Aren't difficult dungeons the high risk/reward pve areas? If a pvper went there to murder some people the pvers would take him out since everyone is green which makes it less pvp friendly. So basically everywhere is a pve friendly pvx area. Except the ocean.
I was about to say.
This thread is overthinking a bit - high risk PvE are the raids/etc. and if we can work in a little PvP into is then it's a PvX experience with a lean toward PvE
Aren't difficult dungeons the high risk/reward pve areas? If a pvper went there to murder some people the pvers would take him out since everyone is green which makes it less pvp friendly. So basically everywhere is a pve friendly pvx area. Except the ocean.
I was about to say.
This thread is overthinking a bit - high risk PvE are the raids/etc. and if we can work in a little PvP into is then it's a PvX experience with a lean toward PvE
No, not quite. That falls apart as soon as a group has a designated pair of Sacrificial Reds to do the dirty work.
This is also never about 'PvPers just going to harass people'. It's about the fact that as soon as you make the game such that 'The strongest PvP-er always has the highest chance of getting what they want', and add on 'they do this by going through anyone less PvP-endowed', there's a change to the way people approach the game.
Now, that change might be what Intrepid wants, but it doesn't go away because difficult dungeons exist, it just gets worse because it's easier to disrupt a situation and cause the PvE group to lose their target without actually gaining corruption personally.
Aren't difficult dungeons the high risk/reward pve areas? If a pvper went there to murder some people the pvers would take him out since everyone is green which makes it less pvp friendly. So basically everywhere is a pve friendly pvx area. Except the ocean.
I was about to say.
This thread is overthinking a bit - high risk PvE are the raids/etc. and if we can work in a little PvP into is then it's a PvX experience with a lean toward PvE
No, not quite. That falls apart as soon as a group has a designated pair of Sacrificial Reds to do the dirty work.
This is also never about 'PvPers just going to harass people'. It's about the fact that as soon as you make the game such that 'The strongest PvP-er always has the highest chance of getting what they want', and add on 'they do this by going through anyone less PvP-endowed', there's a change to the way people approach the game.
Now, that change might be what Intrepid wants, but it doesn't go away because difficult dungeons exist, it just gets worse because it's easier to disrupt a situation and cause the PvE group to lose their target without actually gaining corruption personally.
How does sacrificial reds work? When a green kills a red they are still green. I don't even understand what you mean by the second paragraph. I thought the whole corruption was to protect against pvpers harassing people that don't want to pvp. In what scenario is the strongest pvper having a higher chance of getting what they want? If you mean the ocean change, that's a group effort and yea it's more pvp centered now, but who says all the best stuff will be in the ocean? Whole world of content is out there other than the ocean.
Aren't difficult dungeons the high risk/reward pve areas? If a pvper went there to murder some people the pvers would take him out since everyone is green which makes it less pvp friendly. So basically everywhere is a pve friendly pvx area. Except the ocean.
I was about to say.
This thread is overthinking a bit - high risk PvE are the raids/etc. and if we can work in a little PvP into is then it's a PvX experience with a lean toward PvE
No, not quite. That falls apart as soon as a group has a designated pair of Sacrificial Reds to do the dirty work.
This is also never about 'PvPers just going to harass people'. It's about the fact that as soon as you make the game such that 'The strongest PvP-er always has the highest chance of getting what they want', and add on 'they do this by going through anyone less PvP-endowed', there's a change to the way people approach the game.
Now, that change might be what Intrepid wants, but it doesn't go away because difficult dungeons exist, it just gets worse because it's easier to disrupt a situation and cause the PvE group to lose their target without actually gaining corruption personally.
I thought the whole corruption was to protect against pvpers harassing people that don't want to pvp.
Corruption is to prevent excessive griefing, not to prevent PVP. Think of it as1 gank youre fine, 3 ganks youre askin for hurtin, 5 ganks get ready to die. All while allowing you the opportunity to get away with it if you are good enough.
Aren't difficult dungeons the high risk/reward pve areas? If a pvper went there to murder some people the pvers would take him out since everyone is green which makes it less pvp friendly. So basically everywhere is a pve friendly pvx area. Except the ocean.
I was about to say.
This thread is overthinking a bit - high risk PvE are the raids/etc. and if we can work in a little PvP into is then it's a PvX experience with a lean toward PvE
No, not quite. That falls apart as soon as a group has a designated pair of Sacrificial Reds to do the dirty work.
This is also never about 'PvPers just going to harass people'. It's about the fact that as soon as you make the game such that 'The strongest PvP-er always has the highest chance of getting what they want', and add on 'they do this by going through anyone less PvP-endowed', there's a change to the way people approach the game.
Now, that change might be what Intrepid wants, but it doesn't go away because difficult dungeons exist, it just gets worse because it's easier to disrupt a situation and cause the PvE group to lose their target without actually gaining corruption personally.
I thought the whole corruption was to protect against pvpers harassing people that don't want to pvp.
Corruption is to prevent excessive griefing, not to prevent PVP. Think of it as1 gank youre fine, 3 ganks youre askin for hurtin, 5 ganks get ready to die. All while allowing you the opportunity to get away with it if you are good enough.
Pretty much my understanding of the corruption system, its designed to stop griefing not pvp, so you can probaly kill a green player from time to time assuming there your level without going red and then u have to work it off via pve or ur next kill might make u red.
But guess we see how thing go in alpha 2 when we get that
0
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited September 2022
PvE High Risk vs High Reward = Raids? without much risk!
I would be opposed to this. Not like Dygz and a couple other's level of "I'm quitting" opposition, nowhere close. But pretty opposed to it. I've already run through scenarios in my head of how garbage this would end up being, not only garbage, but pointless too.
Outside of going ultra insane mode with pve difficulty, it just can't compete with the dynamic and dangerous nature of pvp. I'd hope that Intrepid is making pve content across the land as difficult as they're willing to make it, in all places. I don't see a need for some special place you go for extra hard pve when that's kinda what most want anyway by default, where appropriate.
Tit for tat game design is a horrible way to design games. The open sea was made lawless. This makes sense conceptually and from a gameplay perspective. You can not like it. But it makes sense.
Increase corruption gain for killing in cities. This makes sense conceptually and arguably from a gameplay perspective. Done.
You start playing tit for tat on every design decision you're going to wind up with a Frankenstein of a game with no coherence, just a gigantic mess.
"It makes sense in from a gameplay perspective". What kind of gameplay perspective though?
From what I can tell AoC is pretty centered on 2 big things, true multiplayer and combining PvP and PvE players together.
Does something like what JamesSunderland thought up really seperate PvP and PvE players and does it encourage true multiplayer?
I think the open world PvP, gathering systems, nodes, pretty much everything about AoC already ensures most people will be grouping up. So does it seperate PvP and PvE players? Well it does seem like it would but it sure wouldn't for me, just like the lawless open sea isn't going to discourage PvE players from moving through it.
What is the main motivation of a PvP player, why do they kill? I can't speak for everyone but as a PvP player I know what drivers me to PK, mostly the thrill. Of knowing someones got to put up a great fight(based on ranked games it seems i'm pretty skilled) or die. A little bit because i'm trolling, a little bit because I want combat with a real player, a little bit the loot, but mostly for the thrill of finding a great fight.
It would sure take a whole hell of a lot of penalties for me to be dissuaded against Pking another player. Actually, a place with a system like JamesSunderland proposed would make me want to PK there more because I know that there isn't going to be as much PKing there and some of the people will be there for that very reason(why was there so many "theres" in that sentence ). Which of course just makes my desire to troll a little more rewarding.
Just to humor the idea it could be timer base where you gain corruption the longer you are in the area so it becomes kind of a race against time once you go in through the entrance.
The deep you go the more corruption you gain from lingering in the area going up towards 1-5 levels making the tick increase grow as you go into more dangerous areas. Though upon entering from the entrance you gain a bubble that gives you a large buffer from actually being corrupted. As well you can only gain so much corruption from the area before you reach max stacks (to prevent max corruption gain) Once you reach the max, it lowers you maximum hp at a smaller amount and it will continue until you die.
Death to mobs or to corruption stack ticks make you drop all the items in your inventory and destroying it on the spot so it can not be reclaimed. If someone pks you though and takes the corruption hit the items are available to be picked up but each item take adds more corruption to your character
Upon adventuring in the area taking items also add corruption to your character drop wise you you are unable to take everything without also risk. But like the self protective bubble you get on entering there can be some drops the replenish those drops, as well as finding rare random spawn things throughout the dungeon that also replenish the buff by a certain percent.
So it becomes a very hard dungeon the deeper you go the better the loot but the higher chance you have of also losing what you gained from within it. If you make it to the deepest part of the dungeon you will be able to make it to the boss dealing with its mechanics and trying to ensure you keep your protective barrier up to not end up dying and losing everything.
Upon defeating the boss you simply need to escape back where you came from for whoever is left being a survivor and trying to not die to the corruption or the monsters that have respawned.
I think this is more on the extreme side of "PvP tilted high risk high reward". But I fucking LOVE it, absolutely love this idea.
Now I'm interested to hear an extreme side of "PvE tilted high risk high reward."
I agree with you on this point, but it leads me in a totally different direction than it has led you.
I'd rather the population not be fragmented. By that, I mean I'd rather they play Ashes than some other game.
You seem quite content with fewer people playing Ashes, as long as it is your version of Ashes.
The notion of the player base being fragmented within one fame is a load of rubbish. In terms of the scope of one game, the population is always going to be fragmented. It's not lime everyone is going to be doing the exact same thing all the time - there is natural, organic fragmentation that happens within a game.
What I dont see is how adding PvE content adds to this in any meaningful, negative way. If you are off doing your thing, enjoying the content you want to enjoy, what care do you have what someone else in some other part of the game world does?
By this logic, we should be doing away with everything other than one activity at a time.
The thing with the core design of Ashes is that PvP is unavoidable. If adding additional PvE to parts of the game (similar to how parts of the game had additional PvP) will either bring in or keep subscribers, all that means to you is more people that willbe available for you to PvP against.
Honestly, the only players I can see having a valid, thought out reason to be against adding more PvE eleme ts to the game are those that want to be the big fish, but who also know they can only be said big fish if the pond is small. As such, they want the game to be small so that they can feel like an important part of it.
Reading the recent threads regarding the Lawless Open Sea, i saw a sentiment from people more PvE oriented, it seems like they believe that the open seas are a area with PvX more tilted towards PvP High Risk vs High Reward and it made think of the possibility of a Area with PvX more tilted towards PvE High Risk vs High Reward.
In this thread, i would like people to discuss and give their opinions and ideas towards the concept of "PvX more tilted towards PvE High Risk vs High Reward".
Let me provide an idea:
Lorewise we know the Underrealm is the place the people who weren't able to leave from Verra fled to escape from corruption, how about making the Underrealm a Area with PvX more tilted towards PvE High Risk vs High Reward.
How so? How about making it an area where you gain more corruption when killing players, killing monsters and death reduces less corruption, monsters there are stronger than monsters on land or sea, you receive PK death penalty when dying to monsters there, some monsters can spawn and ambush you there and the place is as rewarding as the open seas.
This is certainly an interesting idea. I would counter with - if an area is more dangerous in terms of PvE elements, would that not incentivize players to group up, rather than kill one another, more so than an area that might incentivize more PvP behavior? In theory, that alone may accomplish player tendencies for PvE.
I should clarify, that these are just my own immediate thoughts and I'm not on the design team, lol! 😜
If an area is more dangerous in terms of PvE (as in, the content is harder but the risk structure of corruption is the same), then all that will do is see guilds fighting for farming spots with other guilds, rather than it being on the individual player or group of players levels.
You are unlikely to set foot in such an area without a raid full of players you trust.
In order to skew things to be more PvE oriented on the PvX scale, you need to alter the corruption mechanism - just as has been done with the ocean to make it more PvP oriented.
I like the change to corruption in the ocean - and indeed expected it for a while (and expect similar for at least some world bosses at some point). However, there is no denying that it skews things more towards the PvP aspect of PvX.
I do quite like the OP's suggestion of then taking the whole Underrealm and skewing it a little towards PvE.
I recall many years ago having a discussion with a game developer (who now works at Intrepid) about the notion of PvE and PvP never being able to be balanced together. If you have a player that prefers PvP, and another that prefers PvE, only one of those players can force their preferred play type on to the other.
As such, unless developers give players a means of summoning raid bosses that their would be rivals must defeat in order to continue their activity (you think you're going g to PvP me? Nope, I force my PvE on to you!), in order for a game to play as if it is balanced between PvP and PvE, the games developers need to skew the games design heavily towards PvE.
This is the case for any duopoly where one factor can be forced and the other can not.
What are you saying? PvP players are forced to do PvE all the time in MMOs as that is basically how they get the gear the need to PvP. They arent forced into PvE by other players. They are forced into PvE by the game itself.
What they shouldn't have is an attractive way to gear through PvP alone (like Arena+PvP Gear), as that would go directly against PvE and PvP being intertwined.
What are you saying? PvP players are forced to do PvE all the time in MMOs as that is basically how they get the gear the need to PvP. They arent forced into PvE by other players. They are forced into PvE by the game itself.
What they shouldn't have is an attractive way to gear through PvP alone (like Arena+PvP Gear), as that would go directly against PvE and PvP being intertwined.
This is odd - you ask me what I am saying, and then you go and repeat what I am saying.
Yes, the fact that you need to PvE in order to get gear is indeed a part of developers skewing the games design towards PvE to make up for the fact that you can force PvP on someone, but not PvE.
Here is a question for you though. If you and I both come up to a *solo* farming spot, and we both want it, if you are a PvE focused player and I am a PvP focused player, who gets the spot?
Here is a question for you though. If you and I both come up to a *solo* farming spot, and we both want it, if you are a PvE focused player and I am a PvP focused player, who gets the spot?
What about 2 PvEers? Who gets the spot in that case?
Just to humor the idea it could be timer base where you gain corruption the longer you are in the area so it becomes kind of a race against time once you go in through the entrance.
The deep you go the more corruption you gain from lingering in the area going up towards 1-5 levels making the tick increase grow as you go into more dangerous areas. Though upon entering from the entrance you gain a bubble that gives you a large buffer from actually being corrupted. As well you can only gain so much corruption from the area before you reach max stacks (to prevent max corruption gain) Once you reach the max, it lowers you maximum hp at a smaller amount and it will continue until you die.
Death to mobs or to corruption stack ticks make you drop all the items in your inventory and destroying it on the spot so it can not be reclaimed. If someone pks you though and takes the corruption hit the items are available to be picked up but each item take adds more corruption to your character
Upon adventuring in the area taking items also add corruption to your character drop wise you you are unable to take everything without also risk. But like the self protective bubble you get on entering there can be some drops the replenish those drops, as well as finding rare random spawn things throughout the dungeon that also replenish the buff by a certain percent.
So it becomes a very hard dungeon the deeper you go the better the loot but the higher chance you have of also losing what you gained from within it. If you make it to the deepest part of the dungeon you will be able to make it to the boss dealing with its mechanics and trying to ensure you keep your protective barrier up to not end up dying and losing everything.
Upon defeating the boss you simply need to escape back where you came from for whoever is left being a survivor and trying to not die to the corruption or the monsters that have respawned.
I think this is more on the extreme side of "PvP tilted high risk high reward". But I fucking LOVE it, absolutely love this idea.
Now I'm interested to hear an extreme side of "PvE tilted high risk high reward."
I wouldn't see this as pvp xD, if you know the mechanics of the area you technically shouldn't end up red for the most part x.x. Likewise if a second group got to the boss they may be red by that point and can be flagged on and killed which would stop them from being able to effectively interfere.
Here is a question for you though. If you and I both come up to a *solo* farming spot, and we both want it, if you are a PvE focused player and I am a PvP focused player, who gets the spot?
What about 2 PvEers? Who gets the spot in that case?
The one more efficient at killing the enemies wins. In most cases in older games, and I believe in Lineage, the other leaves.
(I'm not sure if you've genuinely never experienced this in a difficult/complex PvE game, so lmk)
Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
What are you saying? PvP players are forced to do PvE all the time in MMOs as that is basically how they get the gear the need to PvP. They arent forced into PvE by other players. They are forced into PvE by the game itself.
What they shouldn't have is an attractive way to gear through PvP alone (like Arena+PvP Gear), as that would go directly against PvE and PvP being intertwined.
Hmmmn. I guess those are PvX games, too? So nothing really unique about Ashes.
What are you saying? PvP players are forced to do PvE all the time in MMOs as that is basically how they get the gear the need to PvP. They arent forced into PvE by other players. They are forced into PvE by the game itself.
What they shouldn't have is an attractive way to gear through PvP alone (like Arena+PvP Gear), as that would go directly against PvE and PvP being intertwined.
Hmmmn. I guess those are PvX games, too? So nothing really unique about Ashes.
Considering that the Corruption system is a system mostly copied from Lineage 2, Id agree that there isnt much uniqueness to it. I rather question who thought, that this system was one of the things making Ashes unique, since this certainly hasnt promoted as one of the parts making it so. Said person must not have done a lot of research.
Also, what makes games unique isnt the uniqueness of single features within the game, but the accumulation of the features and the way they are interfaced with each other.
What are you saying? PvP players are forced to do PvE all the time in MMOs as that is basically how they get the gear the need to PvP. They arent forced into PvE by other players. They are forced into PvE by the game itself.
What they shouldn't have is an attractive way to gear through PvP alone (like Arena+PvP Gear), as that would go directly against PvE and PvP being intertwined.
This is odd - you ask me what I am saying, and then you go and repeat what I am saying.
Yes, the fact that you need to PvE in order to get gear is indeed a part of developers skewing the games design towards PvE to make up for the fact that you can force PvP on someone, but not PvE.
Here is a question for you though. If you and I both come up to a *solo* farming spot, and we both want it, if you are a PvE focused player and I am a PvP focused player, who gets the spot?
In L2? Killing for something like this was highly discouraged/very rare.
Basically the meta to it was inhibiting the other persons farming, stealing his mobs and making it not worthwhile to be there without killing him as the karma penalty wasnt worth it for the most part.
With this you essentially made him leave or potentially even baited him into attacking you.
So, PvE or PvP didnt really matter.
However, i know what you are asking. The advantage always goes towards the person who is willing to employ more tools at his disposal.
Here is a question for you though. If you and I both come up to a *solo* farming spot, and we both want it, if you are a PvE focused player and I am a PvP focused player, who gets the spot?
What about 2 PvEers? Who gets the spot in that case?
The one more efficient at killing the enemies wins. In most cases in older games, and I believe in Lineage, the other leaves.
(I'm not sure if you've genuinely never experienced this in a difficult/complex PvE game, so lmk)
So either it's a contest through PvE, through PvP, or one of them can't be bothered and leaves without contest. It's up to the players and there's no ultimate answer.
Or are you asking whether PvP players have more benefits because they're willing to PvP? In which case, yes, as it should be. If you're limiting yourself to PvE only, it's your own fault.
However, with this being said. Usually its the stronger person that gets the spot, as long as he has the willingness and capability of using his strength.
When a PvE Player spent his 150 hours in progressing his character and the PvP Player spent 70 hours in progressing the character and 80 in PvPing (which most of the time is a net-negative in terms of progression), then there is no reason why the PvE Player shouldnt be able to take the farmspot for himself, unless he is either incompetent or unwilling to take the spot.
Here is a question for you though. If you and I both come up to a *solo* farming spot, and we both want it, if you are a PvE focused player and I am a PvP focused player, who gets the spot?
What about 2 PvEers? Who gets the spot in that case?
The one more efficient at killing the enemies wins. In most cases in older games, and I believe in Lineage, the other leaves.
(I'm not sure if you've genuinely never experienced this in a difficult/complex PvE game, so lmk)
So either it's a contest through PvE, through PvP, or one of them can't be bothered and leaves without contest. It's up to the players and there's no ultimate answer.
I don't see how you reached this conclusion exactly, but if I go with it...
The PvE player does not have an explicit choice to engage in PvE as a way of trying to defeat the PvP skill of the PvP player in most games. If Ashes provides this as a small number of other games does, great.
The PvP player always has the choice of either 'trying to win in PvE' or 'trying to win in PvP', but they should obviously (let's assume builds are different) focus on the PvP using their skill because they 'would lose the PvE'. They don't need to 'request the terms of the contest'.
If 'an enemy Mob seeing their Player target get attacked' would immediately switch all adds/some portion of hate to the challenger, forcing that Challenger to PvE, then that would be 'fair'. Similarly, the PvP player going 'ok I'll prove I can beat them almost as well as you, so duel for spot', would be sensible, if it could be incentivized or maintained.
Corruption is the incentive.
If a PvX player had enough skill in PvE to make life difficult for the PvE player they are challenging for the spot, then they should do as @NiKr implied. Outfarm. They could even say 'You want to duel for this spot or should we compete for the farm?' or similar.
A game with a good culture or mechanics to incentivize these things would be better than a game where the optimal solution of the PvP player is, for example 'debuff and hit the PvE player while they are mid-combat and hope the mob kills them', and where the optimal solution of the PvE player is better than 'figure out a way to drop too many enemies into the cleave range of the PvP player who chooses not to PvP (to avoid corruption) so that they die'.
The PvP player always has the choice of either 'trying to win in PvE' or 'trying to win in PvP', but they should obviously (let's assume builds are different) focus on the PvP using their skill because they 'would lose the PvE'. They don't need to 'request the terms of the contest'.
PvE and PvP player have the exact same choices. Do we know for a fact that PvPers won't be able to switch to their PvE-optimized gear or something, in order to not lose in PvE? If PvPers are screwed like that then sure, that incentivizes PKing, but somehow I doubt that's what the game is going for.
If a PvX player had enough skill in PvE to make life difficult for the PvE player they are challenging for the spot, then they should do as @NiKr implied. Outfarm. They could even say 'You want to duel for this spot or should we compete for the farm?' or similar.
A game with a good culture or mechanics to incentivize these things would be better than a game where the optimal solution of the PvP player is, for example 'debuff and hit the PvE player while they are mid-combat and hope the mob kills them', and where the optimal solution of the PvE player is better than 'figure out a way to drop too many enemies into the cleave range of the PvP player who chooses not to PvP (to avoid corruption) so that they die'.
The PvEer's example you gave is an indirect PvP in my opinion. And it's fine, it's not a PvE-restricted game, not everything must be able to be resolved via purely PvE means, even for purely PvE players.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Considering that the Corruption system is a system mostly copied from Lineage 2, Id agree that there isnt much uniqueness to it. I rather question who thought, that this system was one of the things making Ashes unique, since this certainly hasnt promoted as one of the parts making it so. Said person must not have done a lot of research.
Also, what makes games unique isnt the uniqueness of single features within the game, but the accumulation of the features and the way they are interfaced with each other.
Steven advertizes Ashes as PvX - as if that's unique.
And... I think when he compares Ashes to L2, he makes a point to say that Corruption is harsher than Karma - specifically to add more of a deterrent to PKing.
But... I'm not aware of an MMORPG where PvPers don't have to do any PvE.
So with regard to MMORPGs with PvP, Ashes is not unique in being PvX - nor is L2.
AFAIK, the vast majority, if not all, MMORPGs with PvP are PvX... if all PvX means is that PvPers also have to do some PvE.
When I ask Steven if Ashes is a PvP game, similar to EvE or ArcheAge, he says that Ashes is not a PvP game. It's a PvX game.
Considering that the Corruption system is a system mostly copied from Lineage 2, Id agree that there isnt much uniqueness to it. I rather question who thought, that this system was one of the things making Ashes unique, since this certainly hasnt promoted as one of the parts making it so. Said person must not have done a lot of research.
Also, what makes games unique isnt the uniqueness of single features within the game, but the accumulation of the features and the way they are interfaced with each other.
Steven advertizes Ashes as PvX - as if that's unique.
And... I think when he compares Ashes to L2, he makes a point to say that Corruption is harsher than Karma - specifically to add more of a deterrent to PKing.
But... I'm not aware of an MMORPG where PvPers don't have to do any PvE.
So with regard to MMORPGs with PvP, Ashes is not unique in being PvX - nor is L2.
AFAIK, the vast majority, if not all, MMORPGs with PvP are PvX... if all PvX means is that PvPers also have to do some PvE.
When I ask Steven if Ashes is a PvP game, similar to EvE or ArcheAge, he says that Ashes is not a PvP game. It's a PvX game.
I dont really care about terminology. Most of it lost all meaning forever ago.
Even his definition of PvX is something that isnt commonly used in the genre, where PvX is mostly used to describe guilds/games with both PvE and PvP Content. By that common definition, both AA and EVE would be PvX. By that definition Albion would be PvX. By that definition WoW would be PvX.
Which is why i prefer Stevens definition of PvX Games, aka a game, where PvE and PvP are intertwined.
The PvE player does not have an explicit choice to engage in PvE as a way of trying to defeat the PvP skill of the PvP player in most games. If Ashes provides this as a small number of other games does, great.
The PvP player always has the choice of either 'trying to win in PvE' or 'trying to win in PvP', but they should obviously (let's assume builds are different) focus on the PvP using their skill because they 'would lose the PvE'. They don't need to 'request the terms of the contest'.
This i dont agree with. Both players have the option to solve the issue through PvE, PvP, or Diplomacy. The PvE player merely chooses not to see PvP as a valid option, which is HIS choice. The option is there, he merely chooses not to take it. It wouldnt be a choice, if there was PvP Gear only a PvP Player owns, that make it impossible for a PvE Player to even consider the option. This is not the case here though. The options you have are the same. Being a pacifist is a choice.
A game with a good culture or mechanics to incentivize these things would be better than a game where the optimal solution of the PvP player is, for example 'debuff and hit the PvE player while they are mid-combat and hope the mob kills them', and where the optimal solution of the PvE player is better than 'figure out a way to drop too many enemies into the cleave range of the PvP player who chooses not to PvP (to avoid corruption) so that they die'.
This i agree with. Its not optimal, but this is ultimately what the corruption system will lead to, the same way it lead to this kind of behavior in Lineage 2. Im willing to see where Intrepid takes it though. Even if alternative routes of fuckery will be present it wont be a no-go for me either.
The PvE player does not have an explicit choice to engage in PvE as a way of trying to defeat the PvP skill of the PvP player in most games. If Ashes provides this as a small number of other games does, great.
The PvP player always has the choice of either 'trying to win in PvE' or 'trying to win in PvP', but they should obviously (let's assume builds are different) focus on the PvP using their skill because they 'would lose the PvE'. They don't need to 'request the terms of the contest'.
This i dont agree with. Both players have the option to solve the issue through PvE, PvP, or Diplomacy. The PvE player merely chooses not to see PvP as a valid option, which is HIS choice. The option is there, he merely chooses not to take it. It wouldnt be a choice, if there was PvP Gear only a PvP Player owns, that make it impossible for a PvE Player to even consider the option. This is not the case here though. The options you have are the same. Being a pacifist is a choice.
A game with a good culture or mechanics to incentivize these things would be better than a game where the optimal solution of the PvP player is, for example 'debuff and hit the PvE player while they are mid-combat and hope the mob kills them', and where the optimal solution of the PvE player is better than 'figure out a way to drop too many enemies into the cleave range of the PvP player who chooses not to PvP (to avoid corruption) so that they die'.
This i agree with. Its not optimal, but this is ultimately what the corruption system will lead to, the same way it lead to this kind of behavior in Lineage 2. Im willing to see where Intrepid takes it though. Even if alternative routes of fuckery will be present it wont be a no-go for me either.
Yup in BDO being in the desert killing someone flags you and anyone can attack you freely and if you kill them you gain more karma which will eventually make you red. So people just refuse to actually pvp in the normal sense since the consequences are huge.
They simply try to feed people to mobs the entire time or out farm them. The thought of flagging for a single person is not common in the slightest. If they are goin got pvp they will guild dec and fight them after the dec goes through.
The PvE player does not have an explicit choice to engage in PvE as a way of trying to defeat the PvP skill of the PvP player in most games. If Ashes provides this as a small number of other games does, great.
The PvP player always has the choice of either 'trying to win in PvE' or 'trying to win in PvP', but they should obviously (let's assume builds are different) focus on the PvP using their skill because they 'would lose the PvE'. They don't need to 'request the terms of the contest'.
This i dont agree with. Both players have the option to solve the issue through PvE, PvP, or Diplomacy. The PvE player merely chooses not to see PvP as a valid option, which is HIS choice. The option is there, he merely chooses not to take it. It wouldnt be a choice, if there was PvP Gear only a PvP Player owns, that make it impossible for a PvE Player to even consider the option. This is not the case here though. The options you have are the same. Being a pacifist is a choice.
A game with a good culture or mechanics to incentivize these things would be better than a game where the optimal solution of the PvP player is, for example 'debuff and hit the PvE player while they are mid-combat and hope the mob kills them', and where the optimal solution of the PvE player is better than 'figure out a way to drop too many enemies into the cleave range of the PvP player who chooses not to PvP (to avoid corruption) so that they die'.
This i agree with. Its not optimal, but this is ultimately what the corruption system will lead to, the same way it lead to this kind of behavior in Lineage 2. Im willing to see where Intrepid takes it though. Even if alternative routes of fuckery will be present it wont be a no-go for me either.
This has nothing to do with being a Pacifist.
For this discussion to even matter, the definitions of PvP and PvE player MUST refer to people who have explictly more skill or a better build for one of the two. Otherwise there's no need for any of it, which I would be glad for.
If you wish to perceive this as 'Well everyone should have the same ability to PvP gear/build wise and should aim for the same levels of skill', sure.
The PvE player would need a way to go 'I am going to use my skill with PvE against you whether you want to PvE or not' to the PvP player, for this to be 'balanced' because the PvP player has that option.
'Choosing' to PvP when you know you are disadvantaged due to build, what you practice, etc, simply because you do not have the option to do the other thing if your opponent chooses not to let you is what I am referring to here.
But if we are rejecting the very concept of 'PvE player' from even that perspective because that player type 'should not exist in Ashes', then all we have to do is hope that the game gets enough attention from players who don't mind 'My PvE skill only matters in a conflict if my opponent agrees to use it for the contest'.
Comments
I was about to say.
This thread is overthinking a bit - high risk PvE are the raids/etc. and if we can work in a little PvP into is then it's a PvX experience with a lean toward PvE
No, not quite. That falls apart as soon as a group has a designated pair of Sacrificial Reds to do the dirty work.
This is also never about 'PvPers just going to harass people'. It's about the fact that as soon as you make the game such that 'The strongest PvP-er always has the highest chance of getting what they want', and add on 'they do this by going through anyone less PvP-endowed', there's a change to the way people approach the game.
Now, that change might be what Intrepid wants, but it doesn't go away because difficult dungeons exist, it just gets worse because it's easier to disrupt a situation and cause the PvE group to lose their target without actually gaining corruption personally.
How does sacrificial reds work? When a green kills a red they are still green. I don't even understand what you mean by the second paragraph. I thought the whole corruption was to protect against pvpers harassing people that don't want to pvp. In what scenario is the strongest pvper having a higher chance of getting what they want? If you mean the ocean change, that's a group effort and yea it's more pvp centered now, but who says all the best stuff will be in the ocean? Whole world of content is out there other than the ocean.
The strongest wins..... smh..
Dont worry rando
Azhrae is just a bot. No need to understand.
Corruption is to prevent excessive griefing, not to prevent PVP. Think of it as1 gank youre fine, 3 ganks youre askin for hurtin, 5 ganks get ready to die. All while allowing you the opportunity to get away with it if you are good enough.
Pretty much my understanding of the corruption system, its designed to stop griefing not pvp, so you can probaly kill a green player from time to time assuming there your level without going red and then u have to work it off via pve or ur next kill might make u red.
But guess we see how thing go in alpha 2 when we get that
A critical topic that isn't discussed or is under-discussed, approached in a productive way. Kudos
"It makes sense in from a gameplay perspective". What kind of gameplay perspective though?
From what I can tell AoC is pretty centered on 2 big things, true multiplayer and combining PvP and PvE players together.
Does something like what JamesSunderland thought up really seperate PvP and PvE players and does it encourage true multiplayer?
I think the open world PvP, gathering systems, nodes, pretty much everything about AoC already ensures most people will be grouping up. So does it seperate PvP and PvE players? Well it does seem like it would but it sure wouldn't for me, just like the lawless open sea isn't going to discourage PvE players from moving through it.
What is the main motivation of a PvP player, why do they kill? I can't speak for everyone but as a PvP player I know what drivers me to PK, mostly the thrill. Of knowing someones got to put up a great fight(based on ranked games it seems i'm pretty skilled) or die. A little bit because i'm trolling, a little bit because I want combat with a real player, a little bit the loot, but mostly for the thrill of finding a great fight.
It would sure take a whole hell of a lot of penalties for me to be dissuaded against Pking another player. Actually, a place with a system like JamesSunderland proposed would make me want to PK there more because I know that there isn't going to be as much PKing there and some of the people will be there for that very reason(why was there so many "theres" in that sentence
I think this is more on the extreme side of "PvP tilted high risk high reward". But I fucking LOVE it, absolutely love this idea.
Now I'm interested to hear an extreme side of "PvE tilted high risk high reward."
I agree with you on this point, but it leads me in a totally different direction than it has led you.
I'd rather the population not be fragmented. By that, I mean I'd rather they play Ashes than some other game.
You seem quite content with fewer people playing Ashes, as long as it is your version of Ashes.
The notion of the player base being fragmented within one fame is a load of rubbish. In terms of the scope of one game, the population is always going to be fragmented. It's not lime everyone is going to be doing the exact same thing all the time - there is natural, organic fragmentation that happens within a game.
What I dont see is how adding PvE content adds to this in any meaningful, negative way. If you are off doing your thing, enjoying the content you want to enjoy, what care do you have what someone else in some other part of the game world does?
By this logic, we should be doing away with everything other than one activity at a time.
The thing with the core design of Ashes is that PvP is unavoidable. If adding additional PvE to parts of the game (similar to how parts of the game had additional PvP) will either bring in or keep subscribers, all that means to you is more people that willbe available for you to PvP against.
Honestly, the only players I can see having a valid, thought out reason to be against adding more PvE eleme ts to the game are those that want to be the big fish, but who also know they can only be said big fish if the pond is small. As such, they want the game to be small so that they can feel like an important part of it.
If an area is more dangerous in terms of PvE (as in, the content is harder but the risk structure of corruption is the same), then all that will do is see guilds fighting for farming spots with other guilds, rather than it being on the individual player or group of players levels.
You are unlikely to set foot in such an area without a raid full of players you trust.
In order to skew things to be more PvE oriented on the PvX scale, you need to alter the corruption mechanism - just as has been done with the ocean to make it more PvP oriented.
I like the change to corruption in the ocean - and indeed expected it for a while (and expect similar for at least some world bosses at some point). However, there is no denying that it skews things more towards the PvP aspect of PvX.
I do quite like the OP's suggestion of then taking the whole Underrealm and skewing it a little towards PvE.
I recall many years ago having a discussion with a game developer (who now works at Intrepid) about the notion of PvE and PvP never being able to be balanced together. If you have a player that prefers PvP, and another that prefers PvE, only one of those players can force their preferred play type on to the other.
As such, unless developers give players a means of summoning raid bosses that their would be rivals must defeat in order to continue their activity (you think you're going g to PvP me? Nope, I force my PvE on to you!), in order for a game to play as if it is balanced between PvP and PvE, the games developers need to skew the games design heavily towards PvE.
This is the case for any duopoly where one factor can be forced and the other can not.
What they shouldn't have is an attractive way to gear through PvP alone (like Arena+PvP Gear), as that would go directly against PvE and PvP being intertwined.
This is odd - you ask me what I am saying, and then you go and repeat what I am saying.
Yes, the fact that you need to PvE in order to get gear is indeed a part of developers skewing the games design towards PvE to make up for the fact that you can force PvP on someone, but not PvE.
Here is a question for you though. If you and I both come up to a *solo* farming spot, and we both want it, if you are a PvE focused player and I am a PvP focused player, who gets the spot?
I wouldn't see this as pvp xD, if you know the mechanics of the area you technically shouldn't end up red for the most part x.x. Likewise if a second group got to the boss they may be red by that point and can be flagged on and killed which would stop them from being able to effectively interfere.
The one more efficient at killing the enemies wins. In most cases in older games, and I believe in Lineage, the other leaves.
(I'm not sure if you've genuinely never experienced this in a difficult/complex PvE game, so lmk)
Considering that the Corruption system is a system mostly copied from Lineage 2, Id agree that there isnt much uniqueness to it. I rather question who thought, that this system was one of the things making Ashes unique, since this certainly hasnt promoted as one of the parts making it so. Said person must not have done a lot of research.
Also, what makes games unique isnt the uniqueness of single features within the game, but the accumulation of the features and the way they are interfaced with each other.
In L2? Killing for something like this was highly discouraged/very rare.
Basically the meta to it was inhibiting the other persons farming, stealing his mobs and making it not worthwhile to be there without killing him as the karma penalty wasnt worth it for the most part.
With this you essentially made him leave or potentially even baited him into attacking you.
So, PvE or PvP didnt really matter.
However, i know what you are asking. The advantage always goes towards the person who is willing to employ more tools at his disposal.
Or are you asking whether PvP players have more benefits because they're willing to PvP? In which case, yes, as it should be. If you're limiting yourself to PvE only, it's your own fault.
When a PvE Player spent his 150 hours in progressing his character and the PvP Player spent 70 hours in progressing the character and 80 in PvPing (which most of the time is a net-negative in terms of progression), then there is no reason why the PvE Player shouldnt be able to take the farmspot for himself, unless he is either incompetent or unwilling to take the spot.
I don't see how you reached this conclusion exactly, but if I go with it...
The PvE player does not have an explicit choice to engage in PvE as a way of trying to defeat the PvP skill of the PvP player in most games. If Ashes provides this as a small number of other games does, great.
The PvP player always has the choice of either 'trying to win in PvE' or 'trying to win in PvP', but they should obviously (let's assume builds are different) focus on the PvP using their skill because they 'would lose the PvE'. They don't need to 'request the terms of the contest'.
If 'an enemy Mob seeing their Player target get attacked' would immediately switch all adds/some portion of hate to the challenger, forcing that Challenger to PvE, then that would be 'fair'. Similarly, the PvP player going 'ok I'll prove I can beat them almost as well as you, so duel for spot', would be sensible, if it could be incentivized or maintained.
Corruption is the incentive.
If a PvX player had enough skill in PvE to make life difficult for the PvE player they are challenging for the spot, then they should do as @NiKr implied. Outfarm. They could even say 'You want to duel for this spot or should we compete for the farm?' or similar.
A game with a good culture or mechanics to incentivize these things would be better than a game where the optimal solution of the PvP player is, for example 'debuff and hit the PvE player while they are mid-combat and hope the mob kills them', and where the optimal solution of the PvE player is better than 'figure out a way to drop too many enemies into the cleave range of the PvP player who chooses not to PvP (to avoid corruption) so that they die'.
PvE and PvP player have the exact same choices. Do we know for a fact that PvPers won't be able to switch to their PvE-optimized gear or something, in order to not lose in PvE? If PvPers are screwed like that then sure, that incentivizes PKing, but somehow I doubt that's what the game is going for.
Indeed.
The PvEer's example you gave is an indirect PvP in my opinion. And it's fine, it's not a PvE-restricted game, not everything must be able to be resolved via purely PvE means, even for purely PvE players.
And... I think when he compares Ashes to L2, he makes a point to say that Corruption is harsher than Karma - specifically to add more of a deterrent to PKing.
But... I'm not aware of an MMORPG where PvPers don't have to do any PvE.
So with regard to MMORPGs with PvP, Ashes is not unique in being PvX - nor is L2.
AFAIK, the vast majority, if not all, MMORPGs with PvP are PvX... if all PvX means is that PvPers also have to do some PvE.
When I ask Steven if Ashes is a PvP game, similar to EvE or ArcheAge, he says that Ashes is not a PvP game. It's a PvX game.
I dont really care about terminology. Most of it lost all meaning forever ago.
Even his definition of PvX is something that isnt commonly used in the genre, where PvX is mostly used to describe guilds/games with both PvE and PvP Content. By that common definition, both AA and EVE would be PvX. By that definition Albion would be PvX. By that definition WoW would be PvX.
Which is why i prefer Stevens definition of PvX Games, aka a game, where PvE and PvP are intertwined.
This i dont agree with. Both players have the option to solve the issue through PvE, PvP, or Diplomacy. The PvE player merely chooses not to see PvP as a valid option, which is HIS choice. The option is there, he merely chooses not to take it. It wouldnt be a choice, if there was PvP Gear only a PvP Player owns, that make it impossible for a PvE Player to even consider the option. This is not the case here though. The options you have are the same. Being a pacifist is a choice.
This i agree with. Its not optimal, but this is ultimately what the corruption system will lead to, the same way it lead to this kind of behavior in Lineage 2. Im willing to see where Intrepid takes it though. Even if alternative routes of fuckery will be present it wont be a no-go for me either.
Yup in BDO being in the desert killing someone flags you and anyone can attack you freely and if you kill them you gain more karma which will eventually make you red. So people just refuse to actually pvp in the normal sense since the consequences are huge.
They simply try to feed people to mobs the entire time or out farm them. The thought of flagging for a single person is not common in the slightest. If they are goin got pvp they will guild dec and fight them after the dec goes through.
This has nothing to do with being a Pacifist.
For this discussion to even matter, the definitions of PvP and PvE player MUST refer to people who have explictly more skill or a better build for one of the two. Otherwise there's no need for any of it, which I would be glad for.
If you wish to perceive this as 'Well everyone should have the same ability to PvP gear/build wise and should aim for the same levels of skill', sure.
The PvE player would need a way to go 'I am going to use my skill with PvE against you whether you want to PvE or not' to the PvP player, for this to be 'balanced' because the PvP player has that option.
'Choosing' to PvP when you know you are disadvantaged due to build, what you practice, etc, simply because you do not have the option to do the other thing if your opponent chooses not to let you is what I am referring to here.
But if we are rejecting the very concept of 'PvE player' from even that perspective because that player type 'should not exist in Ashes', then all we have to do is hope that the game gets enough attention from players who don't mind 'My PvE skill only matters in a conflict if my opponent agrees to use it for the contest'.