Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
What makes for good PvP?
Sjelden
Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
What is your most memorable PvP moment?
Mine came from playing on PvP-servers (or as PvP-flagged) in PvE-centric games. Why?
Arranged PvP is like a match of paintball between coworkers. Even if you manage to get involved, it still feels arranged. Especially with the oh-so gentleman-style handshake post game. Like a sports match.
The PvP moments I remember, are when problems were solved with the pointy end.
Conflict occur for reason - and you decide to solve it then and there. Western-style justice. Emotions and all.
It simply feels good!
Do you think good and memorable player on player battles can occur under curated conditions? Or are these skirmishes and battles best when they occur naturally? What are your thoughts on the matter?
Sidenote;
PvP has nothing to do with griefing. Griefing is the conscious act of being an asshole, regardless of server ruleset.
Mine came from playing on PvP-servers (or as PvP-flagged) in PvE-centric games. Why?
Arranged PvP is like a match of paintball between coworkers. Even if you manage to get involved, it still feels arranged. Especially with the oh-so gentleman-style handshake post game. Like a sports match.
The PvP moments I remember, are when problems were solved with the pointy end.
Conflict occur for reason - and you decide to solve it then and there. Western-style justice. Emotions and all.
It simply feels good!
Do you think good and memorable player on player battles can occur under curated conditions? Or are these skirmishes and battles best when they occur naturally? What are your thoughts on the matter?
Sidenote;
PvP has nothing to do with griefing. Griefing is the conscious act of being an asshole, regardless of server ruleset.
3
Comments
Playing Everquest on Rallos Zek before the nerf was a really entertaining. Back then, people experimented alot more, figuring things out. We had a laugh when our wizard acquired his first bolt-spell. Slow-moving, high damage, high mana bolt that hit anything in its path. That ranger still speaks of his scorched wounds to this day.
Closed Arena \ Open world?
With progression reward \ Elo-only?
Duel (1x1) \ Party duel (GvG) \ Unlimited Mass PvP?
I prefer these combinations:
1. "Planned" + "Closed arena" + "Elo-only" + "Party duel (GvG)". A tournament-like systems for consts groups to test and master their skills.
2. "Planned" + sort of "Closed arena" + "With progression reward" + "Unlimited Mass PvP". Big dungeon, PvP area, 1000 characters goes in, fight starts, after a few min entrance is closing, fight for a few hours, big reward for winners.
- Other combinations are less interesting.
- Why not "Duel (1x1)"? It's just straight up unbalanced. And it is fine. The atom of MMORPG balance isn't a character, but a group of them.
- Why not "Random"? Time is a resource. And we use it outside the game too (sadge). Prime-time planned events is the key.
- Why not "Open world"? It's vulnerable to zergs- or alts- rushes or other type of griefing. It forces your side to answer the same. So 1000x1000 players, 0 FPS, no skill involved, 0 profit-per-player, inglourious victory. Why even bother?
Step one (and this one is important), DON'T do any of the few hundred things that make bad PvP.
Once you've done that, just decide which group of whiners you'll appease and which group you'll oppose and you're done. Simple and elegant.
These games are at their best in months when there's a natural spike of players (randomly, or enticed by a new game update), and people start developing intuitive rhythms for their gameplay. If I know many of my friends are likely to log in on Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday around 6-8pm, I'm likely to try and schedule my life to keep some of those evenings free.
In my experience, this spontaneous naturally developed coordination automatically leads to eventful RvR/GvG/PvP, where both the aggressors and the defenders can muster up strategically effective sudden moves. Since the coordination is on-the-fly, and both sides tend to be at the peak of their potential at the same time because of the natural flow of the game, there is a better chance of underdogs winning against a zerg by making better decisions in the moment.
It's difficult to say how much a game should do to control that rhythm, but I think the best thing it can do is just stay intriguing to the playerbase. With that provided, you don't really need server restrictions and scheduling requirements for PvP at all. Besides maybe some protections in the obvious deadtime, to prevent nolife zerging at, say, conservatively 5am-1pm.
So that's why I'm definitely not a fan of officially scheduling everything. In coordinated events, everyone is a cog in a machine. It feels like a job. In spontaneous natural coordination, individual priorities count, but skilful ambitious leaders can still unite the masses to function more effectively.
Scheduled 500v500 sieges, and scripted arena battles for 8v8s or 40v40s, are fun are fun for guilds to show off the obedience to their military drill sergeants once a week. They're not the PvP I want to log in for on the regular.
As far as protecting expensive/critical areas from ninja blitzkrieg sieges is concerned, I think the more elegant solution is to let sieges that can happen at any day of the week take a long time. Spread it out over a day or two if necessary, and give defenders an advantage so they can have time to gather their forces and recapture defensive outposts before the threat becomes a concern.
My response is only concerned with combat that revolves around rewards that matter in the game. So sieges, caravans, perhaps arenas with strong rewards for consistent performance.
Any PvP that revolves around the privilege of calling yourself the biggest outplayer is completely meaningless to me.
Not doing things that result in bad PvP, and attempting to appease any group of PvP players seem to me to be mutually exclusive - at least to anyone not in that group.
To me, what makes good PvP first and foremost is having people to attack. If you don't have that, it doesn't matter what systems are in place, you have shit PvP.
A: Yes, it kinda depends on the type of game, but in MMORPGs it needs highly competitive circumstances/environments with a lot on the line for the winner, especially if the players already have grudges against each other from previous battles and/or open world pvp encounters and what they stand to lose from the result.
Lineage 2 Olympiads (1v1 Arenas) provided such "highly competitive circumstance/environment with a lot on the line for the winner" as every Hero Player could have a huge impact of multiple players in open world conflics due to the Hero Weapons and the Hero Skills. Such privileged Hero Status was only acquired by a single player of every class, the ones whom performed the best in the olympiads.
Fighting against against Heroes and Hero Contenders from your clan or enemy clans, of your class or even others classes and with tons of spectators for the extra meaningful sense of community were truly amazing memorable battles.
The conflicts that happens naturally are usually better due to the surprise factor of the unexpected standoff and the circunstances presented, for example, what is the motivation and environment of the conflict?
A top farming spot with strong monsters? A World Boss? Guild war enemies? Are you Outnumbered?
Enemy Node Territory? PK Squad looking to take over your group stacked inventory resources?
The variables creates memorable stories of such encounters.
It comes down to the thread title question, so, what makes for good PvP?
I would say that other than the technical aspects, it varies a lot from people to people but i believe it's mainly,
how invested in the PvP the players are.
What is at stake?
For how many people is it important?
Does it make you emotionally invested?
Aren't we all sinners?
Some people are afraid of open world PvP, but to me it creates possibilities for some of the best feeling moments.
What makes good PvP? PvP with a purpose...killing red a**holes.
I'm not talking about the lobby part, I'm talking about the fact that a MOBA match is basically 'a PvX MMO server running at 100x speed'.
Everyone starts off with one ability, trying to PvE to level up faster than the other person they are near.
Everyone can roam to any location if they have time, everyone is encouraged to use a different 'class' so that if thiings get complex later, you have options.
Any players doing well because of their leveling strategy/who aren't having their leveling disrupted by the PvP segment/ganker should help out the ones who aren't doing as good.
And of course, once one person gets decently far ahead in gear (10% or so) dealing with them becomes a nightmare that requires having the numbers advantage.
So, is the 'unexpectedness' the 'good' part? For some. But 'unexpected' usually means 'disadvantaged' so some dislike it. Therefore those games have 'wards', so that you can put some effort into not dealing with 'unexpected ganking'.
If you don't ward... and your teammate who is doing well doesn't help you out in your bad matchup, and you're starved for resources or time, and fall behind, you're a liability. Once 3 people fall behind, or the opponent 'manages to take the boss drop' enough times, it takes all your skill just to squeak out a single 5v3 teamfight win.
Usually this is where people surrender the match and go on to the next match or disconnect mid-match and stop for the night. PvX MMOs are the same, they just 'surrender' 100x slower.
Oh, and there's no matchmaking in MMOs so good luck with that.
Good PvP is different to different people. I'm not suggesting Ashes should be like a MOBA. I'm moreso saying that all PvP/PvX MMOs are, and based on the standard reaction encountered in those MOBA, the only good PvP is the kind where you keep having a chance, where you 'know you can do it if your opponent messes up, at least', and you can try to trick them or force the error.
Being outnumbered doesn't really matter. Having an objective...? I guess, but if you didn't have an objective just 'being online' that would get you closer to whatever you consider 'victory', it's not much of a game. It's why MOBAs aren't just 'Team Deathmatch Battle Arenas'. Especially for a PvX game.
It's based on this premise that I don't agree with the 'unplanned PvP is fun' concept as a whole. Maybe if your opponent is an arrogant idiot or joking around, but if the game has any depth, you're not winning any unplanned PvP, you're at best hoping someone else who can 'win it for you' shows up. Which is kinda like saying 'what makes a good basketball game' by talking about players you like watching, I guess.
It actually is the same thing as people in a lobby game surrendering or dropping, the difference being that in a persistent world MMO,they dont have the option to just join another match.
PvP especialy open world pvp is unpredictable and not always fair so getting jumped or sneaking up on somone gets the blood flowing to either escape or come out on top, those tend to be more memorable moments when you overcome the odds either winning a fight your outnumbered or escaping a zerg, or getting a big score or loosing one these tend to have more emotional responses which makes them more memorable and an experience.
Mindlessly pveing/grinding without a care in the world is just boring because no threat or unpredictability where developers have tried to make the most "fair" PvE experience by removing thing like mob trains, high level mobs from zones or any form of possible unpredictability that can occur the zones and gameplay feel so ridgid and predictable.
Everquest for me has beed the best PvE experience for me for some reasons below
- Same level mobs didnt mean same difficulty there was like 5 difficulties (Easy, normal, hard, difficult and im gonna fk you up) not all lvl 25 mobs were the same in strength
- Mob patrols (still exsist in some games to date not as common though)
- trains mobs didnt leash so you had to be wary of mob trains to the zone, player would usualy shout it in chat so u knew to get out of the way but sometimes they couldnt.
- High level mobs in low level zones
- factions and reputation for mobs most mobs had a faction that reduced and increased faction with other mobs for example killing enough guards in a town might actualy make mobs dungeons not KoS to you cause they like you killed the guards
All in all the older games PvE wise felt more alive/living world than the current ones on the market which seems to have deleted the living world elements to make the game convient for more players.
PvP = players are the content less players means less content.
Darkfall for example neglected PvE and every time something PvE related was sugested PvP players are like no we dont want that cause it a PvP game gets ur carebear PvE stuff out of here, except when the PvE crowd left there became less content to do for PvP players eventually they just sat in there player city dueling sometimes raiding other people cities but overall the game slowly bled out after that.
the high skill ceiling didnt help either combined with full loot you just bled the lowest skill player base out cause they got farmed and couldnt kill anyoneand then next lowest skill players would quit and then the next cause they could no longer kill anyone and so on to eventually there was no content for the higer skilled players that they quit, its a very canabalistic game cycle when you have full loot with high skill ceiling with no empheses on PvE content.
PvE content in PvP games might not be the content you want but it the content you need to give content to pvp players they just dont seem to relise it :P
The carebear-pandering in the game you two would design with these assumptions would literally create Wizard 101. Minecraft has decade-old servers for 8-year-olds that have less loss aversion than you demand "for player retention."
You desperately need to get used to the idea that, even if ArcheAge and LineAge didn't turn into the dominant games on the market, game design for PvP-friendly games still needs to look different, and appeal to a different playerbase, than WoW or EQ2. Eliminating imbalanced strength levels (zergs, scheduling advantage, let alone gear/levels) will just turn a PvP game into a stale arena.
You can drastically reduce numbers imbalance for some events to give ample recognition to individual mastery of mechanics and character build achievements. But a good PvP MMO will still always reward spontaneous player coordination highly, even for high-stakes PvP objectives, because it combines all the great hallmarks of MMO social life. *Especially* if your MMO has sandbox-ish design features that should reward constant communication and shared goals among players with common enemies, so there's always something new and important to talk about and coordonate for.
Because that is what I have suggested.
I could quite easily turn around and say anyone not thinking that would be great PvP content is clearly just a carebear and can't handle it. In order for this to be true, one would need to assume that these two games only appeal to one type of MMO player.
They do not. There are many people playing WoW that love PvP and get their PvP fix either on a PvP server or in the games arena. In EQ2, there are a lot of players that also enjoy PvP, but since EQ2 had - for at least a decade - the best PvE in the genre. they played that game for the PvE and other games for PvP.
There are indeed also some players in both games that simply do not want PvP at all - Ashes is not for these gamers, for sure.
What Ashes should be doing is positioning itself to be an attractive game to anyone happy with the level of PvP the game will have - regardless of any other aspect of how they want to play their MMO.
If you look at the bulk of MMO players, the order of preferred content types across all games is as follows - PvE > PvP > crafting > RP.
Obviously players that have PvP as their preferred content type will be fine with the PvP in Ashes, so they need not be catered to any more than the PvP system is already catering to them.
From there, it only makes sense that the next group to try and appeal to are those that prefer PvE, but are more than happy to PvP as well.
From what I can see, these players are mostly playing the EQ games, WoW, ESO and GW2 right now. Some others are in Rift and FFXIV.
If someone can get their PvP fix out of WoW, they might not be a PvE-only player, but their preference is still heavily slanted towards sheltered conditions.
Point is, not every player who can appreciate PvP should be catered to for every game that has PvP in it, and I still stand by my point that your suggestions encourage that a bit too much, and with too little of an awareness of the irreplaceability of player resilience in a functional, reasonably PvP-driven system.
But how do you reconcile that with your fear about players leaving if they dislike the unfair PvP they're subjected to? Are you fine with it if the people who might be ambushed are aware of it ahead of time (because they know others will get the announcement when they engage in certain activities?)
I could actually be fine with that: Allow spontaneous sieges of a certain outposts, if enough citizens of the node in question (and perhaps its allied nodes; the specifics would have to be figured out, and numbers would have to be affected by character levels) are currently online. Then those outposts could be used to make an officially scheduled siege easier - but could be recaptured as long as enough citizens of the factions that captured it are online.
And you make sure this doesn't lead to too much change-of-hands of territory and warlike conditions by just making outposts difficult to approach and capture.
Bit of a clumsy suggestion, but there's probably a way to make it feel more organic.
I'm having too much fun thinking about this, I'm setting myself up to be disappointed. =§
- In an MMORPG, one's PvP performance needs to depend on both skill and stats. Removing or reducing the stats part makes it a non-RPG game (as far as PvP goes). A trash well geared high level player shouldn't have much issue defeating a good low level player who hasn't yet put in the time and effort in progressing their character.
- OWPvP is a must, unexpected PvP encounters, as well as PvP where you're not bound by some gamemode victory conditions, to a lot of us are the most enjoyable content.
- High-rewarding group PvP gamemodes (sieges, etc.) are a good motivator for a PvPer to continue playing and progressing.
- Gamemodes where you can prove yourself individually and as a group (dueling/arenas) are the cup of tea for lots of PvPers.
I think the only check AoC doesn't mark here is 1v1 dueling/arenas, due to rock-paper-scissors approach to classes. I suppose 1v1 arenas could be locked to your own class category.Keep in mind, just because someone is playing a game, doesn't mean that is the game they want to be playing.
Simple - that was never a fear I had.
I have never and will never ask for less PvP in Ashes. My request is for there to be situations in which PvP and PvE are temporarily separated, but in ways that don't actually result in less PvP actually taking place.
The instanced raid suggestion I have been making for several years (that has not changed in that time) is to basically make some instances where PvE can happen without PvP, but then when it is over, there is an increase in PvP (or an increased probability of it) in order to make up for taking it out at the point of PvE content.
Same with the cage encouter suggestion (which is an idea NiKr introduced me to), just the other way around. That one has an increased amount of PvP first, with the winning guild of that PvP then getting an unfettered attempt at the associated PvE.
if you believe I have said or have suggested what you have said above, I am unsure what to tell you other than to not just assume that someone asking for PvE content is also inherently asking for less PvP.
I find that your posts tend to devalue the PvP experience or desire of those who don't like the same type of PvP as you do. Is this intentional?
It's starting to be somewhat common around here that the stronger vocal PvP supporters other than NiKr, Veeshan and myself/my group (others can let me know if I forgot them) have a very specific perspective of what worthwhile PvP is, and I'm concerned 'for' them sorta.
Because the PvP type that Ashes probably benefits most from is not that type, it's the type that they decry, and more importantly, it's the PvP type that Ashes' design probably leads to.
In answer to the question posed in the post, though, that's literally what MOBAs spent almost all their time solving when it comes to 'balance flows' in map and objective design. I spend 80% of a given match thinking about where opponents are or probably plan to be, and watching for pings from Wards and Teammates about it.
In that case, me losing track of that, getting jumped by an opponent with a high chance of killing me, and losing, doesn't feel like 'this game's PvP sucks because my character can't win this fight', it feels like a failure of tactics and positioning. My opponent didn't even have to do anything, they could just have randomly wandered my way and noticed I was overextended, and just fought because they are for whatever reason currently better prepared for the fight.
MOBAs have been developing their methods for years, your 'clumsy suggestion' is just 'the beginning of the answer'.
Design is convergent.
I understand the connections made with Steven's vision. I don't necessarily disagree that they seem pretty clear and reasonable. But I do think it's worth digging a bit further and thinking about ways that the game could turn out to foster an even more cohesive and engaging or meaningful experience.
I can't speak for others like me, but I myself am not demanding anything. I'm not demanding for Ashes to be a game i will enjoy playing, or insisting that the mechanics I'd envision for it would be the best match.
If I have a provocative or entitled tone sometimes, it's not because I am convinced that my opinion or preference would be better for everyone, but just because I am confident enough that it works for me that I'd want others to give it an honest thought before being certain that their vision or their past experience would work out better for where the game is headed.
If that leads to ideas being paid too much attention in the community/development that don't fit the game as well as the original vision, that would be too bad, but it's already so hard to have a single voice heard, I don't think it hurts to present it with a little confidence.
EDIT in response to "model update" below: Yes, it's partially intentional. Partially just natural.
I find strongly sheltered PvE (and arena PvP etc.) to be a mechanism that conflicts with some of the things that make MMOs great. I have the suspicion that some players who enjoy it mostly do so because WoW happened to dominate the market at the right time, and they might have had a few off-putting experiences in other games that made them jump to conclusions.
So I like to make those types justify their view instead of just dogmatically sitting on it until the end of their generation.
Back when I searched for my first PvP MMORPGs when I was 13-14, I had to search for a *long* time to find anything that was decent, and the niche I finally ended up in was *tiny.* I'd prefer it if others like me had better options.
And I think that will require more daring development decisions than "let's add a MOBA lobby inside this MMO" (not trying to be confrontational here, just simplifying.)
Your simplification is incorrect, but I say this not as an issue with you, just to inform others. I didn't really put too much effort into dispelling assumptions because it makes my posts too long.
I just wanted to know if it was intentional, and based on what I'm reading (moreso what my parser sentiment scores it as, honestly) the answer is yes. I have no issue with you taking the position you do, as I hope that all are heard, it's just a model update for me.
It tells me that when I engage with you, I should engage seriously, too, since your attempt isn't to decry but to present your opinion strongly (and in turn I can ask you stuff and not expect the questions to be dismissed because of your desire or bias, other than the 'ah but have you considered you're wrong' thing at the beginning of this post).
Grati pur do.
Is it? Or is that the assumption your past experience is orienting your perspective towards?
I'm not sure what else it could be? I would think it would be assumed that whenever I say anything, it's either from that perspective or 'that, plus added studies'. Not sure how one would form a stance/perspective other than this way so I didn't think I needed to specify it.
That past experience is in 'observing players and trying to leverage ways to keep a community of about 10,000 players give or take (usual distribution of hardcore and casual, so assume maybe 200 consistent active) to enjoy a 1v1 game'. Not a big one. 10k is a small platform, but that's where many games end up these days. Not built from scratch, just 'modfix/sculpting' of something that already had a playerbase that died and I revived a bit, for context.
There are always the NiKrs of the world who 'push through no matter what', and their risk profiles and mental profiles involve very low loss aversion. You appear to be one of those people based on basic observation. I'm one too.
It therefore was difficult for me for a few years to 'consistently simulate the mindset of others not like us' well enough to figure out exactly how to make something that I enjoyed and that they enjoyed enough to not leave. It involves a lot of manipulation, which to this day I probably still feel too guilty about.
Nothing else worked for me, though. So I have a set of 'things that I couldn't get to work' and from observing other games, no other games 'got to work' either. Before I go further, please let me know if your response to this is generally 'they didn't try hard enough (to make specific thing I like work for others, without changing it much)!' or you're closer to the type to just give the 'well this works for me and here's stuff I don't want you to change because without it this doesn't work for me'.
I learned how to build things out of the feedback from the second type of people, but I haven't advanced my skills enough to benefit from engaging with the first type.
From a game design perspective I find the issue very challenging and I'd answer on a much more fundamental level: If you have to change your vision so much to fit a certain large playerbase, should you be making the game at all?
And then, do you really have to adapt the way the game functions to make it more appealing, or should it be enough to *present* the idea in a way that makes it more apparent what the player is meant to do, and why it is entertaining/rewarding?
I guess that's a bit closer to the second type than the first? I don't think it's realistic to expect that you should be able to adapt every game mechanic to be appealing to all tastes just because it's very intriguing to one group, which the first type seems to be convinced of.
Sorry if my answer is missing the point in the original context of the thread, it might be getting a bit too abstract for me.
Which brings us even further down the rabbit hole to:
What do we know about Steven's PvP vision?
My perspective is that most of the things people seem to assume Steven wants are not guaranteed interpretations of things he's said. In fact, most of what Steven has said about it is so vague that I can apply multiple models of PvP to it and they all 'work'. They don't 'conflict with what he said'. If anything, there are literal design decisions that people (rightly) think seem to contrast more with things Steven has implied wanting, than there are design decisions that we can point to and say 'yes, this here is explicitly in support of the concept of Ashes' as it seems to be.
Point is, it's very abstract from the start, so we end up discussing things from the perspectives we know. Mainly 'don't do this, it's not fun', and 'don't do this, people will leave the game in droves and you could do it differently'.
So back to a less abstract perspective.
MOBAs work because they have systems in place to prevent a specific emotional reaction from the bulk of their players, and even then they struggle compared to Team Deathmatch/Battle Arena games. My understanding is that this has nothing to do with the quality of the PvP, only how the PvP makes a given player feel (I won't bring 1v1 games into this part).
PvP MMOs often don't implement these systems and struggle even more, sometimes because of the reaction of a certain subset of PvP player who doesn't like the systems for one reason or another. By contrast, there is the 'me' in this situation who can enjoy the game, particularly the PvP, with all those systems in place, because they are given in good context.
I've never personally understood the strong drive to 'make sure to have none of these systems', because the moment-to-moment PvP experiences, even the organic ones, are mostly the same if not better for them for me personally.
Ashes has so many aspects that strongly imply to me that the game would be better with such systems than without them. My perspective is that these systems are what you referred to as 'sheltered conditions'.
Why is it important for your experience for there to be no 'sheltered conditions' to the point where it causes you to have a seemingly lesser opinion of say, WoW PvP-ers? There's no indication that Ashes is a 'no sheltered conditions' game, or needs to be, in fact the recent 'concerns' have been that Steven's wishes for Corruption are creating more of them, and it is upsetting some people who are then blaming 'the carebears' or whoever.
I am carebear enough to not get why this is important. How is the game meaningfully less fun as a whole across the playerbase because the 'sheltering' happens? And I'm speaking only in terms of PvP now. MOBA matches are not 'less fun' because of wards, catchup mechanics, etc. So let's please not take it in the 'Well PvE players would definitely have more fun with the shelters.' direction.
I am a PvP player. I spend most of my time playing PvP games. These games have some 'structured'/'sheltered' PvP, and some not. I can give lots and lots of examples if necessary.
I never really said anything close to "none at all."
- At its most accommodating, my opinion is: "At least it should be ensured that there's still enough spontaneous combat over valuable PvP&world-related assets.
(Things more profound and lasting than, say, *just* bosses and caravans - perhaps this is a big ask, I realise that, but let's get to the meat of my argument for it before you contest this portion.)"
- At its most restrictive to other players with other preferences than mine, my opinion is: "Only confine PvP to sheltered stuff as little as necessary."
Specifically, I said:
So to continue: Wards are a super complex mechanic in how they affect the overall game flow, I wouldn't list them here as a pro-sheltering device, or if we do, we'd have to properly dissect their function. The discussion of wards' effect on the game seems to be more concerned with high-or-low skill-ceiling.
The sheltering in MMOs isn't an issue because of that; the issue just boils down to how much you get to play in an isolated instance (Not physical, just in the flow of the gameplay loop: Who you have to interact with, how much you get to affect the world and how much you get to progress) without other players getting an opportunity to remind you that it's them you're playing against or with.
And that's often just much more effective when it's unannounced and less opt-in. (Though I do think it's fine to protect players if they partake in less of the contestation. I.e. if you don't join a guild that lays claim to something as prestigious as a castle, you wind up in less conflict.)
Here's the heart of my argument:
Every MMO I've enjoyed playing shared one trait: Players were all united by caring about the same essence of the game. There were still PvE farmers or raiders, PvP gankers, RvR zergers, infinite hosts of afk save campers who used the game as a chat room. But when it came down to it, and whenever they did something in a group or played the game to do anything productive, there was always an underlying philosophy of the game that managed to captivate them all in some way:
- In RvR games everything you do is dedicated to protecting your realm from the enemy and helping your allies to get stronger more effectively.
- In sandboxes, everything you do is dedicated to shaping the world and leaving your imprint on it.
- In pure roleplaying MMOs it's less succinct to summarise fully, but at the same time I think it's immediately apparent to everyone anyway.
- In the only PvE game I truly enjoyed (Dark Swords, 2d, very unique levelling and grouping experience) it was exploration. Theorycrafting, guild business (and its rare guild PvP), and PvE encounters were all dedicated to the purpose of traversing and understanding the world better in the same way. You literally had to fight your way through to the next city and be able to take on bosses and level up against stronger mobs, and would eventually try and establish your clan's/religion's foothold there to progress further.
Themeparks have none of that. You log on, go where clans/people/LFG lobbies are doing what you want to do, and do that thing, so you get money or items, and then you do more of it, or a different one of the other things you can do.
Some games like ESO and perhaps ArcheAge (never got far enough and the game changed its philosophy 5 times anyway) even manage to turn things like RvR into themepark attractions like that, which is just impressively backwards to me.
And to me themeparks feel miserable for that reason, and while I am sure the people who stay faithful to those games for years still enjoy them greatly, I am still very confident that a huge portion of them don't realise what they're missing, and how much more they might enjoy a game that offers that deeper sense of a shared framework.
Sheltering mechanics alone aren't what destroys this framework, but they are definitely a huge part of the issue; or in reverse I think they only get considered by designers of games that aren't built around those frameworks:
If everyone only does any sieging twice a week at 5-8pm, it's more of a high-school activity club than a warzone. You feel like you're part of a repeated guild drill exercise with a prize pool, not an individual agent defending their territory. In some MOBA-like arena environment/framework, that might even fit the game's style and bring the community together, but generally, I don't think it fits the RPG element of an MMORPG, where you're trying to grow your world and character, and feel your impact on it.
So lemme go back to the point where it became my 'role' to get involved at all.
Are you still standing by the 'carebear pandering' thing?
Or was this a stronger reaction than you meant to have, or something else?
This entire post came off as very negative toward multiple base principles I consider important and heavy on the 'assumptions about what style of thing Noaani and I think is important to build'.
To the point where I really don't know how to respond to it in the context of what I was bringing up. I'd be happy to have the discussion, but for me personally this post really came off as though it would be very difficult to have it from your stance.
If, for example, you agree with the sentiment I just quoted from myself in the last comment ("Scheduled 500v500 sieges [...]"), then I could say that my harsh criticism might mostly be my wrong interpretation of what you're vouching for. But if you can't really agree with that, then I do think there's still a disagreement that's worth discussing.