Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
Confused on incentive for open world PvP
SorcererKingGown
Member
I understand the incentive to kill corrupted players. I don't understand the incentive to kill other characters. Yes if there is a caravan of materials or preventing a player from using your mining spot that is a pretty decent incentive, but what about all the other times? I remember being told Ashes isn't supposed to be a gank fest (which I am glad for), but with gear drops only occuring for corrupted players what other reasons do I have to ever engage in open world PvP?
0
Comments
To defend the lands and resources of Nazarick.
You're making a bet with yourself that if you kill this player for his resources, or whatever reason you have for killing him, that you will be able to get away and not be killed by enemy players while you're still red or purple.
Even if you are killed while corrupted, you'll suffer elevated penalties, but it's not 100% that you will drop gear. We don't know the percentages. But whatever they end up being, each player will determine what his or her risk tolerance is based on that, and the other standard penalties of death.
If you want to lv up or gather drops and materials and all the players around you are taking all the mobs everywhere you go, you are going to start picking fights.
An open world pvp mmo simulates real life. Conflict of interest. The purest reason to fight. And you are free to fight EVERYBODY. Or be friends with everybody.
There arent lame faction restrictions, or pre-determined gameplay.
There aren't any real incentives past zone control for open world pvp. That's the point. However the game lets you come up with any reason you want in order to "justify" attacking another player.
Also, caravans are not open world pvp, thats more structured and no one becomes corrupted during those fights.
Now, if you are the type that doesn't want to be constantly attacked, well that's up to the people running around to decide. You get to decide if you will defend yourself, roll over and take it, or flee.
And this is the problem of today's gaming.
Games are supposed to be fun, not a dopamine release mechanism. You do things because you think it's fun. You don't explore to get a reward, you explore because you want to see the world.
Incentives? Guild KoS, you don't like that player, that player is from another node/guild. He's always too close to you.
There are many reason to kill somebody, and most of them won't get you something in return. This is because PvP games are like this.
In Perfect World we would kill each other because Guilds were on Kos, or particular people. Or farming spots. Resources ARE important, that alone will cause many many wars.
this!
Some people enjoy the thrill of the hunt, that, if they're not careful, they will become the prey rather than the hunter. The open world gives them opportunities to exert, and feel, that they have some control on the hunting ground, that their decisions and their actions make a difference in what's going on around them. And I'm not talking of only killing other players: it's also about forming alliances, extracting resources or drop in a area, etc. It's about feeling that they are part of, responsible of, or had their hands in, shaping what's going on.
One of the reasons, at least what I feel is one, that so many people don't like open world PvP is because they enter the hunting grounds with an objective and someone else then decide that they won't be doing that. Thought you would kill these mobs and finishing your quest? Nope, you're fighting me today. Thought you could walk to that dungeon to farm with your friends? Nope, first you must get past me. Thought you would gather these minerals here. Nope, they're all mine, I've decided. If you've log in with an objective in mind, having someone else dictate what your playtime will be can be rather annoying. Each side have a different reason to be there.
And that's what's great, for me, about battlegrounds: everyone is aware of what the objectives are and which side they're on. If I die and it helps my team/side win, it was not in vain: it served a purpose. In the open world, if I die, I lose. If I win, the other player's aggro isn't reset: it just goes up and I'll have to fight them again.
But that destroy the social interaction. Why bother talking to someone else if they know what's going to happen. There's no mistery. If you want something like that you need to play an instanced game.
Open World PvP is great because of that. Because you don't know what's going to happen.
Out of all of the MMO's I've played Albion online was the only one with open-world PvP. There is a lot of motive to kill other players, you get their resources and their gear! What you talk about here basically is what, to me, makes Albion such a fun game. The risk, reward, the possibility of adversity at any moment, and the fact that even if you die you helped out your guild. It's great. The reason I am confused and what worries me, is that only corrupted will drop equipped items. I don't know how things will turn out but this strongly discourages PvP. Which I understand is the purpose of this mechanic. But Steven does wish for a risk/reward system. Getting a few mats probably isn't worth risking your gear. That's what I don't understand, what is the incentive to risk your gear? Just like how there is an incentive not to engage in PvP, there must be an incentive to engage in PvP. Otherwise, nobody but the bored max-level players will engage in it.
Last thing. I'm getting the feeling that I'm jumping the gun too early. We don't know how the economy in-game will work yet (both material economy and the loot drop rates from mobs), which will likely be the strongest incentive to engage in PvP.
The incentive to risk your gear is the odds of getting materials that are worth more than the gear is being higher than the odds of losing your gear.
You do not have a high chance to lose gear until you have built up a lot of corruption. Until then, the relatively low (though nonzero) chance of losing gear is likely intended to be less discouraging than the chance of gaining materials. Statistically, this is a simple Expected Value calculation, and easily tunable as such.
There's also no reason you necessarily need to bring your top level raiding gear when you go out to mug people.
I think you misunderstand... I absolutely MUST bring my top-level max over-enchanted raiding gear to mug level-2 adventurers (I respect that a level 1 doesn't fully understand the game yet)
Well then. I hope those mats are good!
In many games with open world PvP players were locked into a faction chosen at character creation and there was little means to communicate with the opposing side. Dark Age of Camelot, Warhammer Age of Reckoning, World of Warcraft, and many other popular MMOs made talking with the enemy impossible in game (aside from a few emotes). Not going to be like that in Ashes of Creation at least.
You may like not knowing what is going to happen, but whenever you decide you'll be someone else mystery they lose control over their own narrative. You force them to change their plans, drop whatever they wanted to do so they can become your opponents. Don't get me wrong, if the game's rules and mechanics allow it that's perfectly fine. Players should know what they've signed for. But there will always be friction when a game caters to more PvE oriented people for some part of its gameplay and to PvP minded ones for other part of the gameplay, and then force them to interact.
Player dropping gear may sound cool, but it implies that gear is fairly easy to replace (at least to have a operational character) or not the most relevant part of character progression. Both options are rather against what defines most MMOs. If you want gear to be meaningful and still droppable, you get a dangerous downward spiral, and lose players. I'm not an item driven player, so I'm totally fine with a rusty sword being only slightly worse then one crafted with rare components obtained by defeating 5 world bosses and completing 6 dungeons. Most people aren't though.
Benefits from killing characters in open world ? not big, even to progress thru PvP rank (because battleground were fast a thing and good spot to farm it) and for most people this PvP rank was more a proof of their PvP love than anything... in my own experience, was easier to stuff thru pvE (and then kill people in PvP
For me, the first incentiv to do open world PvP in ashes or other mmorpg allowing it is simple :
BLOOD FOR BLOOD GOD
SKULLS FOR THRONE OF SKULLS
PvP players will defend your ressources so it seems logical that non pvp players get flag. Also it is not acceptable that a player can farm ressources with any possibilities to get kicked out of the area. It will be a non sense for all PvP players.
The system of None combatant, combatant, corrupted is excellent on the papyer (maybe it will need some adjustment in the future).
We saw the hybrid games PvP/not pvp like New World and it clearly failed.
If Im not mistaking, you can stay none combatant and you will not risk your gear if you die.
PVP
PVE
The hard part is developing a game where there's a reason to maintain opposing factions. In a lot of games players will jump on whatever side is winning, or will try and join the largest group for the advantage it brings. When one side starts winning it snowballs and the losing side collapses.
Totally agree.
If the reasons why a player will engage in PvP are not interesting enough, then PvP players will automatically turn to abusive noob bashing.
Let's face it, there will always be players trying to kill noobs over and over. But it is possible to naturally limit this phenomenon, not by coercion but by orienting PvP players towards higher stakes.
1. If there are too many PEX farming zones, the PvP players will have little interest in defending their xp area. They will be frustrated and the risk of noob bashing will increase.
2. The same goes for the resource farming area. If the resource farming areas are well distributed (not too many), there will naturally be PvP to defend these areas.
3. The same goes for the bosses, too many bosses will limit the potential encounter rate between players.
In conclusion, the game should be designed so that the natural evolution of the PvP player leads to combat. In this case, the PvP player will be too busy living his life in the game to think about taking on noobs. The free PK will then be opportunistic and not abusive.
What I suggest :
1. Bosses/Mini-bosses
- Bosses/mini-bosses must be long to kill. Even thos which are not very strong, it must take a loooong time to get killed.
- Bosses/mini-bosses must loot some very rare gear/items. And not only are but also unique (If a player is loooking for an item, he must know that he find it only on this boss).
- The respawn must be regular and not random (if random, then the server should ve alerted that in XXX minutes that boss will spawn).
- The time to reach a boss area but not too short to avoid players that has been kicked to return in 20 seconds.
2. Farming area
Ressources must be very located. (Not every ressources a little bit everywhere).
3. Most PEX areas must offer a low/medium xp/hours. Only few pex areas must offer in significantly good rate xp/hour to force people to fight for the best areas. The people who prefer to play with low risk can still pex in the low/medium xp/hours areas
If these pointed are respected, the pvp should be fun.
Players are a resource too. Farm too much and they die out.
Talking specifically about owPvP, not about caravans, node wars, guild wars, etc., I can see the following reasons for PKing someone: for fun, to get 25% or 50% of their droppable resources, to start conflict between guilds/nodes, to grief people who deserve it (or not) and to contest a farming ground.
Seems good enough for me, a lot better than not being able to attack other people, and with some consequence involved.
Open World means not in an instance. And all of the above forms of PvP are not in an instance.
What you may mean is that those are not Free-For-All PvP.
Semantics. Duels will happen in the open world because they won't be instanced, it doesn't mean it's open world PvP.
I am guilty of assuming that other people understood specifically what I was talking about, so I'll edit my post and say that:
Replace what I said about "open world PvP" with "PvP with corruption" or with "FFA PvP" if you prefer. Regardless of the choice of words, that's the type of open world PvP I believed the OP was talking about and what I was talking about, not the other types of PvP which won't involve corruption.
Regarding "FFA PvP", the ocean is (so far) the only place with real FFA PvP along with node/guild wars, caravans and sieges, because my understanding is that FFA means no punishment, i.e. no corruption, but again, semantics. And worrying about semantics is usually a waste of time.
new players will join
History suggests otherwise.
you are only looking at total game population, not server population. people playing on another server dont matter for your server. if players in your server leave for another server, new players will join, or the server will get merged, in which case, you will still have gatherers to farm
Maybe if families make them.