You are still somewhat focusing on, or at least describing, meaningful in terms of direct gains/losses. Whereas i'm more thinking in the general term for there to be "a good reason" to fight. As in, not fighting for fighting sake.
And yes, as previously stated, direct gains or risk of loss are definitely example of a good reason, but I still think that the difference in focus between that and the more general notion of a good reason could lead to very different games.
A better reason than "I want to steal your loot!!" Yes.
Yall got 0 memory capacity?
The reason to fight is to claim the spot which give the best xp, which will lead you to more levels, more skills, better gear.
You are still somewhat focusing on, or at least describing, meaningful in terms of direct gains/losses. Whereas i'm more thinking in the general term for there to be "a good reason" to fight. As in, not fighting for fighting sake.
Can you try to give some examples of what you mean? where there is a "good reason" to fight, but no direct gains/losses?
Fighting as a bounty hunter to kill corrupted players because you believe they are evil.
You are still somewhat focusing on, or at least describing, meaningful in terms of direct gains/losses. Whereas i'm more thinking in the general term for there to be "a good reason" to fight. As in, not fighting for fighting sake.
Can you try to give some examples of what you mean? where there is a "good reason" to fight, but no direct gains/losses?
Fighting as a bounty hunter to kill corrupted players because you believe they are evil.
You still get their loot... maybe even an item. I think the "greed" (direct gains) part started when that player wanted to become a bounty hunter.
To illustrate: I believe Dygz is a good person and he would fight evil where ever he encountered it for the betterment of all, particularly if that evil was a car salesman (not a real) game developer. He will not, however, seek out corrupted players or become a bounty hunter.
But, ok. I agree.
This is sort of like discussing altruism. Very few acts are truly altruistic, some benefit is inferred. I think it is the same thing there.. there is always going to be a benefit, loot is just the easiest way to think of it.
Yall got 0 memory capacity?
The reason to fight is to claim the spot which give the best xp, which will lead you to more levels, more ekills, better gear.
Correct me if I'm getting you wrong. You've always been one to push for long and hard leveling, that going through that had to feel like an accomplishment and not a free ride.
So, one part of your motivation for PvP is feeling you're cutting that time to go through with your efforts, that your actions have a direct impact on the speed of your progress.
You are still somewhat focusing on, or at least describing, meaningful in terms of direct gains/losses. Whereas i'm more thinking in the general term for there to be "a good reason" to fight. As in, not fighting for fighting sake.
Can you try to give some examples of what you mean? where there is a "good reason" to fight, but no direct gains/losses?
Fighting as a bounty hunter to kill corrupted players because you believe they are evil.
You still get their loot... maybe even an item. I think the "greed" (direct gains) part started when that player wanted to become a bounty hunter.
To illustrate: I believe Dygz is a good person and he would fight evil whereever he encountered it for the betterment of all, particularly if that evil was a car salesman (not a real) game developer. He will not, however, seek out corrupted players or become a bounty hunter.
But, ok. I agree.
This is sort of like discussing altruism. Very few acts are truly altruistic, some benefit is inferred. I think it is the same thing there.. there is always going to be a benefit, loot is just the easiest way to think of it.
True, reputation is also a benefit or something you can lose.
Or the by killing the corrupted players you make your node somewhat more efficient compared to other nodes.
True, reputation is also a benefit or something you can lose.
I agree and it is one of the reasons I believe open world harassments and ganking will not be as big of a problem as people currently are worried about. Obviously, i am guessing based upon my own understanding of what i have heard/read/seen, but like many here, I am a voracious consumer of Ashes media.
Your node is going to know you by name. Bad actors will have difficulty finding help, and it is becoming more and more clear we will all need help from others.
True, reputation is also a benefit or something you can lose.
I agree and it is one of the reasons I believe open world harassments and ganking will not be as big of a problem as people currently are worried about. Obviously, i am guessing based upon my own understanding of what i have heard/read/seen, but like many here, I am a voracious consumer of Ashes media.
Your node is going to know you by name. Bad actors will have difficulty finding help, and it is becoming more and more clear we will all need help from others.
I cannot be worried about harassments and ganking until I play Alpha 2, a few months, and see the game being balanced. But without evil you cannot identify the good.
Regarding risk vs reward.
If I am afraid of something, I use the word risk.
If I don't care, I use "chance"
If I don't want something, I cannot be afraid so the "risk vs reward" has no meaning. But chance has.
The risk vs reward to be quantifiable
- there must be ways for me to influence the chance of events and
- my rewards to depend on this chance too
What PVE am I looking forward to the most? I think world bosses will be fun. But it's hard to say anything will be strictly PVE in this game, since it's focus is PvX. I am mostly looking forward to seeing how well PvP will be incorporated into PvE content and vice versa across all aspects of the game to achieve the best PvX experience.
Would you say as somebody looking forward to PvX you enjoy having PvE with risk vs reward?
Is the current implementation of risk vs reward appealing to you?
I find it funny when people call PvP "risk vs reward".
I find it funny that you still dont realize that the risk is "losing a pvp encounter, gaining xp debt, dropping raw mats, spawning back to the nearest village far away, lose morale, lose the raid and perhaps hear the guild complains" and the reward is "you won the pvp encounter, you get the raid, you get to keep leveling grinding getting closer to lv cap/better gear, you become a guild/server legend" over and over again in the owpvp mmo.
I find it funny that you think any of this is true.
If the risk component of risk vs reward comes from PvP in the most part, then that risk is at best inconsistent - yet the rewards will be the same.
In my experience, that PvP presence can range from literally no one attacking you the entire pull (had this on Kraken and Red Dragon in Archeage, both for different reasons), or can make it so the encounter is literally impossible to kill (EQ2 PvP servers - hardest PvP content of any game, literally unkillable). Clearly, there are many points in between these two points - but the real point is the inconsistent nature of the "risk" while the rewards remain the same.
I already know this is going to open a big steaming pile of semantics but risk is to incur the CHANCE of unfortunate consequences by engaging in (an action). It's not meant to always be consistent. Sometimes you can get away with it, sometimes you can't. Predictability is the staple of NPCs, while players tend to be much harder to predict.
So, it isnt risk vs reward (the idea of being able to increase or decrease the risk you face, while there being an increase or decrease in reward), but rather is a roll of the dice.
I'm not saying PvP isnt sometimes going to end up with a loss (50% of the time it will), I'm saying it doesnt fit the core concept of risk vs reward. It can be a risk, for sure, and it can also be rewarding. The problem is, those two aspects are not linked up in any direct way.
How aren't they linked directly when by venturing into the world to gain rewards, you are risking being killed by both pvp and pve? And PKers are risking corruption/dying for kills and loot from players? As I said before, Risk isn't a guaranteed success or loss. And variance of amount of success or loss is not and does not need to be consistent, nor do the rewards. Sometimes a PKer will succeed with a big haul and escape, sometimes it'll be a small haul for the same effort and consequences, and the same goes for the failed scenarios. Sometimes as a gatherer you'll succeed uninterrupted with a big haul, sometimes the area will be cleared out and you'll have a smaller haul, and this also goes for scenarios where they are interrupted and robbed. At least as far as random player encounters in the open world are concerned.
A roll of the dice is still a risk to gain a reward, and part of the risk is whether or not the reward is very good.
To solve the issue you seem to have, which I believe is not knowing how much of a reward you are earning for a risk, would be to simply add a, resource/wealth/corruption they will cause/corruption they have, score alongside the players gear score when targeted. Then you can assess if another player has an equal reward to give for the risk you will take.
You could argue that "instanced PvP" can have consistent rewards, because they are controlled individual instances of gameplay with specific teams and a clear goal. But they tend to have little more risk than not winning.
But, actually, instead of obsessing over Risk v Reward - I wish Steven had kept the original pillar: Meaningful Conflict.
Wouldn't this purely be encounter mechanics and mob difficulties? I could see maybe talking about how to identify risks in difficulty of mobs through things like normal NPCs, Rare NPCs, Elites, and bosses. But PvE risk assessment tends to USUALLY be more straightforward in terms of risking death. Maybe start another discussion with new PVE risk suggestions?
No. By Meaningful Conflict I'm still talking about incentives to PvP.
For example - if I want to complete my Racial progression, but to do so my Race has to to be the dominant Race of a Metro. Where, in this case, the motivator is more meaningful than material greed for uber treasure and resources that other player are carrying in their bags.
I'm planning to talk about the difference between Meaningful Conflict and Risk v Reward on The Ashen Forge this Sunday.
Isn't greed a meaningful incentive to people who are greedy? I just feel like "meaningful conflict" is subjective. Open world PVP is meaningful to me, and it has meaningful consequences to myself, and others around me, and even potentially the node I do it in over time. To say a battleground, a siege, or a caravan has more meaning is purely determined by what a players motivations and playstyle are.
I'll participate in all of them, and they'll all have equal meaning to me generally. Where I may prioritize open world pvp excursions to mess with opposing node resources and players and defending my own node above most other PvP.
So, it isnt risk vs reward (the idea of being able to increase or decrease the risk you face, while there being an increase or decrease in reward), but rather is a roll of the dice.
It is though. You can directly increase or decrease the risk by the amount of people you bring. The more people you bring - the lower the risk and lower the reward (per person). And the opposite is true as well.
This kinda ties back to the "no participation trophies" discussion. When there's a limited amount of loot (reward) - if you bring too many people, your reward gets too diluted and would require consequent repetitions of the activity to get to a lvl where everyone can reap what they sowed.
While if your small team of super geared and super skill players can not only beat the pve encounter, but also kill any other player group - all the reward they get will have a much greater ratio of "unit of loot per person".
My memory is shite, so I don't remember if I've asked this before. Did EQ2 give all participants of a raid loot or was there a predetermined amount of items that was quantitively less than the amount of players in the raid?
1
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
To illustrate: I believe Dygz is a good person and he would fight evil where ever he encountered it for the betterment of all, particularly if that evil was a car salesman (not a real) game developer. He will not, however, seek out corrupted players or become a bounty hunter.
Haha!
Yes! You are very close to hitting the nail on the head.
The EQNext example is that Dark Elves from Serpentspine Mountains are farming Dryads in Kithicor Forest, stealing their Life magic and transmuting it into Shadow magic to power their spells and augment gear and abilities, like Stealth.
Players who rely on Shadow magic will go into Kithicor to farm NPC dryads, but the players in Kithicor will want to prevent that because as Life is drained from the region, blight spreads across the land.
Unbeknownst to the players, if too much Life energy is drained, eventually the bonds which hold the Shadow Demons at bay will break and they will march across the world devouring anything living...even the Dark Elves should the Shadow Demons encounter them.
At that point, it's in the best interest of all the player races, including the Dark Elves, to ally and attempt to imprison the Shadow Demons again.
We have enough Daybreak Games devs on the Ashes dev team to expect Ashes Events to be designed in a similar fashion.
If I'm an Elf Druid, I might need to attack and possibly kill the Dark Elf player syphoning the Dryad's Life energy - not because I love PvP or want some uber loot, but because the loss of Life Energy might awaken the Shadow Demons - who will destroy all life in the region - including the Dark Elves.
If I'm the Dark Elf Rogue, I'm really just focused on the PvE to maximize my Stealth. But, since Stealth is crucial to the success of my Exploration endeavors, I might have to kill the Druid player trying to stop me from syphoning Life magic from the Dryads.
I wouldn't be consciously motivated to PvP for the sake of competition or Risk v Reward. I'm really motivated by Meaningful Conflict.
Having maxed Stealth is meaningful to my Exploration, so I'm gonna do what I need to do to max my Stealth.
Same for the Druid. I would rather use diplomacy to convince the Dark Elf player to cease. But, if they don't, I might have to kill them for the greater good of the region.
None of that is because I crave the adrenaline rush of combat.
Or because fear and competition and winning/losing adds spice to the gameplay.
That's the kind of PvP encounter I would prefer to have.
Rather than - "Oh! Let me see if that player has a bag for carrying the loot I want to steal."
To illustrate: I believe Dygz is a good person and he would fight evil where ever he encountered it for the betterment of all, particularly if that evil was a car salesman (not a real) game developer. He will not, however, seek out corrupted players or become a bounty hunter.
Haha!
Yes! You are very close to hitting the nail on the head.
The EQNext example is that Dark Elves from Serpentspine Mountains are farming Dryads in Kithicor Forest, stealing their Life magic and transmuting it into Shadow magic to power their spells and augment gear and abilities, like Stealth.
Players who rely on Shadow magic will go into Kithicor to farm NPC dryads, but the players in Kithicor will want to prevent that because as Life is drained from the region, blight spreads across the land.
Unbeknownst to the players, if too much Life energy is drained, eventually the bonds which hold the Shadow Demons at bay will break and they will march across the world devouring anything living...even the Dark Elves should the Shadow Demons encounter them.
At that point, it's in the best interest of all the player races, including the Dark Elves, to ally and attempt to imprison the Shadow Demons again.
We have enough Daybreak Games devs on the Ashes dev team to expect Ashes Events to be designed in a similar fashion.
If I'm an Elf Druid, I might need to attack and possibly kill the Dark Elf player syphoning the Dryad's Life energy - not because I love PvP or want some uber loot, but because the loss of Life Energy might awaken the Shadow Demons - who will destroy all life in the region - including the Dark Elves.
If I'm the Dark Elf Rogue, I'm really just focused on the PvE to maximize my Stealth. But, since Stealth is crucial to the success of my Exploration endeavors, I might have to kill the Druid player trying to stop me from syphoning Life magic from the Dryads.
I wouldn't be consciously motivated to PvP for the sake of competition or Risk v Reward. I'm really motivated by Meaningful Conflict.
Having maxed Stealth is meaningful to my Exploration, so I'm gonna do what I need to do to max my Stealth.
Same for the Druid. I would rather use diplomacy to convince the Dark Elf player to cease. But, if they don't, I might have to kill them for the greater good of the region.
None of that is because I crave the adrenaline rush of combat.
Or because fear and competition and winning/losing adds spice to the gameplay.
That's the kind of PvP encounter I would prefer to have.
Rather than - "Oh! Let me see if that player has a bag for carrying the loot I want to steal."
I have none of those priorities as a PvP rogue focused on hunting players. Hence "meaningful conflict" being subjective
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
A player focused on hunting a player is not really something that the devs design.
🙄
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
A player focused on hunting a player is not really something that the devs design.
🙄
If it wasn't a part of the design, open world PvP wouldnt be a thing, just events and instanced PvP. There's literally a system for players to hunt players that hunt other players.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
On a PvP server where players can be attacked at any time, PvP can always occur.
So… that is just a PvP server ruleset for an MMORPG. PvX is meaningless.
On a PvP server where players can be attacked at any time, PvP can always occur.
So… that is just PvP. PvX is meaningless.
But for you in particular, if it wasn't for the design you laid out you wouldn't have to fight that player. So the pve design led you to pvp. That is the crux of the pvx idea.
And the same applies to people who care about pvp more. They want to be stronger, so they'll have to participate in pve, which might also involve pvp along the way, so the pvpers are definitely winning doubly here.
p.s. I would definitely love some stuff that would be similar to what you described in the game, because I'm sure there'd be other pvp-averse people who might shift their pov on pvp due to that kind of design.
A player focused on hunting a player is not really something that the devs design.
🙄
If it wasn't a part of the design, open world PvP wouldnt be a thing, just events and instanced PvP. There's literally a system for players to hunt players that hunt other players.
Are you planning on hunting corrupted players? Or just cool with the idea of your character being very corrupted?
A player focused on hunting a player is not really something that the devs design.
🙄
If it wasn't a part of the design, open world PvP wouldnt be a thing, just events and instanced PvP. There's literally a system for players to hunt players that hunt other players.
Are you planning on hunting corrupted players? Or just cool with the idea of your character being very corrupted?
Both actually. I plan to have a specific load out for each. Perhaps even separate characters. That way when there's too many corrupted I can hop on my bounty hunter, and if there's to many bounty hunters I'll hop on the corrupted character for a challenge. And having a notorious corrupted character sounds fun
On a PvP server where players can be attacked at any time, PvP can always occur.
So… that is just a PvP server ruleset for an MMORPG. PvX is meaningless.
A player focused on hunting a player is not really something that the devs design.
🙄
If it wasn't a part of the design, open world PvP wouldnt be a thing, just events and instanced PvP. There's literally a system for players to hunt players that hunt other players.
Are you planning on hunting corrupted players? Or just cool with the idea of your character being very corrupted?
Both actually. I plan to have a specific load out for each. Perhaps even separate characters. That way when there's too many corrupted I can hop on my bounty hunter, and if there's to many bounty hunters I'll hop on the corrupted character for a challenge. And having a notorious corrupted character sounds fun
Doesn't increasing corruption cause decreasing stats?
I mean, good luck to you I guess... But my understanding is corruption is aiming to prevent exactly that.
A player focused on hunting a player is not really something that the devs design.
🙄
If it wasn't a part of the design, open world PvP wouldnt be a thing, just events and instanced PvP. There's literally a system for players to hunt players that hunt other players.
Are you planning on hunting corrupted players? Or just cool with the idea of your character being very corrupted?
Both actually. I plan to have a specific load out for each. Perhaps even separate characters. That way when there's too many corrupted I can hop on my bounty hunter, and if there's to many bounty hunters I'll hop on the corrupted character for a challenge. And having a notorious corrupted character sounds fun
Doesn't increasing corruption cause decreasing stats?
I mean, good luck to you I guess... But my understanding is corruption is aiming to prevent exactly that.
It's to prevent griefing, not ganking. Obviously I won't be corrupting myself into oblivion. I'd kill a few, and work it off while fighting bounty hunters, maybe I'll succeed, maybe I won't. And that's just assuming other players don't fight back.
Also, corruption still needs tested to really know if its too lenient or too punishing. I still believe corruption should have more variables in its progress of hurting the player, but I'll be able to give a more solid opinion once it is tested.
And, actually, Steven’s version of “PvX” feels even more extreme than having cake shoved down your throat.
Steven shoves the cake down your throat, up your shirt, down your pants, in your shoes, in your hair…
Comments
The reason to fight is to claim the spot which give the best xp, which will lead you to more levels, more skills, better gear.
Fighting as a bounty hunter to kill corrupted players because you believe they are evil.
You still get their loot... maybe even an item. I think the "greed" (direct gains) part started when that player wanted to become a bounty hunter.
To illustrate: I believe Dygz is a good person and he would fight evil where ever he encountered it for the betterment of all, particularly if that evil was a car salesman (not a real) game developer. He will not, however, seek out corrupted players or become a bounty hunter.
But, ok. I agree.
This is sort of like discussing altruism. Very few acts are truly altruistic, some benefit is inferred. I think it is the same thing there.. there is always going to be a benefit, loot is just the easiest way to think of it.
Correct me if I'm getting you wrong. You've always been one to push for long and hard leveling, that going through that had to feel like an accomplishment and not a free ride.
So, one part of your motivation for PvP is feeling you're cutting that time to go through with your efforts, that your actions have a direct impact on the speed of your progress.
True, reputation is also a benefit or something you can lose.
Or the by killing the corrupted players you make your node somewhat more efficient compared to other nodes.
I agree and it is one of the reasons I believe open world harassments and ganking will not be as big of a problem as people currently are worried about. Obviously, i am guessing based upon my own understanding of what i have heard/read/seen, but like many here, I am a voracious consumer of Ashes media.
Your node is going to know you by name. Bad actors will have difficulty finding help, and it is becoming more and more clear we will all need help from others.
I cannot be worried about harassments and ganking until I play Alpha 2, a few months, and see the game being balanced. But without evil you cannot identify the good.
Regarding risk vs reward.
If I am afraid of something, I use the word risk.
If I don't care, I use "chance"
If I don't want something, I cannot be afraid so the "risk vs reward" has no meaning. But chance has.
The risk vs reward to be quantifiable
- there must be ways for me to influence the chance of events and
- my rewards to depend on this chance too
How aren't they linked directly when by venturing into the world to gain rewards, you are risking being killed by both pvp and pve? And PKers are risking corruption/dying for kills and loot from players? As I said before, Risk isn't a guaranteed success or loss. And variance of amount of success or loss is not and does not need to be consistent, nor do the rewards. Sometimes a PKer will succeed with a big haul and escape, sometimes it'll be a small haul for the same effort and consequences, and the same goes for the failed scenarios. Sometimes as a gatherer you'll succeed uninterrupted with a big haul, sometimes the area will be cleared out and you'll have a smaller haul, and this also goes for scenarios where they are interrupted and robbed. At least as far as random player encounters in the open world are concerned.
A roll of the dice is still a risk to gain a reward, and part of the risk is whether or not the reward is very good.
To solve the issue you seem to have, which I believe is not knowing how much of a reward you are earning for a risk, would be to simply add a, resource/wealth/corruption they will cause/corruption they have, score alongside the players gear score when targeted. Then you can assess if another player has an equal reward to give for the risk you will take.
You could argue that "instanced PvP" can have consistent rewards, because they are controlled individual instances of gameplay with specific teams and a clear goal. But they tend to have little more risk than not winning.
Isn't greed a meaningful incentive to people who are greedy? I just feel like "meaningful conflict" is subjective. Open world PVP is meaningful to me, and it has meaningful consequences to myself, and others around me, and even potentially the node I do it in over time. To say a battleground, a siege, or a caravan has more meaning is purely determined by what a players motivations and playstyle are.
I'll participate in all of them, and they'll all have equal meaning to me generally. Where I may prioritize open world pvp excursions to mess with opposing node resources and players and defending my own node above most other PvP.
This kinda ties back to the "no participation trophies" discussion. When there's a limited amount of loot (reward) - if you bring too many people, your reward gets too diluted and would require consequent repetitions of the activity to get to a lvl where everyone can reap what they sowed.
While if your small team of super geared and super skill players can not only beat the pve encounter, but also kill any other player group - all the reward they get will have a much greater ratio of "unit of loot per person".
My memory is shite, so I don't remember if I've asked this before. Did EQ2 give all participants of a raid loot or was there a predetermined amount of items that was quantitively less than the amount of players in the raid?
Yes! You are very close to hitting the nail on the head.
If I'm an Elf Druid, I might need to attack and possibly kill the Dark Elf player syphoning the Dryad's Life energy - not because I love PvP or want some uber loot, but because the loss of Life Energy might awaken the Shadow Demons - who will destroy all life in the region - including the Dark Elves.
If I'm the Dark Elf Rogue, I'm really just focused on the PvE to maximize my Stealth. But, since Stealth is crucial to the success of my Exploration endeavors, I might have to kill the Druid player trying to stop me from syphoning Life magic from the Dryads.
I wouldn't be consciously motivated to PvP for the sake of competition or Risk v Reward. I'm really motivated by Meaningful Conflict.
Having maxed Stealth is meaningful to my Exploration, so I'm gonna do what I need to do to max my Stealth.
Same for the Druid. I would rather use diplomacy to convince the Dark Elf player to cease. But, if they don't, I might have to kill them for the greater good of the region.
None of that is because I crave the adrenaline rush of combat.
Or because fear and competition and winning/losing adds spice to the gameplay.
That's the kind of PvP encounter I would prefer to have.
Rather than - "Oh! Let me see if that player has a bag for carrying the loot I want to steal."
I have none of those priorities as a PvP rogue focused on hunting players. Hence "meaningful conflict" being subjective
🙄
That is Meaningful Conflict.
Or that your PvE goals involve PvP.
If it wasn't a part of the design, open world PvP wouldnt be a thing, just events and instanced PvP. There's literally a system for players to hunt players that hunt other players.
So… that is just a PvP server ruleset for an MMORPG. PvX is meaningless.
And the same applies to people who care about pvp more. They want to be stronger, so they'll have to participate in pve, which might also involve pvp along the way, so the pvpers are definitely winning doubly here.
p.s. I would definitely love some stuff that would be similar to what you described in the game, because I'm sure there'd be other pvp-averse people who might shift their pov on pvp due to that kind of design.
Are you planning on hunting corrupted players? Or just cool with the idea of your character being very corrupted?
Both actually. I plan to have a specific load out for each. Perhaps even separate characters. That way when there's too many corrupted I can hop on my bounty hunter, and if there's to many bounty hunters I'll hop on the corrupted character for a challenge. And having a notorious corrupted character sounds fun
Ok.
Doesn't increasing corruption cause decreasing stats?
I mean, good luck to you I guess... But my understanding is corruption is aiming to prevent exactly that.
It's to prevent griefing, not ganking. Obviously I won't be corrupting myself into oblivion. I'd kill a few, and work it off while fighting bounty hunters, maybe I'll succeed, maybe I won't. And that's just assuming other players don't fight back.
PvP - log in to fight Players
PvX - log in to play a game
Steven shoves the cake down your throat, up your shirt, down your pants, in your shoes, in your hair…
PvE only is Palia, Vampire Survivor
What is AoC?