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
When People Say They Want Player Driven Content, What Do They Mean?
Azherae
Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
Came to mind because of something happening in Elite right now and that I've seen a parallel to when running a community a while back, so I'm asking to get a better answer spread than 'my friends' and 'a few others I know'.
I've heard quite a few people say that they want 'player driven content' and to not have the game hand them a story. But is this the minority of players? Outside of my own group, the people I've met who say this, then turn out to really just want 'an excuse or reason to start or participate in a conflict they can win'. Very explicitly just that (I've quite likely just had bad experiences?)
Elite has good options for storyline between factions, basically Nodes and Node War style stuff, it's all there. Yet players often seem to just ignore options for it, even when it starts. Is the 'content' most people are referring to just 'I want to fight some people' and therefore the reason why they just gravitate to Fortnite/MOBAs/etc now?
Is it that I'm misunderstanding 'Player Driven Content' to include types of RP or storyline due to my bias, that aren't actually important? This seems odd because a Sandbox game with just 'I want a reason to fight these guys' is still just a sandbox game and often might as well be an arena game.
Elite has many things that a player can do which aren't directly conflict/opposition related, but people who actually play in Open (basically the owPvP 'setting') don't seem to engage with most of them unless they expect that this will lead to a fight, particularly a fight they can win.
I used to think this was just me getting a data bias, because I 'already know all the people who would want more' and I already roll with those people, but after spending time in other PvP/PvX games, I'm no longer sure. I'm specifically talking about 'storyline', whatever that means to people, so if all that was just me jibbering, to you, I can bring it down to one question:
"Is Player Driven Storyline mostly just drama and conflict or things that will lead to it, for people you know?"
I've heard quite a few people say that they want 'player driven content' and to not have the game hand them a story. But is this the minority of players? Outside of my own group, the people I've met who say this, then turn out to really just want 'an excuse or reason to start or participate in a conflict they can win'. Very explicitly just that (I've quite likely just had bad experiences?)
Elite has good options for storyline between factions, basically Nodes and Node War style stuff, it's all there. Yet players often seem to just ignore options for it, even when it starts. Is the 'content' most people are referring to just 'I want to fight some people' and therefore the reason why they just gravitate to Fortnite/MOBAs/etc now?
Is it that I'm misunderstanding 'Player Driven Content' to include types of RP or storyline due to my bias, that aren't actually important? This seems odd because a Sandbox game with just 'I want a reason to fight these guys' is still just a sandbox game and often might as well be an arena game.
Elite has many things that a player can do which aren't directly conflict/opposition related, but people who actually play in Open (basically the owPvP 'setting') don't seem to engage with most of them unless they expect that this will lead to a fight, particularly a fight they can win.
I used to think this was just me getting a data bias, because I 'already know all the people who would want more' and I already roll with those people, but after spending time in other PvP/PvX games, I'm no longer sure. I'm specifically talking about 'storyline', whatever that means to people, so if all that was just me jibbering, to you, I can bring it down to one question:
"Is Player Driven Storyline mostly just drama and conflict or things that will lead to it, for people you know?"
Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
1
Comments
It would allow players to always have a fresh feeling in the world (maybe like 20-40% ) always having something new to chase. All based on the players interactions with the world. That would be the most ideal form if it can be done.
If it is purely content based on drama and conflict that isn't as interesting you lose the run rp feeling for pure pvp and eventually you feel there is a lack of content. BDO as an example.
I remember server "histories" like this:
- Guild X dominated the first few weeks because they grinded like hell
- Guild Y and Z teamed up right before the siege to stop Guild X from getting a valuable castle
- Y/Z alliance managed to kill an Epic boss after winning a 5h-long pvp against X
- 2 parties from X got tired of losing to the zerg and made a deal with Z to create their own side
- X, Y and Z are now somewhat equal on the server and constantly fight for different bosses with anyone being able to come out on top in a fight
- Suddenly guild A appears with a ton of players that are rapidly growing in power and start winning some group pvps against all 3 sides here and there
- A and B group up to take a castle from one of the big sides
- There's some "public" (usually on the forums) drama between A and B over who deserves what in their deal
- Some groups from B leave to A because they see more potential there
- B dissolves
- A becomes the strongest guild on the server and manages to control several bosses and castles (through alt guilds)
- X/Y/Z might ally up in whatever combination to help each other
- Rinse/repeat that history until most players tire out or some side becomes just waaaay too strong and everyone else gives up, because they've been at it for months and months
That's mainly an overextended and extrapolated history, because most private servers didn't survive long enough to see the full list happen, but I've experienced multiple sequences from it and have heard roughly this exact story from some of the official servers as well, so I think it's the closest thing to a full "player-driven story content" from L2.I'm sure there's people who'd call RP "player-driven content", but I think those are the minority, simply because it's way easier to say RP and people will immediately know what you're talking about.
As for "only in case where you'll win", I agree. I've seen a ton of servers where people would go hard for a week or two (depending on when the server starts) and then as soon as they lose a castle siege or don't grab a few Heroes at the end of the month - they quit. And with how the CIS private server culture works - L2 has kinda become a session-based game, where sessions are just 1-3 week long. So in a way they are playing an arena game, just based on L2's gameplay.
And official servers had huge problems with p2w/bots/rmt, so even while there were some big stories of "this party left the strongest guild on the server, created their own guild and then managed to rival their OG one", those were quite rare because top players would snowball way too hard through the combo of rmt and p2w.
So with all that being said, I do believe that the Node system might allow people who dislike losing too much kinda "restart" the game on their own terms w/o leaving it completely. Intrepid just gotta account for those people in their design I think.
However, in said experience, what I have experienced is that people wanting "player driven content" really just want to fuck with other players. Sometimes that is in the form of open PvP, sometimes it is in the form of trolling. To them, the content the game provides is a backdrop - other players are the content they want.
In my experience, again, those people wanting to play a game for its content specifically want to experience a well constructed story, something player driven content cant offer.
I'm not sure how to answer a question that asks about what other people think.
However, if I say that I want some level of player driven content in Ashes, what I mean is that I want the game to offer the base systems/tools/objectives/rewards/fun required for players to organically develop content - whatever content means for as many different types of players as possible.
It's something very abstract and easier said than done, but if I had the power to suggest and design some of these systems, Ashes would be extremely fun - for me.
Player-driven content is just people being friendly, competitive, or theatrical with each other, which can happen in any multiplayer game. Community-driven content requires that communities be empowered to engage with each other on a larger scale, which requires these big MMO systems.
I think "community-driven history" might be a more precise way to name this concept, because it frames the idea around big, world-changing events, and the long-term consequences that follow, rather than single one-off battles/play sessions.
...
Or they could just mean literal player-created content, like in a TTRPG or any video game that lets people make custom levels. *Shrug*
I mean I want to make a decision because a player created a circumstance outside of my control.
Player driven just means there is another player who I cannot control interacting with me or with things I want to interact with to force me to make decisions.
The reason I know I like this is because there is a dynamic that is always changing when dealing with players, my experience is largely in combat admittedly and for me that has been lots of fun, I have spent 1000s of hours in games where real people dictate my next action and I love it!
Player driven can be an OW boss, siege, resource control, non instanced player housing, freeholds, dungeons, etc. Even though every system relies on underlying content to exist, players interacting because of that content keeps that content feeling fresh for me.
An 8 man party clearing a dungeon over and over again is fun, the first 40 times maybe. A party clearing a dungeon constantly changing their tactics to accommodate other players means I can't just autopilot through it every single time and I like that and think that is player driven.
Working my freehold property is fun for the first 100 hours or so, but adding in the ability for my clan mates to show up and help, or contribute to the resource pool and require things from me keeps it interesting infinitely longer!
Setting up a trading post in a city with goods for sale for players to buy is player driven.
A well constructed story is something that Player driven content "can't" offer is probably one of the dumbest things I have read.
Did you believe the internet would become widely used?
Something that can't happen will never happen, to argue that would indicate that it is a mathematical impossibility. The very idea of player driven content is that its origin is diverse meaning there are a huge number of possibilities for different stories to develop. it is not just combat and most importantly, a well constructed story is just an opinion.
AOC launches its full game.
On launch a castle is taken early by a guild, who then imposes increased tax requirements for every nearby node. As a result players quickly move to an area the castle ZOI does not impact and level the nodes creating a lockout zone of nodes in the first castles ZOI. This creates a lower maximum threshold for income allowing a weaker than average clan to take the castle bolstering its strength and allowing it to then gift the castle to an ally guild the following month giving an alliance 2 castles to their name and control over the taxation policy on 40% of Verra. As a result with no intention of keeping their first castle the alliance earned themselves they raise the tax policies to max and punish anyone moving to their ZOI as much as possible through policy. This creates a weakened defensive state for the metros resulting in their demise a restructuring of node lockout zones and allowing the alliance gain extreme wealth to invest into the first castle.
That is a story, one that COULD happen. It was driven by players but enabled by the developers. There are infinite possibilities for a story to develop, any on of them could be conceived as a well constructed story. Because at the end of the day IS made the story happen by creating a world driven by players actions.
Pretty much yeah. Nikr described one scenario of it. The scenarios are endless. Epic stories can come about from a fight over a single iron ore vein, or a single mob spawn.
It can be about more than just player combat though in some cases. Player driven economies are part of it too. In trading simulator games, Uncharted Waters Online might be an example of this, market prices fluctuate based on other player's trading actions. So my personal story on a given day, and the next, and the next, is determined by where I sail to trade, which is determined by other people's actions affecting the market. This effectively creates economic pvp, where I try to anticipate what other players are going to do, when they're going to do it, and try to make big gains for myself in the midst of it all, by doing it first, or more efficiently.
Ashes will apparently be having a more pve focused player driven storyline with their story arcs. I'm not sure if this has ever been done before, probably has, just not sure. I'm sure it will be influenced by pvp too, but it's more pve focused regardless.
So there's different versions of it all. Traditionally though, it generally refers to player combat/drama type things. The cool thing is that Ashes is going to have everything I just described in this post.
Its basically this, but I would also add on that it can be something like a large group of people deciding hey we wanna delete our characters if we die once. Now this is a suuuuper basic version of player driven content, but the tools were made by the game devs, (the ability to delete your character whenever you want) and what this boils down to is the freedom to invent new content within the bounds of the game.
the flagging system is a form of player driven content facilitated by the game devs. You have the freedom to be a dick but there are consequences.
Another example would be challenge rewards/achievements. Being able to get something rare or unique lets you kind of show off to other players. Some (a lot of) people love doing that.
So, I like open world PvP. I do not engage first in PvP encounters but I love responding to attackers, help out other players being attacked and the thrill of fight or flight . When it comes to "player driven content", I think of V Rising vs. WoW.
If someone ganks me in WoW and disappears out of the zone, then I will probably never see them again, thanks to the sharding system. This might be a relief to some... But not to me.
In V Rising the community on each server banded together. It is not really comparable to old school WoW for those thinking of that, cause everyone except your team mates (1-4 players) are hostile. Bullies quickly became notorious and groups teamed up to protect themselves. You recognized notorious players already at a distance and if you had tons of material on you, then you either prepared for combat or started running. Sometimes you lost everything, and then you either cut your losses and moved on, or started plotting your revenge. I loved all of that, and AoC seems like it will provide just that for me; with a MMO flare to make it more everlasting instead of lobbylike. That feeling and that kind of player interaction is what I think of when people say "player driven."
There will be trolls and there will be very aggressive PvPers, but the community can work together to keep them in check. And I believe that by using traditional servers there will be much less people striving to cause harm because you are not as anonymous as you are on sharded servers. Ones reputation matter.
There isnt though.
Imagine a game with player driven content (developer speak for "we dont plan on making much actual content for this game") but with no PvP.
You could argue that there are other things you could do to influence others game and such, but without PvP to back that up, it is essentially meaningless.
Oh, I didnt mean it like that at all. That is just the first comparison that comes to my mind, as it is probably the most relevant aspect to me. And besides, other users already covered the PvE aspects very well already.
RP servers in PvE games is also often like 99.9% player driven - I myself do not RP in MMOs tho, so it is not really relevant to me.
As for "Player Driven Content" i believe the oldest and most common ones are Speedrunning, 0 death/losses runs and self-imposed restrictions/limitations runs, things that aren't directly pvp related and beyond the necessity of being even intended by the game devs most of the time.
For MMORPGs in specific, RP is obviously one of the main "Player Driven Content" for people who partake in it.
"Player Driven Content" as a concept is just too generic to be used for those specific already cemented types of "Player Driven Content".
Aren't we all sinners?
Every game that has multiplayer has at least some player driven
Not every multiplayer game has PVP
Yeah, this is true - but you aren't going to advertise a game like WoW as having player driven content - nor are players really going to talk about it all that much.
A game like EVE though...
Play driven content can have 0 pvp and be purely PvE. I don't really want to do a giant post explaining it. Be long story short the idea always has been players do something and the world reacts. Between the cities, the events, what monsters are spawning, new areas open up, challenges, etc. Like a world reacting to player decisions in real time. So you have all the content there but the content doesn't move without the players driving it.
E:D is a pretty poor example; the PvP players swiftly get bored becasue no one doing trade runs ever needs to hire people for defense, they just fly solo. There is no incentive to trade in Open becasue adding any mechanical reason to play in Open gets a huge backlash for some bizarre reason. It's a very flawed system that kills PvP long term.
What?
To be clear, I'm not saying it is a technical impossibility to have a game with player driven content and no PvP, I am saying it is pointless.
I wouldn't say it is pointless, people enjoy PvE games and PvE mmorpg. I'm simply saying there is month depth and potential that people thinking surface level pure pvp. Then you combine everything together and you have an amazing game.
To avoid just swamping it and creating an interminably long post, it'll probably be one at a time, though, and probably not in order. For now, here's my baseline and why I had the issue (not related to Elite, more as a response to all the things said in aggregate).
I see 'player driven content' as anything that isn't instanced. The game doesn't need to be a sandbox, but if it isn't instanced and the economy... exists... most of the content is already 'player driven'.
I can see how someone might care about something providing a goal in a game, and then wishing for that goal to be defined by a player, which isn't a default in a PvE game, but it's not a default in a PvX game either. I'm an econ player obviously (or a group leader depending) and therefore it ends up looking like the following, to me in PvE/PvX.
"Player/group has economic/territory goal or positional tactical objective which requires some actions."
"Other players outside group can help or become obstacles to change those actions."
That's it.
In a PvE game without instances, the timing when the other group can become an obstacle might be limited, but just 'getting the looting rights' (through whatever means that game offers) to the economic goal or 'achieving the territory goal' is still managing part 2.
In a PvX game we add 'the ability to attack the other players too'.
That's the context of anything else I refer to.
Here's Exhibit A, just to clarify, so that the E:D part can be fleshed out a tiny bit. This poster is right, but is also 'the point of the post'. It would take me a while to break down everything said here as to why it's a symptom and not the cause, but I'll try to do a bit of it.
Just ignore this entire post if you have no interest in the Elite Dangerous part, it's not particularly important to anything else.
So for context the PvX mode of Elite Dangerous is optional on login. You play in 'Open' to encounter other players, play Solo to encounter none, and play in your own group instances to encounter only members of that group. Your effects on the game's territory and economy are all still counted, and as far as I know, counted equally.
There are no restrictions on what activities you can undertake in any modes other than obviously group activities in Solo. This means that a large number of the game's players just don't play in Open, as the only thing it's adding is risk, not reward.
The post here posits that PvP players get bored because Traders never need to hire anyone for defense. While this is true, it also wouldn't actually work.
The strongest gankers enjoy harrassment and griefing (definitionally so, I'm saying that they are gankers because they enjoy that, not because they are the strongest PvP players). Unless you are being protected by the strongest defenders, you'll just all be destroyed.
If you were being protected by the strongest defenders, and no one attacked you, now you're just a trader with a protection convoy. This would be great for the Trader, but how is it not 'still boring' for the PvP player? Going by the principle that they are classed as a 'PvP player' and we know that they can get bored if not hired for defense, is it fair to assume that they want to be hired for defense so that they can fight? PvE enemies can be strong but due to the balance, certainly no match for 'strong PvP player' generally.
One of the more infamous stories (which I have reason to believe but you can ignore) is of an Explorer who explicitly decided "I'm going to play this game in full, I'm coming back with lots of exploration data, but I won't switch to solo mode to deliver this, I'm going to do what one is supposed to do and hire defenders."
They were escorted in, no one attacked them (the chances were low anyway, you have no reason to just jump an explorer unless you thought they were working against your 'Node', and NPC pirates can't steal exploration data), and at the very end, their defenders shot them down instead.
Why? Who knows. Maybe 'thought they were going to get more action than they got'. Maybe just griefers who took a contract.
The post posits 'it's a flawed system that kills PvP long term' but what does that mean? And what does it matter if the rest of the content is still going? If people refuse to play in Open because they're just paying to be the 'caravan' while the PvP players are fighting each other, I see the flaw as being entirely unrelated to the 'not needing to hire PvP players and them getting bored', and similar.