Suggestion: Issues with Mandatory PvP, work around for PvE enjoyers to participate.

I recently watched an Asmongold reaction video and he was talking about the problems with mandatory PvP particularly in Classic WoW.
I am a PvP enjoyer but also realize PvE players exist and should have a way to participate in open world events without having to engage in PvP combat.
My suggestion is to have non combat roles for those players to engage in these more pvp focused events like wars, world bosses etc.
Basically you would have a few slots in your raid group for those players where they would become unable to participate in combat and not have to deal with griefing but also had a meaningful role to play.
eg. Bannermen that provided some sort of buffs to your raid, damage reduction, move speed etc.
Medics that could heal or revive players,
Repairmen that could reinforce and repair siege equipment or castle walls and so on,
Scouts that could track movements and disrupt supply lines, maybe have stealth, could cut a tree down to block the road so supplies/reinforcements would get delayed until the debris was cleared.
A Battlefield commander that could issue orders and relay information from the scouts to the rest of the raid, mark key points on the map, call for an attack at specific locations, request reinforcements, repairs and so on.
a lot of these ideas are mainly focused around siege/war but still think some could work for world bosses like bannermen, medics, scouts
I haven't been following all the updates and have no idea if this was already an idea you had but I thought I'd give my feedback anyways.
Cheers.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Ludullu

No. PvP events are literally EVENTS. They're temporary and are all opt-in. If you hate pvp - there's no place for you in a PVP EVENT. And for open world gameplay there's already a system that prevents griefing and there's a shitton of content that's got nothing to do with pvp.

Asmon's whole experience is WoW. He doesn't even know how BDO's systems worked, even though he played it. And WoW is a god damn faction-based game where genociding others is not even penalized, so of course he'll immediately think that no system can stop griefing, because he's used to a system where it was pretty much encouraged.

Steven keeps saying that there'll be pretty much no griefing in the game, and he even fucking promised to ban people who'll be repeatedly killing players for no real reason. And we've heard several details that make the corruption system so damn punishing that I'm starting to think there'll be barely any owpvp in the game at all, purely because everyone will know that it's pointless to attack others for they will never fight back.

The only thing that you should pay attention to when watching Asmon talk about this system is him saying "let's wait till Intrepid shows us what they have planned and then we'll say what we think about it".

Taleof2Cities

Ashes is a PvX game ... if you don't enjoy the risk of PvP then it might not be a game for you.

George_Black

Not. What are you talking about? There are PvE mmos out there

SirChancelot

Pwinzor wrote: »

I recently watched an Asmongold reaction video and he was talking about the problems with mandatory PvP particularly in Classic WoW.
I am a PvP enjoyer but also realize PvE players exist and should have a way to participate in open world events without having to engage in PvP combat.
My suggestion is to have non combat roles for those players to engage in these more pvp focused events like wars, world bosses etc.
Basically you would have a few slots in your raid group for those players where they would become unable to participate in combat and not have to deal with griefing but also had a meaningful role to play.
eg. Bannermen that provided some sort of buffs to your raid, damage reduction, move speed etc.
Medics that could heal or revive players,
Repairmen that could reinforce and repair siege equipment or castle walls and so on,
Scouts that could track movements and disrupt supply lines, maybe have stealth, could cut a tree down to block the road so supplies/reinforcements would get delayed until the debris was cleared.
A Battlefield commander that could issue orders and relay information from the scouts to the rest of the raid, mark key points on the map, call for an attack at specific locations, request reinforcements, repairs and so on.
a lot of these ideas are mainly focused around siege/war but still think some could work for world bosses like bannermen, medics, scouts
I haven't been following all the updates and have no idea if this was already an idea you had but I thought I'd give my feedback anyways.
Cheers.

They have said there would be PvE style world bosses that would give your side buffs during nice seiges.
If you don't want to fight and storm the castle you can go kill the boss to help your allies.

Caww

Most of those suggestions (buffing, reviving, spying, repairing, etc) would allow risk-free play which is not the core concept. If you're gonna do any of that you can expect to have counter-play directed your way to prevent it.

Ironhope

The discussion is pointless because the devs already said numerous times they are not going to alter the core design of the game.

As far as Asmongold is concerned, he is an imbecile.

He has his charm, which mostly stems from the fact he is very relatable for other gamers (and like most of them them, he is an utterly clueless manbaby) and he is well organized, but God forbid anybody take his advice when developing a game.

If given the chance, he would make this into the same style of been-there-done-that, convenience nuked, safe-space, carebear MMO-RPG that we've seen take this genre into the ground.

There are going to be no PvE servers and no PvP opt-out buttons (no non-PVP roles), and no, its not going to be a griefing hell, the corruption system will be more than enough to make griefing into little more than a rare meme.

Just go play another mmo-rpg if you don't like what this one is offering.

I for one love it, have played similar stuff constantly over my years as a gamer, and I can't wait to try it.

Nric

Its allways the ones that starts saying "I'am a pvp player ~~" the worst ones.

Mr_MaDrupalow

In previous MMO(RPG`s) like New World, Lost Ark, EoS FFXIV I only did PvP if neccessary or I had the mood for it. And if I would be still in that state of mindset, I would be with you @Pwinzor

But since about a half year of following actively AoC`s monthly livestreams, Steven convinced me of a new mindset. I like the PvX concept of the game, Risk with Reward, and if you can stay on PvE "mode" in a PvP Event, the Risk breaks off, leaving only the Reward.
The very punishing corruption system looks promising. It has to be that punishing to prevent Griefing, Ganking but it doesn't prohibits OWPvP.

I love the game for how it is developed and stands for it's words and core gameplay.

DarkTides

Imo, corruption system will hardly get used. Its to prevent unintended pvp and there will be plenty of intended pvp. If we look at the systems of the game, theres no way, gatherers for example, are going to be allowed to just screw up and strip a neighbouring node of its resources without any recourse from the players of that node.

Calling it now. There will be systems added to the game to make those players pvp enabled, falling under intended pvp.

That said, this is a node war game, and it doesnt make sense to have pve only.

If Asmongold couldnt be killed, he would run around killing everyone.

Arya_Yeshe

how about scary mandatory PvE which gives depression on PvPers?

can you imagine comming for the PvP and having to farm gear for hundreds of hours in carebearing PvE?
:'(

Nova_terra

Mr_MaDrupalow wrote: »

In previous MMO(RPG`s) like New World, Lost Ark, EoS FFXIV I only did PvP if neccessary or I had the mood for it. And if I would be still in that state of mindset, I would be with you @Pwinzor

But since about a half year of following actively AoC`s monthly livestreams, Steven convinced me of a new mindset. I like the PvX concept of the game, Risk with Reward, and if you can stay on PvE "mode" in a PvP Event, the Risk breaks off, leaving only the Reward.
The very punishing corruption system looks promising. It has to be that punishing to prevent Griefing, Ganking but it doesn't prohibits OWPvP.

I love the game for how it is developed and stands for it's words and core gameplay.

I think there is a large segment of the population that is scared or worried about PvX because they see pvp servers on x or y game griefing happening with no reward and risk associated with existing in those games. At it's root, I believe the structure of this game (pending A2 -> B2 to confirm but going based off vision) is far more conducive to actually having the reward which is mats, which is loot, which is successful transportation of goods, etc. Most people's experience of pvp is in games where it was not a focus (think WoW, SWTOR, New World) where it is lackluster and even pvping outside of instances leads to no actual reward more than "winning". There is nothing at stake.

My 2c anyway.

Edit: I meant to add that basically I agree with you that I am sold on the vision based off what I am seeing and hearing as I am a PvP player in most cases (big time raider as well, but i'd still classify myself as a pvp player) but think that this game is taking a new angle that has me buying in.

Dygz

NiKr wrote: »

No. PvP events are literally EVENTS. They're temporary and are all opt-in. If you hate pvp - there's no place for you in a PVP EVENT. And for open world gameplay there's already a system that prevents griefing and there's a shitton of content that's got nothing to do with pvp.

That's not necessarily true - especially since the events are objective-based.
It can be possible to just focus on completing the objectives.
NW had phases in the PvP events where you are basically racing to build up defenses - those phases are PvE.
Theoretically, there could be PvE objectives like that inside a Castle or inside the primary POIs of a Node - where enemies can't reach until the doors are breached.
The PvE folk who don't want to be in combat with other players but still want to support their Castle/Node could bail once the actual fighting reaches them, but...

They would have to be comfortable playing Ashes outside of Sieges and Caravans first.
Non-combat roles surrounded by PvPers is a common solution presented by PvPers.

Nova_terra

Dygz wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

No. PvP events are literally EVENTS. They're temporary and are all opt-in. If you hate pvp - there's no place for you in a PVP EVENT. And for open world gameplay there's already a system that prevents griefing and there's a shitton of content that's got nothing to do with pvp.

That's not necessarily true - especially since the events are objective-based.
It can be possible to just focus on completing the objectives.
NW had phases in the PvP events where you are basically racing to build up defenses - those phases are PvE.
Theoretically, there could be PvE objectives like that inside a Castle or inside the primary POIs of a Node - where enemies can't reach until the doors are breached.
The PvE folk who don't want to be in combat with other players but still want to support their Castle/Node could bail once the actual fighting reaches them, but...

They would have to be comfortable playing Ashes outside of Sieges and Caravans first.
Non-combat roles surrounded by PvPers is a common solution presented by PvPers.

While I'd be interested to see a functioning PvE role in a PvP event, I think this idea has legs to stand on but creates an antagonistic relationship. Where basically the PvE folks are in an environment they don't want to be in but feel forced to "help" their node and then when they bail the PvP folks have "damn flaky PvEers". Obviously this is incredibly wide brushstrokes from me as no two people are the same but I can't quite see a picture where this would cause harmonious relations.

Ludullu

Dygz wrote: »

That's not necessarily true - especially since the events are objective-based.
It can be possible to just focus on completing the objectives.
NW had phases in the PvP events where you are basically racing to build up defenses - those phases are PvE.
Theoretically, there could be PvE objectives like that inside a Castle or inside the primary POIs of a Node - where enemies can't reach until the doors are breached.
The PvE folk who don't want to be in combat with other players but still want to support their Castle/Node could bail once the actual fighting reaches them, but...

They would have to be comfortable playing Ashes outside of Sieges and Caravans first.
Non-combat roles surrounded by PvPers is a common solution presented by PvPers.

Unless they're completely separate from other players (namely enemies) during the events - they might still get repeatedly killed. And usually "repeated killing" is exactly what people mean when they mention griefing.

They mention world bosses too, but that's literally pve that includes pvp rather than the other way around.

I know you're fine with some pvp during temporary events, if you're in the mood for it, but some people dislike even that amount of pvp, especially considering that they'll be dying over and over again during those periods of time.

Arya_Yeshe

Pwinzor wrote: »

I recently watched an Asmongold reaction video and he was talking about the problems with mandatory PvP particularly in Classic WoW.
I am a PvP enjoyer but also realize PvE players exist and should have a way to participate in open world events without having to engage in PvP combat.
My suggestion is to have non combat roles for those players to engage in these more pvp focused events like wars, world bosses etc.
Basically you would have a few slots in your raid group for those players where they would become unable to participate in combat and not have to deal with griefing but also had a meaningful role to play.
eg. Bannermen that provided some sort of buffs to your raid, damage reduction, move speed etc.
Medics that could heal or revive players,
Repairmen that could reinforce and repair siege equipment or castle walls and so on,
Scouts that could track movements and disrupt supply lines, maybe have stealth, could cut a tree down to block the road so supplies/reinforcements would get delayed until the debris was cleared.
A Battlefield commander that could issue orders and relay information from the scouts to the rest of the raid, mark key points on the map, call for an attack at specific locations, request reinforcements, repairs and so on.
a lot of these ideas are mainly focused around siege/war but still think some could work for world bosses like bannermen, medics, scouts
I haven't been following all the updates and have no idea if this was already an idea you had but I thought I'd give my feedback anyways.
Cheers.

You are not a pvper or pvp enjoyer if you think a fight is griefing, you are thinking like a carebear

But for sure carebears like yourself could have a role in sieges, that is repairing stuff, building stuff, hauling stuff, gathering supplies... maybe even help hiring mercs wth a bit of gold?

There are NPC mercenaries that can be hired by mayors for such events:
https://pt.ashesofcreation.wiki/Mercenary_NPCs

Carebears, who aspire to become bots in real life, can do the same activities as the npcs and fulfill their bot aspirancy

Dygz

NiKr wrote: »

Unless they're completely separate from other players (namely enemies) during the events - they might still get repeatedly killed. And usually "repeated killing" is exactly what people mean when they mention griefing.

Again... this was not a problem in Alpha 1 Sieges, since enemies would first have to breach the gates and then breach the doors to the Castle, so... yes... PvE folk could be completely separate from enemy players during those phases if there's PvE stuff for them to work on behind the gates and behind the doors.
And then, they can bail once the enemies breach the gates or doors.
But... there would have to be PvE objectives for them to complete during those phases.

NiKr wrote: »

I know you're fine with some pvp during temporary events, if you're in the mood for it, but some people dislike even that amount of pvp, especially considering that they'll be dying over and over again during those periods of time.

They would not be dying over and over again during those phases.
But, sure, if Ashes doesn't include that in their design, it's a moot point.

And, again...
They would have to be comfortable playing Ashes outside of Sieges and Caravans first.
Which is unlikely.

Dygz

Nova_terra wrote: »

While I'd be interested to see a functioning PvE role in a PvP event, I think this idea has legs to stand on but creates an antagonistic relationship. Where basically the PvE folks are in an environment they don't want to be in but feel forced to "help" their node and then when they bail the PvP folks have "damn flaky PvEers". Obviously this is incredibly wide brushstrokes from me as no two people are the same but I can't quite see a picture where this would cause harmonious relations.

I think that would depend on the specific server community.
Assuming some servers are more PvE-oriented than others.
Which was Jeffrey's expectation.

Sengarden

I watched the video you mentioned as well, OP. I like some of Asmon’s opinions, especially when it comes to the design of largely PvE game systems, but beyond that, his experience becomes less valuable.

He has very little idea of how popular and functional the PvP systems in archeage and BDO were/are. He mentioned that when he wants a PvP experience, he boots up a solely PvP game, “like everyone else.” However, he forgot at least one major player in the PvX market - Sea of Thieves. That game exploded in popularity, and the premise is almost entirely based on achieving PvE objectives while surviving the threat of PvP.

There’s a market for this type of gameplay out there, and I think people will be very surprised by how well Ashes may be able to pull together gamers from all the different low quality PvX games into a single one of great quality.

As for your specific suggestion, I’d say no. In a realistic world, yes, “healers” (field medics) are not supposed to be considered combatants, but this is a video game where healers have near unlimited supplies of resources and magic spells that keep soldiers from falling in battle at all. They are combat objectives. Bards are largely a support class, providing buffs to their allies. Those players are combat objectives, because taking them down weakens their entire squad. And I don’t think we need to be getting into non-combatants pulling off espionage inside the enemy’s fortress or on their back line. Such people would be captured or killed immediately if caught in a realistic scenario, not just allowed to walk away. Repairmen? In the middle of a siege? I don’t think a bunch of artisans would be hanging out with the infantry and laying down bricks while dodging arrows to the face. They’d do their best to reinforce the keep before the siege (a system that’s already in the game) and then piss off to a shelter somewhere.

These systems do not need to have unrealistic divisions between PvE and PvP players. The entire process of the siege has opportunities for PvE players to get involved by providing resources and building siege equipment before battles. Let the players in the battles do just that - battle.

Heartbeat

NiKr wrote: »

No. PvP events are literally EVENTS. They're temporary and are all opt-in. If you hate pvp - there's no place for you in a PVP EVENT. And for open world gameplay there's already a system that prevents griefing and there's a shitton of content that's got nothing to do with pvp.

Asmon's whole experience is WoW. He doesn't even know how BDO's systems worked, even though he played it. And WoW is a god damn faction-based game where genociding others is not even penalized, so of course he'll immediately think that no system can stop griefing, because he's used to a system where it was pretty much encouraged.

Steven keeps saying that there'll be pretty much no griefing in the game, and he even fucking promised to ban people who'll be repeatedly killing players for no real reason. And we've heard several details that make the corruption system so damn punishing that I'm starting to think there'll be barely any owpvp in the game at all, purely because everyone will know that it's pointless to attack others for they will never fight back.

The only thing that you should pay attention to when watching Asmon talk about this system is him saying "let's wait till Intrepid shows us what they have planned and then we'll say what we think about it".

I'm glad someone else said it, i do like asmon and think he has good input on lots of MMO topics but I can't stand Asmons take on PvP and how he thinks separate PvE and PvP servers would be a good thing for Ashes, Asmon straight up doesn't understand the PvP community, there are many types of PvP playstyles and he clearly misunderstands them all. Personally knowing about how Steven has talked about the corruption system in the past makes me think OWPvP will be completely dead, the penalties and stat dampening sound extremely severe even after a single kill.

But this is largely unnecessary, it sounds like some players and Intrepid alike are terrified at the thought that low-level and/or low-gear players would be constantly killed indiscriminately. But this is largely untrue, look at BDO's karma system for example, it's not even harsh but players would still rather avoid going red due to the thought that they could break BIS crystals if a stronger player came along to kill them.

The bounty hunter system will exist to cull corrupted players, I think it's best to allow players to handle other players rather than try to patrol and control players through the severe corruption penalties and even going as far as Steven saying you can get banned for repeatedly killing players. How is that fair to the player who's trying to guard resources for his guild/node/himself/whatever and after only one kill hes considered corrupted and several kills later a GM is asking why he killed the same person 5 times in 5 minutes. The real question is why is that player continuously going back to the other player just to die over and over again, wouldn't that be considered harassment also?

Arya_Yeshe

Yes, all kinds of people agree that Asmongold is a bit lost when the subject is PvP to say the least, this is because he stayed in WoW for too long

Child Item