Steven has specifically said PvP will not reward this kind of thing.
1. I never said Steven said PvP will award anything. I suggested they add something to the game. This time my english was clear and my idea coherent and you misunderstand is 100% your problem Noaani.
2.
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?
So yeah it does appear there will be PvP rewards... and its only logical that there will be.
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.
Its going to be a PvP heavy PvX game.
All it's core mechanics are PvP based. Nodes, caravans, gathering, etc
Dramatic changes to the core systems as described throw that designed system away.
Nothing I just suggested represents a dramatic change to anything.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Ironhope.
You haven't proven anything.
The devs have designed their systems to have the balance of PvX that they want.
Just as they have designed Corruption to have the balance they want.
Some people want Corruption to be more harsh, some people want Corruption to be less harsh.
There is nothing there to prove. Sharing more about your opinion is fine.
But, most people here will tell you to wait until we test the design - since that is what we're going to have to do anyway.
Most likely, the devs are not going to change that aspect of their design.
But, it's not impossible.
I proved they're as artificial as the other systems of the game such as caravan, sieges or guild wars.
No you didn't.
You made a baseless statement to that fact, and didn't back it up.
When it was pointed out that the things you are talking about impact other aspects of the game, you returned by saying that quests are important too - yet we are not talking about a situation of quests vs no quests.
I would agree with you that quests in general are as important as sieges and caravans. However, that is not the topic here - which is why I questioned why you had suddenly moved on to suggesting that it is PvP quests or no quests.
If you are not arguing that it should be your quest idea or no quests, then using quests as a counter to the fact that sieges and caravans are core components of the game that affect other aspects of the game .
So, the way I see it, either you need to take up the argument that it should be PvP quests or no quests, or you need to go back and address the following;
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.
I'm quite happy for you to pick up either of these, but that is where the conversation currently is.
0
Options
RepkarMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Honest, I enjoy the idea of PVP quests, but New World kind of burned me on them. I think PVP quests would be great as long as higher level players weren't rewarded for camping lower level players. In NW you could get a ton of XP just for killing a player miles lower than you in level. Sadly the only way to combat this issue would be to instance PVP quests based on your level (sort of like RuneScape Wilderness circa 2006), or to punish high level players for choosing the murder hobo path. Other than those glaring issues, I would be excited for PVP quests.
A side note, if you did the RuneScape path, or the instanced path, there would eventually be a void in leveling while in PVP at low level because it would eventually become unpopular, so the next question would be, how can we make low level PVP have a point with a smaller number of players.
When it was pointed out that the things you are talking about impact other aspects of the game, you returned by saying that quests are important too - yet we are not talking about a situation of quests vs no quests.
You said that it's okay for caravans and sieges to be ''arificial forms of pvp'' (based on your own definition) because they're core aspects of the game.
I said quests are core aspects of the game oto, it's a mmo-rpg, quests are always core aspects of any mmo-rpg.
This is why my point stands.
This is the final time I repeat myself on this matter.
I was clear enough this time.
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.
I thank you for clarifying your point, but at the same time this still feels off. Isn't PvP essential for securing the objective in the first place? Caravan raiding would get pretty wonky if it just involved running past the player escort and stealing their goods before the player escort could take you down. A point I've been driving home for a few posts now is making PvP a valid way of progressing through the game's leveling system. If you have the game have a big marker on the world map and reward ludicrous amounts of xp, then you will see that degenerate situation where nothing in the world gets done. But, you will have to find the caravan in the first place, and PvE will probably be more consistent. But, it's about balancing this system with everything else in the world. It's about ensuring that the player's time is respected and not looked down upon because it's not the "right" way to play. Where a player can advance through the game while engaging with the content they want. Sure, if I run into a caravan that needs help, that experience might be enough to get me to help if I'm so inclined, or I could focus on what I was already doing and move on, but I shouldn't flowchart because one decision is far more rewarding or detrimental to the other.
As for raiding caravans happening constantly, the game
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.
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.
From what I've been reading on the wiki, it seems that what I've been saying is more or less what the game is already being designed for, here a player can feasibly use PvP as a means of leveling up. So, I don't know where you're getting the idea that PvP doesn't nor shouldn't grant experience, it's the first activity listed in the leveling section of the wiki . Saying that fighting another player in a player vs. player activity isn't the point of PvP is a bit off. There are objective based games such as Team Fortress 2 that primarily focus on pushing the cart or capturing a point, but I would still classify them as PvP games, because it's less about capturing the objective but doing so within the context of fighting against enemy players. Thinning enemy ranks is essential to completing the objective, so having that not be recognized in any form is weird and can cement degenerate strategies like hyper focusing on the caravan so that they can get their gold participation medal.
There is already a quest system in place for caravans with incentives for both attackers and defenders outside of what's in the caravan. So, Intrepid does seem to want to encourage PvP to some extent. So, where is the context for saying otherwise? If you could link an interview or discord post from Intrepid, I would very much appreciate it.
I never said ''pvp quests or no quests'' and I have nothing more to add regarding this unilaterally created controversy.
Ok, so if you aren't going to pick up this point, this is where the conversation is.
You want PvP quests.
I pointed out that PvP quests are not what Ashes is about - that PvP is supposed to actually mean something, and that PvP quests don't really mean anything as the game would be just fine if they don't exist, unlike other PvP content like sieges and caravans.
You said that quests are a core part of MMO's.
We then both agree that Ashes will have quests regardless.
I believe that is the end of it then. We agree that Ashes will have quests, and since you are unwilling to take things back one step further to why it needs your suggestion, as I just said is where we are at, I guess we are in agreement that Ashes will indeed have quests, but has no need for PvP quests.
Nice chat.
0
Options
Geophysical NinjaMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
You could also say that it is a PvE heavy PvP game. Either way, it is still a mix of both PvE and PvP content. The creator of the game states it. Your insistence on calling this a PvP game is your prerogative, but it is not accurate. You can choose to argue semantics, but I choose to agree with the person creating the game.
Nothing I just suggested represents a dramatic change to anything.
We are going to disagree with this. Adding a new system for XP generation in a game is a dramatic change to the game dynamics. Again, you seem to argue semantics, which is a silly thing to do in this context. This is very trolling behavior, honestly.
I'd like to see the ability for it, but it's not really viable. Think about a player that joins the game a month into launch, how viable is PvP progression going to be for him? If the combat isn't balanced or focuses more on character ability rather than player ability, he'll stand no chance.
0
Options
Geophysical NinjaMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Two points:
1. The Live Stream that link sources is from 2017, where Steven says "...PvP, PvE, crafting may get it...." I like this type of thing, because it feels like a lost nugget of information. I don't think he has expounded on that since then. I'm really excited to see that he was thinking of an expansive XP system that far back. Clearly, I am not the only one who missed that sentence. Kudos for digging that one up.
2. I don't think of this as a "sandbox" MMO. I actually don't want a fully sandbox MMO; I want one with sandbox elements. My experience in sandbox MMOs is quite poor, and it usually means that the developers forgot to put in any meaningful content. Personally, I'd rather have great meaningful content with some sandbox elements than a fully sandbox system with no meaningful content.
3. Sandbox MMOs rarely allow me to play how I want, because they don't have meaningful content. They allow me to play how the developer wants me to play (like literally every game ever created), which is not at all. This is because they don't provide content for me to enjoy; they do typically provide garish player created buildings that lack any sense of design or aesthetic cohesion.
Two points:
1. The Live Stream that link sources is from 2017, where Steven says "...PvP, PvE, crafting may get it...." I like this type of thing, because it feels like a lost nugget of information. I don't think he has expounded on that since then. I'm really excited to see that he was thinking of an expansive XP system that far back. Clearly, I am not the only one who missed that sentence. Kudos for digging that one up.
2. I don't think of this as a "sandbox" MMO. I actually don't want a fully sandbox MMO; I want one with sandbox elements. My experience in sandbox MMOs is quite poor, and it usually means that the developers forgot to put in any meaningful content. Personally, I'd rather have great meaningful content with some sandbox elements than a fully sandbox system with no meaningful content.
3. Sandbox MMOs rarely allow me to play how I want, because they don't have meaningful content. They allow me to play how the developer wants me to play (like literally every game ever created), which is not at all. This is because they don't provide content for me to enjoy; they do typically provide garish player created buildings that lack any sense of design or aesthetic cohesion.
I've always been under the impression that the sandbox elements were the main draw of AoC, with nodes being pushed immensely as a form of emergent storytelling. If you don't mind me asking, what kind of MMO do you see AoC as? What do you feel is essential for meaningful content? I hope to learn from your perspective.
I've always been under the impression that the sandbox elements were the main draw of AoC, with nodes being pushed immensely as a form of emergent storytelling. If you don't mind me asking, what kind of MMO do you see AoC as? What do you feel is essential for meaningful content? I hope to learn from your perspective.
Also, thanks for the compliment.
Ashes is better described as a sand-park MMO rather than a sandbox. Elements of both sandbox and themepark working together.
Or so Steven tells us.
Which is good, because other than EVE, sandbox MMO's have all been shit.
You could also say that it is a PvE heavy PvP game.
Not really since it puts no emphasis on PvE but puts a ton (as shown earlier) on PvP.
Even in terms of dungeons/raids which have traditionally been the ''strong leg'' of PvE mmo-rpgs, the game adds PvP by having them (some?) be open world so open to PvP.
Your insistence on calling this a PvP game is your prerogative, but it is not accurate.
Agree to disagree then, I pointed out why I am right. If you're still unconvinced and have nothing more to add besides your original view, then agree to disagree seems like the most reasonable path as opposed to repeating ourselves again and again.
You can choose to argue semantics, but I choose to agree with the person creating the game.
We are going to disagree with this. Adding a new system for XP generation in a game is a dramatic change to the game dynamics.
We have very different views on the word ''dramatic''. Despite accusing me several times of going into semantics, I strongly feel it is you who is starting exactly that.
Realistically the speed at which people level will also depend to a notable degree on their performance in world pvp to begin with.
Allowing people to progress the way they like would damage no other quality of the game while adding quality to the experience of said people.
I've yet to hear one serious reason why PvP quests (both types suggested by me) shouldn't be a thing.
I hope Intrepid sets up military nodes to have frequent events with and against each other. Both parties should have to gather in the node and are tasked with objectives that sort of have protagonistic and antagonistic nature.
The game modes could be anything… a cat mouse game to steal relics, PVX objectives where you have to get the most points and so on.
I dont think it should be a big source for xp though, id rather like to see guild or node orientated rewards.
I hope so too. I just hope that they aren't TOO frequently. If they do, then people will get bored with them and start ignoring them for other content. That's what's happening in New World right now. It's non stop go defend this zone, go back to this other zone, oh no wait, it was just 1 guy, now go run to the other side of the map... next thing you know you spent your whole night running around and don't have much to show for it.
PvP will be a core feature of building one as you will need (at least after the initial launch period) to destroy other nodes via PvP to take their place in the world.
PvP will be a core feature of building one as you will need (at least after the initial launch period) to destroy other nodes via PvP to take their place in the world.
Yeah, but you can destroy all the nodes you like - that won't actually build one.
The key point here is that you need both. You simply can not have a node without PvE. Since without that PvE to build the node, there would be no node to destroy in PvP, without that PvE, there would be no PvP.
This is basically how the game is designed. PvE first, then PvP. Without that PvE, there is nothing to PvP over.
My first suggestion was making quests that create conflicting interests between players, so conflict will happen naturally.
This is how almost every quest in the game is going to be already. This game has no factions, anyone can fight anyone. If there's a quest to kill a boar, and you find the boar and someone else is already killing it, you can wait for them to finish and the boar to respawn or you can try to kill them and take it for yourself.
And to the other idea of pvp specific quests like attacking caravans, pvp is already plenty rewarding without them. The point is that the game itself is designed to be a world that naturally pushes players into spots where there could be conflict and it's up to the player to decide how they want to act. Having a quest that literally says 'go destroy a caravan' isn't natural, it's just telling you to do something. The reason someone attacks your caravan shouldn't be because they have a quest that says to do it, it should be because they want the items you happen to be carrying, or they want to cut off some supply to a city to weaken it, or maybe they just want money and they're willing to risk corruption/relationships/etc to get it. Or they just enjoy pvp and want to play the outlaw type character.
Comments
1. I never said Steven said PvP will award anything. I suggested they add something to the game. This time my english was clear and my idea coherent and you misunderstand is 100% your problem Noaani.
2.
So yeah it does appear there will be PvP rewards... and its only logical that there will be.
Its going to be a PvP heavy PvX game.
All it's core mechanics are PvP based. Nodes, caravans, gathering, etc
Nothing I just suggested represents a dramatic change to anything.
You haven't proven anything.
The devs have designed their systems to have the balance of PvX that they want.
Just as they have designed Corruption to have the balance they want.
Some people want Corruption to be more harsh, some people want Corruption to be less harsh.
There is nothing there to prove. Sharing more about your opinion is fine.
But, most people here will tell you to wait until we test the design - since that is what we're going to have to do anyway.
Most likely, the devs are not going to change that aspect of their design.
But, it's not impossible.
You made a baseless statement to that fact, and didn't back it up.
When it was pointed out that the things you are talking about impact other aspects of the game, you returned by saying that quests are important too - yet we are not talking about a situation of quests vs no quests.
I would agree with you that quests in general are as important as sieges and caravans. However, that is not the topic here - which is why I questioned why you had suddenly moved on to suggesting that it is PvP quests or no quests.
If you are not arguing that it should be your quest idea or no quests, then using quests as a counter to the fact that sieges and caravans are core components of the game that affect other aspects of the game .
So, the way I see it, either you need to take up the argument that it should be PvP quests or no quests, or you need to go back and address the following;
I'm quite happy for you to pick up either of these, but that is where the conversation currently is.
A side note, if you did the RuneScape path, or the instanced path, there would eventually be a void in leveling while in PVP at low level because it would eventually become unpopular, so the next question would be, how can we make low level PVP have a point with a smaller number of players.
Proven anything regarding what claim? I've made several so far.
We have no definitive version of these so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
Of course. You always say we have no definitive version of the design.
Curious how on the 24th of jan you agreed but now you suddenly forgot about that.
You said that it's okay for caravans and sieges to be ''arificial forms of pvp'' (based on your own definition) because they're core aspects of the game.
I said quests are core aspects of the game oto, it's a mmo-rpg, quests are always core aspects of any mmo-rpg.
This is why my point stands.
This is the final time I repeat myself on this matter.
I was clear enough this time.
There is no ''then''.
I never said ''pvp quests or no quests'' and I have nothing more to add regarding this unilaterally created controversy.
Want a cracker?
Fine, I'll repeat myself as well
Proven anything regarding what claim? I've made several so far.
We have no definitive version of these so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
I thank you for clarifying your point, but at the same time this still feels off. Isn't PvP essential for securing the objective in the first place? Caravan raiding would get pretty wonky if it just involved running past the player escort and stealing their goods before the player escort could take you down. A point I've been driving home for a few posts now is making PvP a valid way of progressing through the game's leveling system. If you have the game have a big marker on the world map and reward ludicrous amounts of xp, then you will see that degenerate situation where nothing in the world gets done. But, you will have to find the caravan in the first place, and PvE will probably be more consistent. But, it's about balancing this system with everything else in the world. It's about ensuring that the player's time is respected and not looked down upon because it's not the "right" way to play. Where a player can advance through the game while engaging with the content they want. Sure, if I run into a caravan that needs help, that experience might be enough to get me to help if I'm so inclined, or I could focus on what I was already doing and move on, but I shouldn't flowchart because one decision is far more rewarding or detrimental to the other.
As for raiding caravans happening constantly, the game
From what I've been reading on the wiki, it seems that what I've been saying is more or less what the game is already being designed for, here a player can feasibly use PvP as a means of leveling up. So, I don't know where you're getting the idea that PvP doesn't nor shouldn't grant experience, it's the first activity listed in the leveling section of the wiki . Saying that fighting another player in a player vs. player activity isn't the point of PvP is a bit off. There are objective based games such as Team Fortress 2 that primarily focus on pushing the cart or capturing a point, but I would still classify them as PvP games, because it's less about capturing the objective but doing so within the context of fighting against enemy players. Thinning enemy ranks is essential to completing the objective, so having that not be recognized in any form is weird and can cement degenerate strategies like hyper focusing on the caravan so that they can get their gold participation medal.
There is already a quest system in place for caravans with incentives for both attackers and defenders outside of what's in the caravan. So, Intrepid does seem to want to encourage PvP to some extent. So, where is the context for saying otherwise? If you could link an interview or discord post from Intrepid, I would very much appreciate it.
You want PvP quests.
I pointed out that PvP quests are not what Ashes is about - that PvP is supposed to actually mean something, and that PvP quests don't really mean anything as the game would be just fine if they don't exist, unlike other PvP content like sieges and caravans.
You said that quests are a core part of MMO's.
We then both agree that Ashes will have quests regardless.
I believe that is the end of it then. We agree that Ashes will have quests, and since you are unwilling to take things back one step further to why it needs your suggestion, as I just said is where we are at, I guess we are in agreement that Ashes will indeed have quests, but has no need for PvP quests.
Nice chat.
You could also say that it is a PvE heavy PvP game. Either way, it is still a mix of both PvE and PvP content. The creator of the game states it. Your insistence on calling this a PvP game is your prerogative, but it is not accurate. You can choose to argue semantics, but I choose to agree with the person creating the game.
Calling the node system a PvP mechanic is actually a gross oversimplification of the node system (https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Nodes)
We are going to disagree with this. Adding a new system for XP generation in a game is a dramatic change to the game dynamics. Again, you seem to argue semantics, which is a silly thing to do in this context. This is very trolling behavior, honestly.
Two points:
1. The Live Stream that link sources is from 2017, where Steven says "...PvP, PvE, crafting may get it...." I like this type of thing, because it feels like a lost nugget of information. I don't think he has expounded on that since then. I'm really excited to see that he was thinking of an expansive XP system that far back. Clearly, I am not the only one who missed that sentence. Kudos for digging that one up.
2. I don't think of this as a "sandbox" MMO. I actually don't want a fully sandbox MMO; I want one with sandbox elements. My experience in sandbox MMOs is quite poor, and it usually means that the developers forgot to put in any meaningful content. Personally, I'd rather have great meaningful content with some sandbox elements than a fully sandbox system with no meaningful content.
3. Sandbox MMOs rarely allow me to play how I want, because they don't have meaningful content. They allow me to play how the developer wants me to play (like literally every game ever created), which is not at all. This is because they don't provide content for me to enjoy; they do typically provide garish player created buildings that lack any sense of design or aesthetic cohesion.
I've always been under the impression that the sandbox elements were the main draw of AoC, with nodes being pushed immensely as a form of emergent storytelling. If you don't mind me asking, what kind of MMO do you see AoC as? What do you feel is essential for meaningful content? I hope to learn from your perspective.
Also, thanks for the compliment.
Ashes is better described as a sand-park MMO rather than a sandbox. Elements of both sandbox and themepark working together.
Or so Steven tells us.
Which is good, because other than EVE, sandbox MMO's have all been shit.
Not really since it puts no emphasis on PvE but puts a ton (as shown earlier) on PvP.
Even in terms of dungeons/raids which have traditionally been the ''strong leg'' of PvE mmo-rpgs, the game adds PvP by having them (some?) be open world so open to PvP.
Didn't deny it.
Agree to disagree then, I pointed out why I am right. If you're still unconvinced and have nothing more to add besides your original view, then agree to disagree seems like the most reasonable path as opposed to repeating ourselves again and again.
You can choose to argue semantics, but I choose to agree with the person creating the game.
Nodes can get wrecked based on PvP, so there's nothing being oversimplified, it's a fact.
We have very different views on the word ''dramatic''. Despite accusing me several times of going into semantics, I strongly feel it is you who is starting exactly that.
Realistically the speed at which people level will also depend to a notable degree on their performance in world pvp to begin with.
Allowing people to progress the way they like would damage no other quality of the game while adding quality to the experience of said people.
I've yet to hear one serious reason why PvP quests (both types suggested by me) shouldn't be a thing.
Then he is going to get XP this way if he even wants to try this path out, better than nothing if that's what he likes, tho.
I hope so too. I just hope that they aren't TOO frequently. If they do, then people will get bored with them and start ignoring them for other content. That's what's happening in New World right now. It's non stop go defend this zone, go back to this other zone, oh no wait, it was just 1 guy, now go run to the other side of the map... next thing you know you spent your whole night running around and don't have much to show for it.
Try building one using PvP.
PvP will be a core feature of building one as you will need (at least after the initial launch period) to destroy other nodes via PvP to take their place in the world.
Yeah, but you can destroy all the nodes you like - that won't actually build one.
The key point here is that you need both. You simply can not have a node without PvE. Since without that PvE to build the node, there would be no node to destroy in PvP, without that PvE, there would be no PvP.
This is basically how the game is designed. PvE first, then PvP. Without that PvE, there is nothing to PvP over.
Ashes is integrating and synergizing PvE and PvP elements into one system. Few PvE things in Ashes exist without PvP affecting them, and vice versa.
And to the other idea of pvp specific quests like attacking caravans, pvp is already plenty rewarding without them. The point is that the game itself is designed to be a world that naturally pushes players into spots where there could be conflict and it's up to the player to decide how they want to act. Having a quest that literally says 'go destroy a caravan' isn't natural, it's just telling you to do something. The reason someone attacks your caravan shouldn't be because they have a quest that says to do it, it should be because they want the items you happen to be carrying, or they want to cut off some supply to a city to weaken it, or maybe they just want money and they're willing to risk corruption/relationships/etc to get it. Or they just enjoy pvp and want to play the outlaw type character.