Lvling via PvP and PvP quests

Personally I love the fact this game's niche is PvP.

I can't wait for the open world PvP both while leveling and at max level.

And I'd actually love it if the game went further and provided questing infrastructure and incentives for PvPing while leveling.

Such as, having not only PvE quests but also PvP quests which either encourage you to take down other players or even demand that you do so.

For example, let's say the same quest path eventually leads you to choose bewteen two communities, each with different quests and quest rewards and reputation rewards.

Each community's quests put you on a path of conflict with the players who chose the other community and it's quests.

For example, the quest from Community 1 demands that you hunt animal X for fur.
Community 2 quests will demand that you taint the furs of animal X to screw Community 1.

Just quests in general that puth players in competition with one another, and groups against other groups.

In general I think you should be able to loot quest items from a player you defeated in pvp if you're on the same quest as him.

Or you could just have quests that require you to kill X players but that would be more boring... not as boring as ''go kill 8 boars'' but still.

But yeah, how would you guys feel about PvP quests being a thing and via them lvling via PvP being a thing?

Personally I'd love it, I mean, you're going to have plenty of open world pvp anyway so why not at least build some infrastructure for it and some extra rewards for it?

How would you design these systems if you want them in the first place?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Ironhope

Dygz wrote: »

I think we already have some of this.
There will be rival PvE quests that result in PvP combat.

Good that's what I was suggesting.

Dygz wrote: »

It's just that PvP kills will not provide xp or rewards.

Yeah but I suggested quests that will award xp and/or other rewards for killing x players in your level range.

I honestly ain't particularly excited with these and like the ''PvE quests creating conflicting interests between players resulting in PvP'' PvP quests a lot more.

Dygz

Ashes already has plenty of PvP.
If what you want is a niche PvP game instead of a PvX game - there are niche PvP games you can play.

Boanergese

Ironhope wrote: »

Boanergese wrote: »

Yes. You are basically removing the corruption system that the developers are implementing.

Boanergese wrote: »

My nine friends and I will ambush you as we level our characters..

How so with it being optional? You can pick the PvP quest up or leave it.

If you aren't feeling prepared for the PvP then leave it and go do the PvE exclusive quests.

Either way, if it was so easy for the other guy to get a PvP-questing group of 9 that means its going to be just as easy for you to match that.

So where's the imbalance and unilateral removal of anything?

I will agree however that zerging is a problem in any pvp mmo-rpg and I've never seen one single mmo-rpg handle it well enough, probably because that's how real life combat works too and when you're trying to emulate real life combat in the cyberspace it's going to naturally suffer from the same intrinsic unpleasantries as the real life thing it's copying.

Boanergese wrote: »

You never have 1 on 1 fights in MMO games.

I disagree. Looking at Classic WoW, BDO, etc I think it's a very common form of wpvp.

Boanergese wrote: »

and higher-level players went to level 1 zones and started killing new players so they couldn't level

1. The examples I've given (community 1 vs community 2) naturally put players of the same lvl range in conflict.
2. The ''kill X players'' simpler quests should only be refering to people in your own level range (as I said in one of the replies to another user's comment)

So these PvP quests just won't work if you're higher level. There will be no point to them and I would agree with corruption being applied to higher levels killing those flagged for pvpquests just as if they hadn't been flagged for pvp in the first place.

So actaully yeah, that's a good idea. Glad something came out of this discussion.

I would pick up the PVP quest giving me a license to kill people. I would not turn in the quest for the experience but would keep it open to give me a reason to "finish the quest" [wink, wink] and keep killing players without having to deal with the corruption system. As a game designer you have to think about how players are going to try to bend your rules when implementing system. There is no way that they could make it level bond. Either the person is an enemy, or they are not an enemy. That is why NPC quests work better where you kill an NPC, or you protect a resource, or you escort someone.

You must have played on the nice WoW servers, because there were no fair fights in Vanilla WoW. There was the situation where you were trying to do a quest and as soon as you got to 20% health from killing the add I came and killed you with my rogue before you could get your health to 100%. There was the situation where my 5 friends hung out in Stranglethorne Vale because it was an area where level 30 players needed to go to get experience and was a wonderful zone to grief people. I played on a PVP server back then where you couldn't turn your flag off so if you joined that server you chose to PVP. That was before Blizzard changed things to make PVP optional. Having a quest where you steal something from a node might be interesting, but having PVP for the purpose of going from level 1 to 50 will not work.

Hasil

I fully support the idea of PvP quests, too -- they would be great.

One of my biggest fears is that PvP in many of its forms/modes is just going to be a giant zerg-fest. I hope that they take time to consider a world design that allows for people to PvP solo and in small groups -- some anti-zerg mechanics, small group objectives (like the caravan), and map design that provides places for all styles of play. 250v250 or 500v500 can be nice, but it's also nice to open-world roam and find those memorable solo and small group fights.

Noaani

PvP quests like this are not really suited to Ashes.

The idea of flag based PvP in Ashes is that you have a specific reason to kill a specific player. That reason could be in game (they have or are about to get a thing you want), or more personal (you just don't like them or their guild).

What Ashes isn't, even if some people would like to see it, 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.

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.

George_Black

Leveling through pvp will bypass the interdepended systems of this big game, lessening the importance of PvE, node development and exploration.

Leveling through pvp can be easily exploited for quick and effortless XP, which in order to prevent would require a fair bit of coding (waste of human resources).

Leveling through pvp will change the dynamic of conflict of interests found IN THE ENTIRE GAME, making it weak sauce.

It will never happen.

Wulfenthrad

I'm seeing a lot of interesting ideas in this thread, and I feel like my opinion on the matter has changed somewhat. I particularly liked CROW3'S idea as to how PVP quests should be structured, if they were to be implemented.

CROW3 wrote: »

If you’re going to have quests related to player conflict, I would make them objective based directly associated with structured pvp. For example, stealing x number of items from a caravan. Making y progress given a node siege. Get z ranks in arena. Or collect x number corrupt player ears for bounty contracts.

The open pvx environment is going to provide enough reward and conflict by itself, with the corruption system acting as guardrails. Yes, it will have to be calibrated in A2 and Beta, but I don’t think a quest system is going to work here.

This is probably the best way to implement a PVP quest system, having there be objectives can be a fantastic way of not only introducing greater variety into a player's routine, as it can open up different ways of playing the game entirely, such as a rogue stealing items from a caravan while the escort is duking it out with bandits, as one such example.

Though what I found really interesting was George_Black's stance.

George_Black wrote: »

Leveling through pvp will bypass the interdepended systems of this big game, lessening the importance of PvE, node development and exploration.

Leveling through pvp can be easily exploited for quick and effortless XP, which in order to prevent would require a fair bit of coding (waste of human resources).

Leveling through pvp will change the dynamic of conflict of interests found IN THE ENTIRE GAME, making it weak sauce.

It will never happen.

Introducing incentives for PVP would indeed lessen the prominence of other aspects of the game. But, so would having PvE be too rewarding, or having node development be vastly more rewarding than exploration. Balancing different elements of the game so that players don't feel pigeonholed into only engaging with specific aspects of the game in order to keep up or catch up can be quite challenging. Yet, at the same time, I don't feel like gating certain ways of play until they hit max is a good way of going about things.

Players should have considerable flexibility as to how they approach the game, especially in a sandbox MMORPG, and if they want to join their bandit friends and raid some caravans, or join epic battles to decide the fate of the continent straight out of the gate, I see no reason why they should have to wade through content they aren't interested in so that they can get to the "good part".

Would it change players' motives? Absolutely. But having various kinds of people interested in a wide variety of things brings forth a far more immersive and interesting world. Letting players decide their own path instead of following the one laid out before them, even if it does mean making a few enemies, should be encouraged.

Though, your concerns about it becoming an ez xp farm are perfectly valid, which is why pvp needs to be balanced against other ways of play. By carefully designing how the pvp reward system is structured, we can prevent this behavior before it even begins. For example, having it tied to objectives tied to objectives instead of kills could make it much more difficult to exploit. Will it be possible to catch every form of xp farm that blows other options out of the water in terms of sheer gains? Probably not. But, we should still be on the lookout for them in every aspect of the game, not just pvp.

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.

Noaani

Wulfenthrad wrote: »

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.

unknownsystemerror

As George Black and others mentioned above, you will not be getting xp or rewards (beyond the possible regular dropped materials for OWpvp.) They know kill trading is a thing and how easily exploitable it would be to do so.

Ironhope

Boanergese wrote: »

I would pick up the PVP quest giving me a license to kill people. I would not turn in the quest for the experience but would keep it open to give me a reason to "finish the quest" [wink, wink] and keep killing players without having to deal with the corruption system.

I think you misunderstood my suggestion Boane (or maybe my coherence in the english language failed me once more and I made myself misunderstood).

My first suggestion was making quests that create conflicting interests between players, so conflict will happen naturally.

Yes I also did suggest ''kill X players (within your level range)'' but I did not say/mean that while on the quest the corruption system will no longer apply to you.

Boanergese wrote: »

There is no way that they could make it level bond

Why not?

Boanergese wrote: »

You must have played on the nice WoW servers,

No I played exclusively on high pop pvp servers and was a total savage myself.

Boanergese wrote: »

because there were no fair fights in Vanilla WoW.

Yes there are plenty (especially in farming areas) but that's irrelevant because yeah many fights are not ''fair'' and that's just an intrinsic aspect of combat both in real life and in the cyber life.

Ironhope

Dygz wrote: »

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.

Ironhope

Noaani wrote: »

PvP quests like this are not really suited to Ashes.

Noaani wrote: »

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?

Noaani wrote: »

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)

Noaani wrote: »

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.

Noaani

Ironhope wrote: »

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.

Ironhope

Noaani wrote: »

In my experience of MMO's, and just the internet in general, people do not need artificial mechanics to generate 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)

Noaani wrote: »

Generating quests that cause pretend, temporary conflict with a player that has an opposing quest is literally what Ashes isn't about.

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.

Noaani wrote: »

They don't need to also artificially generate more conflict.

Whats artificial about my suggested extra method and not the other methods (battlegrounds and areans, sieges, guild wars, etc)?

Define artificial.

Noaani

Ironhope wrote: »

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.

Ironhope

Noaani wrote: »

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.

Noaani wrote: »

If that quest didn't exist, we would have no reason to kill each other, and thus the whole thing is artificial.

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''?

Hasil

Dygz wrote: »

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."

Dygz

Ironhope wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

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."

Noaani

Ironhope wrote: »

Can say the exact same thing about caravans and sieges.

Yes, but they primarily exist for other reasons. They are core aspects of the game. Remove them, and you break other aspects 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.

As such, the conflict they generate is artificial, and only exists for the purpose of the quest.

Wulfenthrad

Noaani wrote: »

Wulfenthrad wrote: »

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.

Child Item