.
I also suggested direct PvP quests.
Both are reasons to kill others.
What's the problem and how is this incompatible with AoC?
That's exactly what large numbers of players are going to do regardless and you're going to have guild wars going on, so no, you're going to have Vietnam style PvP anyway.
As I said I'm not a big fan of the ''just look for x players in your level range to kill'' quests but I think its only fair to give people who take the first change to kill others in wpvp an extra bonus for doing what they like (and are going to do anyway).
But you seem to completley ignore my main suggestion which is (see blow)
My main suggestion was creating the framework for people to kill eachother in the world because of conflicting interests created by quests, how's that different with any of the other systems? It isn't.
Honestly, nor is the ''look for wpvp'' system either.
Intrepid already have many levers they can pull to encourage or discourage people turning that existing conflict in to PvP. They don't need to also artificially generate more conflict. If they find that there is a lack of PvP in the game once it launches (they will have a target of how much they want), then they can pull on those levers to lower the threshold at which players turn real disagreements in to PvP, rather than just opposing quests or other artificial conflict.
People love Arenas and Battleground and its one of the, if not the most appreciated form of PvP is many of the most notable mmo-rpgs.
A game should create the infrastructure to encourage gameplay, this is what I'm suggesting there (a method of)
Source for this claim?
Ashes if a PvP game, I suggested PvP quests, how is it ''literally what AOC isn't about?'', it's totally what AOC is about.
Whats artificial about my suggested extra method and not the other methods (battlegrounds and areans, sieges, guild wars, etc)?
Define artificial.
if you and I have opposing quests and are in the same area to do those quests, resulting in us wanting to attack each other, that is artificial. The reason we want to kill each other is nothing to do with each other, it is to do with a quest. If that quest didn't exist, we would have no reason to kill each other, and thus the whole thing is artificial.
If you and I are in opposing guilds and we come across each other, that is not artificial. If you and I just dislike each other and want to attack each other, it is not artificial.
1. How is it more artificial than other systems that will be in the game, such as caravans, or sieges, or arenas and bgs?
2. I don't find it artificial as the competition for resources (in my given example NPCs) is a very natural source of conflict. Regardless, I still fail to understand why you think it wouldnt be good for the game.
Can say the exact same thing about caravans and sieges.
Am I to understand you want them removed from the game because ''they're artificial''?
I worry that AOC's vision for PvX is going to be even more "niche" than the niche PvP games you are describing. NW's recent success with its flagging system shows that there is a HUGE population of people interested in the sort of faction and flagging system NW had developed -- NW just did a crappy job with it.
In contrast, many of those people who just want to pve or pvp are not going to be interested in a pvx game. I think AOC would be much more successful if they meld together pvp, pve and pvx.
The system of node/guild/etc. identity could fit into this and make it possible, where you are always able to kill people from other nodes, for example. And maybe that's where PvP missions could fit in -- "Kill x # of people from a competing node."
"Yeah but I suggested quests that will award xp and/or other rewards for killing x players in your level range."
If your quests were not in the game, nothing would be broken. They would exist solely for the purpose of existing, and do not matter.
As such, the conflict they generate is artificial, and only exists for the purpose of the quest.
I do agree that the game would suffer if there were one predominant way to level, I also don't see we can't have pvp compliment pve progression. Of course, it doesn't need to be through quests specifically, we can leverage mechanics that are already planned for the game. For example, we could have bounties and arenas offer considerable xp. You are correct about what Steven said, yet why must a player's time leveling be an exception to that guideline?
Though, what do you mean by redistribution of already existing progression? From what I read the closest thing OP says to redistribution is competition. From which, I assume, the winner gets more rewards or xp. Sure, players could die during the event and potentially lose xp, but that's part of the considerable risk of doing pvp. I don't feel like I entirely understand this point and would appreciate if you could elaborate further.
While the game is much more than just pvp, when the game shows off and brags about its sieges and epic battles, it naturally attracts players who are interested in that kind of content. It seems kind of off putting to pull them in with with that and then tell them they have to do one hundred hours of PvE leveling before they can engage with that content.
There is no crossover in what PvE and PvP rewards in Ashes.
PvE generates wealth (coin, materials, items etc), and generates experience. PvP simply redistributes it.
PvP doesn't generate anything at all in Ashes. If you kill a player and they drop materials, those materials were generated in PvE, and simplhy redistributed in your direction via PvP.
The same is effectively true with experience. You do gain some experience in PvP when you kill a player (at least that is the current plan). However, it is not a lot of experience, and it is experience that the player you kill loses (they gain debt experience, but that simply means they lose experience they are about to gain, rather than experience they have already gained).
Thus, PvP is never generating anything new in the game. Everything in the game world (materials, items, coin, buildings, mounts, experience, ships, everything) is generated in PvE, and has the chance of being redistributed via PvP.
Changing it so that PvP generates new things (in this case, experience) completely changes the game.
I'm not sure why you were looking through the OP for any reference towards this, as it is a basic function of the design of the game.
Questing is a core, basic aspect of the game.
It's a core, basic aspect of any mmo-rpg.
PvE quests creating conflicting interests between players so PvP happens wouldn't exist just for hte purpose of existing, they would exist for the purpose of encouraging players to do something fun, PvP.
PvP quests asking you to kill X amount of players in your level range would simply reward you for something you (a pvper) will realistically do anyway every chance you get. So it would allow people who want to lvl based on pvp (or also based on pvp) to do so. It wouldn't exist just for he purpose of existing.
I never suggested that this should be the predominant way of leveling.
My main suggestion is for PvE quests that create conflicting interests between players who can go for PvP or not if they so choose to.
Yeah exacty.
Exatly.
Don't want to PvP? Don't.
But you're not going to be as successful with said quests.
Did they say that you will absolutely NOT have rewards for bgs, arenas, guild wars, etc?
Because virtually all top mmo-rpgs do that (rewards for PvP).
Maybe it (them saying that) got past me, please clarify.
Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting, but hasn't Stephen expressed an interest in adding a progression system for arenas? In a 2017 interview, at about the 26:30 mark, he says that you might get pvp related potions and advancements. Is that not item generation and progression through pvp? Even if those rewards stay within the pvp system, I think that farming arenas for potions generates some value does it not?
While reading through the wiki, I recently discovered that objective based pvp events, such as caravans and castle sieges, don't lose you any experience so unless they don't generate any xp, then would it not be reasonable to assume that a player can progress through leveling? While yes, much of the in game wealth will probably be produced during PvE, I'm generally talking about experience, and with no xp sink on objectives, the only way that xp progression can be prevented during them is preventing players from gaining xp from them in the first place, and I just don't see Intrepid doing that.
Some sources I used:
Interview with timestamp on arena progression
Wiki page for PvP, it should be before the table of contents
Ironhope is hoping to have quests that increase Adventurer progression through xp gained from PvP.
I was unaware your position was PvP quests or no quests at all.
That is an odd position for you to take, but hey, feel free to defend it.
PvE quests give players the option (and usually this option is more advantageous) to cooperate, rather than compete or conflict.
PvP quests obviously aren't giving this option.
The only way cooperation would work in a PvP quesr scenario is to trade kills, and this is something Intrepid would need to design to prevent, as opposed to promote a cooperative approach.
I don't think that is strictly true. It may be the most efficient way if all your after is killing X number of players quests, but PvP quests could be related to other PvP objectives in the game like Sieges or Caravans. Additionally players could group up to fight other players in the world. I think the bigger issue with PvP quests may be the nature of how respawning work and how large the world is, you won't realistically be able to get multiple kills off the same player unless the PvP takes place right next to a town so it could end up taking a long time to get many kills unless large groups of players are fighting each other in the world.
The only thing to add is that my favorite definition of conflict is "two people in the same country."
However, there are two different points to make in relation to why Intrepid most likely won't award experience for them.
The first point is that when running a personal caravan (the type that will be most common, and the only real type worth discussing), the only people that stands to lose anything at all are the owner of the caravan itself, and the person that owns the materials in the caravan (usually the same person, but not always).
If you and I are just minding our own business out in Verra, and a caravan comes along, I could chose to attack it, and you could chose to defend it. Then, we could both just ignore the caravan and farm each other for experience. Neither of us stand to lose anything regardless of what happens to the caravan, there is no experience or item loss, and so any experience gained is just pure exploited experience.
The second point is in relation to the actual point and intent Intrepid have behind having no experience loss in such events.
The point of running a caravan is to move materials you have from one point to another (again, personal caravans). The point of attacking a caravan is supposed to be to claim some or all of those materials. You will notice that neither of these - the person running the caravan or the person attacking the caravan - have PvP as a specific point behind their actions from a game design purpose.
In these situations, PvP is the method for the action, not the point of the action. Understanding that this is the entire games philosophy is key to understanding the game.
Now, Intrepid looked at this and they decided they wanted to make it so a random person coming across a caravan under attack or a node siege or some such was not given specific reasons to not assist on one side or the other. The biggest reason they would have for not assisting is the death penalty. So, if you remove that death penalty, these random passers by are more likely to assist.
Again though, this isn't an assist in the PvP, it is an assist with the caravan, or the siege, the PvP is just the method or means - the caravan or siege is the object of that assistance, that is the important thing. They are going out of their way to make it so that players have no material reason (experience counts ass a material reason, fun doesn't) to join or not join an attack or defense of a caravan or a siege, other than specifically for the object of that action.
If you cast a rational and unbiased eye over the above second point, it makes no real sense to award experience for kills in these PvP settings. Perhaps experience for winning a siege is in order, or experience for taking a caravan, but these are the objects, not the PvP itself - and even then I would only go so far as to say perhaps. Adding experience as a reward in any capacity adds a material reason other than the object, which Intrepid are trying to avoid.
I am assuming you were lacking the context of Intrepids reasons for removing death penalties on caravans and such. Without that context, your perspective here could make sense. It is still easily exploitable, but it could make sense (or at least be a very valid point to argue).
However, when you take on board that context, awarding experience for such things seems to be an unlikely scenario, at best.
Corruption isn't a factor in the types of PvP we are talking about here, so spawn locations will be somewhat known.
This is not a niche PvP game. This is, and has always been described as a PvX game. There will be designed PvP content, and there will be designed PvE content.
From Steven:
Dramatic changes to the core systems as described throw that designed system away.
I'm sorry that you have issues with hippies.
Having participation play a primary role in gaining is already a common way to ensure that players are participating in events instead of going AFK and gaining xp for no effort. For example, in GW2 and FF14, you have to actively contribute to get any reward from their open world events, with greater reward tiers for varying levels of participation, being capped at the highest tier, upon completion of the event. So, within this context, if you're raiding a caravan your participation will increase as you damage and kill other players to secure the objective before getting your reward at the end of the event, in this case the successful attack or defense of the caravan.
When it comes to what attackers have to lose, they have an inherent time sink in raiding the caravan and the opportunity cost of doing other things in the world. Not to mention any consumables like buffs or potions to gain an advantage.
With the idea of PvP being a means to an end instead of an end to itself, couldn't you expand that to encompass the game? Players don't raid to play through challenging content, the just do it for the loot, going through it is just a means to an end. Players don't wander the forest or explore the caves, they just do it to get the resources. Taking that line of thought down to its conclusion leaves us a game devoid of the fantasy of a fantasy game, where instead of playing the game to slay dragons or make friends, it's about maximizing resource acquisition.
For many players, they want the experience of taking down a dragon, or exploring the depths, or robbing that unfortunate soul who thought they could cheap out on that escort. Players should choose how they want to play in a sandbox mmorpg without without feeling like the way they're playing isn't valid, which does seem align with how leveling, and the greater game as a whole, is being designed in general. Admittedly, I didn't know this when I wrote my first post, but PvP is already planned to grant players experience, so a player could decide to lean towards PvP and still progress through the game's leveling system without being handicapped too hard.
I understand that you don't simply want people to be murder hobos and run down every caravan and its uncle to rush through the leveling process, and I would agree with you that shouldn't happen. But, PvP is a valid activity and players shouldn't be punished for engaging in it by falling behind everyone else.
As a side note, "rational and unbiased eye over the above second point, it makes no real sense to award experience for kills in these PvP settings", "Without that context, your perspective here could make sense." really? It's a bit difficult to have fruitful conversation when someone implies a sense of superiority over someone else. We're both just people writing several paragraph long forum posts for something we're excited for, and we can both learn from each other if we move forward in a more civil manner.
So, rather than try and go over any of this, I'll attempt to reiterate my previous point.
If a player is out in the world, and a caravan comes past, Intrepid want them to join the fight *IF* they have reason to care about that caravan. It may be that the caravan is coming from or going to a node where they do business and they don't want supply interrupted. It could be that they do business there and they DO want supply interrupted.
The key thing is, if that person has a reason to want to join the fight on either side, they should be able to without issue.
Intrepid aren't concerned if people that don't have any skin in the game don't join the fight. In fact, it seems to me that they are quite happy to keep those people out of the fight.
The object of caravans is not to get as much PvP participation as possible, it is to add some risk to the transfer of materials. it is worth noting that if too many caravans fail to reach their destination, the games economy (and likely the game itself) will grind to a very definite halt - and more people joining in on caravans means more caravans not making it to their destination. I was suggesting that you look at it with that rational and unbiased eye (as I assume you are able to do that), not that I am doing that and you can't.
As I said, I am assuming you were missing the reasoning behind why Intrepid have removed the death penalty from caravans and such. When you put that reasoning back in place, and look at the whole situation with that rational and unbiased eye, not having experience gained on kills in such PvP situations seems the only real option.
If they have experience on PvP kills for caravans, they create a situation that players can exploit for experience gain, and also create a reward that will see people join caravans for reasons other than the caravan itself. If they do not have experience gain but also have no experience loss, then they create a situation where people will only join in on the caravan (attack or defense) if they have reason to do so, but there is no barrier to them doing so (lost opportunity cost is not really a reason- either people will have something planned and will just do that anyway, or they will have nothing planned and so would likely have done nothing in that time).
So again, look over it with that rational and unbiased eye, and see what you see.
XP, items, reputation leading to items, yeah the general quest stuff.
Its not, I'm not sure where you understood this from.
Of course it would.
Team up with a friend to cooperate in killing other players.
We all agree the game will have quests, so that core basic aspect is covered. Why bring it up? I didn't say you can't cooperate on PvP quests, I said you can't cooperate in place of competing.
While you can group up with people to complete PvP quests, you can not complete them without conflict - other than by kill trading.
Steven has specifically said PvP will not reward this kind of thing.
One day you will understand what this game is about. That day is not today - but I have hope.
Lets recap.
I said PvP quests would be cool.
You said they wouldn't because it would be artificial.
I proved they're as artificial as the other systems of the game such as caravan, sieges or guild wars.
You said that yes those are also artificial but it's okay because they're core aspects of the game.
Well, quests are core aspects of the game too.
So I'm back at:
There is no difference between PvP quests and the other systems we already got in the game.
It's completely in the game's spirit.
I'm still not sure what you mean.
Maybe it's me maybe it's you.
Can you rephrase please?
Obviously kill trading would be made to not count for the quest's success.