PvP only is Call of Duty, Magic the Gathering
PvE only is Palia, Vampire Survivor
What is AoC?
Archeage, Lineage 2, EVE, Albion, Dark age of Camelot, Warhammer online, Revelation Online, Ultima online, Mortal online,
the list goes on,
AoC are those games? Sorry Liniker not sure what you're saying.
I was getting to the point where people say any game that has PvP is only a PvP game and not PvX. And since AoC is not like any I listed in terms of content. The logical conclusion is its PvX.
I guess as I write this, you're right all the games you listed are also PvX.
I was getting to the point where people say any game that has PvP is only a PvP game and not PvX. And since AoC is not like any I listed in terms of content. The logical conclusion is its PvX.
I guess as I write this, you're right all the games you listed are also PvX.
I'm not aware of any pure PvP MMORPGs. Maybe ShadowBane tried to some closest.
So, if EvE Online and ArcheAge and UO and Lineage II are PvX MMORPGs...
When I ask Steven if he's hoping Ashes PvP is like EvE and ArcheAge - the answer should be yes.
When I tell him those games are too PvP-centric for me, he should say... "Well, Ashes is not made for everyone, so maybe you are not part of the target audience."
Or say, "Well, we consider those games to be PvX, like Ashes, rather than PvP-centric."
PvX MMORPG is the same thing as a PvP-centric MMORPG. Which is why the term PvX is meaningless.
PvP servers on EQ/EQ2/WoW are also PvX.
Saying Ashes is PvX does not help players who refuse to play UO, EvE Online and ArcheAge understand that Ashes isn't made for their playstyle.
I'd argue that while most MMORPGs could be considered PvX, the key with Ashes is to make a game where both PvP and PvE are as equally synergized and prominent as possible.
Other MMORPGs tend to favor one side or the other too much, making the dominant focus significantly overshadow the lesser. You can see this on many PvE servers where even the instanced PvP is extremely lacking.
The problem for PvE-only players is they want absolutely nothing to do with PvP, so even a PvX game which is perfectly balanced in utilizing both PvE and PvP sounds abhorrent to them, while a majority of the PvP players will be happy to play the full experience.
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?
How are they linked?
Imagine you and I are on different servers, mine has significantly more PvP than yours (servers will have vastly differing amounts of PvP - that is basically a given).
You and I both venturing out to work the same content look at facing very different risk via PvP, yet we each only stand to gain the same rewards from that content we are planning to work.
Thus, the risk and reward are not connected. At all.
If they were connected, the more risk you actually face (not potentially face), the greater your rewards.
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?
How are they linked?
Imagine you and I are on different servers, mine has significantly more PvP than yours (servers will have vastly differing amounts of PvP - that is basically a given).
You and I both venturing out to work the same content look at facing very different risk via PvP, yet we each only stand to gain the same rewards from that content we are planning to work.
Thus, the risk and reward are not connected. At all.
If they were connected, the more risk you actually face (not potentially face), the greater your rewards.
By that logic, every server should have the exact same nodes progressing in the same way. Because, from my understanding, we should each have the exact same experience according to you.
It isn't supposed to be consistent or the same every time you go to the same spot.
We don't have the same risks on different servers in the same spot? Surprise, we likely won't even have the same PVE content there either
Edit: I think your main issue is with the gamble of not knowing what you may gain in a PvP confrontation.
And as long as you get a reward taking a risk, that alone is the connection. It's open world PvP, it's supposed to be unpredictable and spontaneous.
If they were connected, the more risk you actually face (not potentially face), the greater your rewards.
If your server has way less pvp then it means that you don't need more people for any given content at any given time. So the reward you get for, say, killing Big Monkey boss would be split across fewer people.
Dolyem's server would have way more competition, which would make the whole encounter with the Big Monkey require more people (either in the same group or split into the "farming" and "protecting" groups). But all of those people would have to be rewarded for their efforts, so whatever the reward from the boss would be - every member would get a smaller part.
This is also a reason why pvp inclined people get kinda butthurt when pvers ask for pve servers. Because in that case they'd be getting higher reward for less risk.
Also, if Intrepid make a system that tracks player interactions (mainly pvp encounters) and then showcase that during the server choice, your server with less pvp might attract more people. Which might then lead to more pvp, because there'd be more competition. And Dolyem's server might lose some people to your server or just to other games (would depend on how good AoC is as a game).
So the risk/reward equation of both servers would balance out in the long run.
By that logic, every server should have the exact same nodes progressing in the same way. Because, from my understanding, we should each have the exact same experience according to you.
My logic isn't that anything in the game should change - it is simply that calling PvP "risk vs reward" is inaccurate.
If they were connected, the more risk you actually face (not potentially face), the greater your rewards.
If your server has way less pvp then it means that you don't need more people for any given content at any given time. So the reward you get for, say, killing Big Monkey boss would be split across fewer people.
Dolyem's server would have way more competition, which would make the whole encounter with the Big Monkey require more people (either in the same group or split into the "farming" and "protecting" groups). But all of those people would have to be rewarded for their efforts, so whatever the reward from the boss would be - every member would get a smaller part.
This is also a reason why pvp inclined people get kinda butthurt when pvers ask for pve servers. Because in that case they'd be getting higher reward for less risk.
Also, if Intrepid make a system that tracks player interactions (mainly pvp encounters) and then showcase that during the server choice, your server with less pvp might attract more people. Which might then lead to more pvp, because there'd be more competition. And Dolyem's server might lose some people to your server or just to other games (would depend on how good AoC is as a game).
So the risk/reward equation of both servers would balance out in the long run.
Depends how a server ended up having less PvP.
Maybe has less PvP and can maintain that state.
Also on a PvE server would be better to have more Big Monkey bosses, even instanced, because if fewer players can kill it, the others do what? Or maybe efficiently farming the Big Monkey boss gives more in return in a given time than on a chaotic PvP server?
If they were connected, the more risk you actually face (not potentially face), the greater your rewards.
If your server has way less pvp then it means that you don't need more people for any given content at any given time. So the reward you get for, say, killing Big Monkey boss would be split across fewer people.
Dolyem's server would have way more competition, which would make the whole encounter with the Big Monkey require more people (either in the same group or split into the "farming" and "protecting" groups). But all of those people would have to be rewarded for their efforts, so whatever the reward from the boss would be - every member would get a smaller part.
If we assume risk vs reward means "PvP", and if risk vs reward were connected, if you faced more PvP killing that monkey, you would get more reward. It doesn't matter how many people you bring.
PvE has risk vs reward in some aspects. You can often opt to take on a harder version of a mob or an easier version. The harder version is obviously harder, but has either more or better loot.
That is a situation where the risk and the reward are connected. PvP is not an example of risk and reward being connected.
This is also a reason why pvp inclined people get kinda butthurt when pvers ask for pve servers. Because in that case they'd be getting higher reward for less risk.
I'm not asking for PvE servers for Ashes (and have told more than a few people asking for them why they won't get them), but I still don't get why a PvP player would care.
In a game like Ashes, nothing at all that happens on a different server matters to you. As long as you are content with the game you have on your server, why care what happens on other servers?
Also on a PvE server would be better to have more Big Monkey bosses, even instanced, because if fewer players can kill it, the others do what? Or maybe efficiently farming the Big Monkey boss gives more in return in a given time than on a chaotic PvP server?
Are you trying to make the pvpers butthurt? Giving pvers even more loot
If we assume risk vs reward means "PvP", and if risk vs reward were connected, if you faced more PvP killing that monkey, you would get more reward. It doesn't matter how many people you bring.
It does matter though. Because the amount of people determines the amount of risk. Bringing more people means lessening the risk. But with more people (and less risk) you are also reducing the reward per member.
For those who are able to bring fewer people (so higher risk) and still win - the reward would be higher per member.
This is the correlation of risk and reward, when pvp is included.
PvE has risk vs reward in some aspects. You can often opt to take on a harder version of a mob or an easier version. The harder version is obviously harder, but has either more or better loot.
But devs limit the amount of people you can bring, right? Because the encounter is designed around a specific number and the difficulty comes from that limitation.
Can't you see that these are the same situations? I'd assume you can bring fewer people to that easier version and still kill it, right? (as long as you have the skill of course) So that worse loot would go up in value, because the amount of people-time spent on it has decreased.
Choosing to bring fewer people to a pvx encounter is the same boost of risk as going for a harder mob in pve. And in the case where the pve encounter provides just more loot, instead of directly qualitatively better - it's even the same distribution of said loot. Higher risk - higher reward per member.
By that logic, every server should have the exact same nodes progressing in the same way. Because, from my understanding, we should each have the exact same experience according to you.
My logic isn't that anything in the game should change - it is simply that calling PvP "risk vs reward" is inaccurate.
I disagree, you believe that risk and reward being connected requires correlation. But risk never has to have a certain outcome, such as an equivalent reward from players you PK. Part of the risk you take PKing someone for loot is a gamble on not knowing how much loot they really have.
All that is needed is the knowledge that players you kill can drop loot, at the risk of them fighting back or them giving you corruption. Risks and rewards.
Your correlation point of view works better with PvP events such as caravans and also sieges on prominent nodes.
0
Ayeveegaming1Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
A PvP'r is also a PvE'r in AoC. A PvE'r is also a PvP'r in AoC. Some like to do both. Some like to do just one or the other. The problem is its hard to be a PvE'r in a game designed for open world pvp. So in all respect to strictly pve, you might want to rethink playing ashes and not wanting to pvp.
I disagree, you believe that risk and reward being connected requires correlation.
If there is no correlation, then it is not risk VERSUS reward.
It is "risk is a component of the game, and reward is a seperate, disconnected component of the game".
Again, I am not saying PvP doesn't provide some risk, I am saying it doesn't provide actual risk vs reward, because the reward component isn't connected to the risk component - they are both totally seperate.
I'm fairly sure you've been around here when I have talked about how the only cost in an MMO is time.
This notion came directly from an MMO developer saying that their method of working out risk vs reward is in relation to how much time they expect players to spend on a thing. If they add content that they expect 6 players to spend 6 hours on, that is 36 hours worth of risk. If they make something that they expect 24 players to spend one hour on, that is 24 hours worth of risk.
From there, they talked about the chances of not getting the reward. If that group of 6 only had a 50% chance of getting the reward at the end (for what ever reason), then that 36 hours gets doubled, meaning they are risking 72 hours. If that raid of 24 players have a 33% chance to get the reward, that 24 hours gets trippled to 72 hours as well.
How this translated to PvP is that if you have 100 players and I only have 10, sure, you have a greater chance at winning than I do, but it is costing you 10 times what it is costing me. Thus, the actual risk (using the above forumula) is actually about the same for both of us. If we determine that I have a 10% chance of getting the reward in this situation, then we are literally risking as much as each other at 100 hours each.
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.
In an owpvp mmo everybody has the same chance to be attacked, me included. It is equal for everybody. Whoever is the better mmo player overall, both in progressing and in fighting off other players, is considered the winner.
Managing to progress your character, building wealth and gaining good gear, influencing server events due to alliance rivalries and war, whilst constantly being under the threat of random pvp, is a great experience.
I dislike restricted pvp (Battlegrounds, pvp zones, faction based pvp "reds vs blue" ) etc etc, because it removes player agency and the option to take matters to ones own hands and prevail.
For me, winning 1 battleground or 1000 is totally pointless. Winning random encounters in the open world, while I aim to progress my character, or establishing dominance with my large guild, or fame with my smaller guild is way more important.
I push for a lengthy time to reach level cap because I dont want the journey to end. And I advocate you level cap increase, new gear, new hunting zones, few new class abilities and new quests, every 1-2 years for the same reason. So that the journey never ends.
Look at eso, wow and ff14. These people are on a treadmill. The same dungeons 100000 times. The same battlegrounds "10 mins of fighting, win or lose" with people you dont really interact because they are a just random opposing team.
The journey and the adventure of these mmos ends quick and it is borring through-out.
3
Ayeveegaming1Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
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.
In an owpvp mmo everybody has the same chance to be attacked, me included. It is equal for everybody. Whoever is the better mmo player overall, both in progressing and in fighting off other players, is considered the winner.
Managing to progress your character, building wealth and gaining good gear, influencing server events due to alliance rivalries and war, whilst constantly being under the threat of random pvp, is a great experience.
I dislike restricted pvp (Battlegrounds, pvp zones, faction based pvp "reds vs blue" ) etc etc, because it removes player agency and the option to take matters to ones own hands and prevail.
For me, winning 1 battleground or 1000 is totally pointless. Winning random encounters in the open world, while I aim to progress my character, or establishing dominance with my large guild, or fame with my smaller guild is way more important.
I push for a lengthy time to reach level cap because I dont want the journey to end. And I advocate you level cap increase, new gear, new hunting zones, few new class abilities and new quests, every 1-2 years for the same reason. So that the journey never ends.
Look at eso, wow and ff14. These people are on a treadmill. The same dungeons 100000 times. The same battlegrounds "10 mins of fighting, win or lose" with people you dont really interact because they are a just random opposing team.
The journey and the adventure of these mmos ends quick and it is borring through-out.
Although I do sometimes like structured pvp like battlegrounds and such. Not so much arenas, anymore at least because I am getting old and my body does not work like it used to lol. I am just not as fast as others. You mention that you like owpvp better, and I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment. For me it feels more realistic. To use your skills to hunt, to take by surprise, or to be taken by surprise is thrilling and still gets my adrenilin pumping. I lose more than I win for sure but the reason I like it is because even though I am not good enough, sometimes I do win, and overcome that obsticle. In the pvp world you earn each others respect, you earn honor. Through that real life relationships are born. You might hate each other in game on the battlefield, but can talk in discord like old friends at the same time, because you have respect for one another. That to me is one of the meaningful rewards through gameplay.
The stories about L2 wars, hatred, mutual respect, betrayal and unlikely friendships, between guilds, cause by individual players, starting from 1 server and ending up across many, from EU to NA, are too many to tell, and so I gave up the original post that I started. I hope this will suffice. One more thing. NONE of that has happened in any mmo without owpvp.
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?
One example, that I'll admit doesn't fit into AoC is factions. You focus your entire game on the idea that you build yourself up to beat down the other faction. Just because that is what you are supposed to do.At this point you are probably down to satisfaction and disappointment in terms of gains/losses. So there is technically gains and losses here to, but it's mostly on the emotional level.
Then there is a lot of things that I'd say is more indirect gains, for instance if you hold this fort your entire group/faction gains a mostly symbolic boost to XP or gathering speed. It's technically still a measurable gain, but the gains are small enough that it's mostly there as spice, it wont really affect the game greatly.
I'll also willingly admit that to some extent it might be about packaging/subtelty. Caravans are mostly direct gain/loss, but they are packaged more interestingly.
Defending your node in AoC is interesting in the way that it is probably going to be on a range from symbolic gains to very direct gains, depending on how heavily the individual player is invested in the node.
Hopefully this somewhat visualizes what I mean with looking at it differently, even if what you are saying is also technically true/a way to view it
The stories about L2 wars, hatred, mutual respect, betrayal and unlikely friendships, between guilds, cause by individual players, starting from 1 server and ending up across many, from EU to NA, are too many to tell, and so I gave up the original post that I started. I hope this will suffice. One more thing. NONE of that has happened in any mmo without owpvp.
I wouldn't attribute it to owpvp at all. Vanilla wow had the sense of community and camaraderie back then too, it had all the guild drama and name recognition that you're talking about and on PvE servers that had no owpvp. I honestly just think the gaming community was different 20+ years ago. You had a smaller group of people that played online games and it was something new, I think that's why it was so tight knit.
Don't get me wrong I love nostalgia as much as the next millennial, but no matter how exclusive you make it, or how much gatekeeping you do... You won't get the same thing that you used to have.
When people say you need 'casuals' to keep a game in this genre alive, and you respond that no you don't and use examples from 20 years ago... Those games survived like that because of what gaming was back then, that won't last today because the world is different now.
I disagree, you believe that risk and reward being connected requires correlation.
If there is no correlation, then it is not risk VERSUS reward.
It is "risk is a component of the game, and reward is a seperate, disconnected component of the game".
Again, I am not saying PvP doesn't provide some risk, I am saying it doesn't provide actual risk vs reward, because the reward component isn't connected to the risk component - they are both totally seperate.
I'd say they're still connected. But I think I see what you are meaning now. So what do you believe should be done to have open world PvP kills correlate the reward for the risk taken? Assuming that you believe it even needs to be done.
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.
your stats arent affected when you fight a bounty hunter, and bounty hunters will appear purple to you, allowing you to cc them first too
Maybe we're thinking about the "reward" in the wrong way. Maybe the reward isn't anything material, like item, gold or something.
Maybe the real reward are the friends we made along the way.
So when talking about a world boss for example.
Depending on what the world boss drops, it might be more popular and more valuable to kill it, rather than some other bosses. It probably means there will be more risks trying to kill it, because there will be more competition for it. So the reward, while already being good, is increased by the fact that if your group is the one who gets to kill it and loot it, is also rewarded emotionally. They do not get any extra loot for fighting off other players. There will be more satisfaction if you fight off other players, and kill the boss, rather than just killing the boss without any competition.
That's fair, other rewards besides loot for open world PvP could be how one affects the node, the resources after claiming the spot, the economy of that node depending on how you utilize the loot, node relations, guild relations, etc.
How this translated to PvP is that if you have 100 players and I only have 10, sure, you have a greater chance at winning than I do, but it is costing you 10 times what it is costing me. Thus, the actual risk (using the above forumula) is actually about the same for both of us. If we determine that I have a 10% chance of getting the reward in this situation, then we are literally risking as much as each other at 100 hours each.
But you forgot about the reward part here. Our risk values might be equal across a long period of time, but are rewards differ completely. Say a boss drops 10 items. If your group of 10 players risks killing the boss and then manages to do it on the first try - you win hugely because you know got 1 item per player.
If my group of 100 kills the boss - we'd have to kill it another 10 times to have a "1 per player" item/reward value.
In other words, you group would pretty much have 10 tries of beating us on that boss and if you win once - you've won more than we have, because we'd only have 90% of our reward, while you'd have 100%.
And depending on loot tables, your one win might snowball your power, so your chances of future wins go up. And considering that on average small groups that want to kill bosses are most likely more skilled, while zergs exist exactly because the players are shite - your small elite squad would be able to outpace a 100-member raid, in terms of reward acquisition.
Your risk is still high, purely because the numbers might overwhelm you at any point or the boss itself would just be harder for you to deal with (or just take longer), but the reward is waaaay more impactful for you than for my group.
This is why I'm saying that even with pvp this equation still holds up.
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."
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…
this seems oddly inappropriate.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The problem for PvE-only players is they want absolutely nothing to do with PvP, so even a PvX game which is perfectly balanced in utilizing both PvE and PvP sounds abhorrent to them, while a majority of the PvP players will be happy to play the full experience.
At least 30% of the players on PvE-Only servers enjoy some PvP.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Comments
Archeage, Lineage 2, EVE, Albion, Dark age of Camelot, Warhammer online, Revelation Online, Ultima online, Mortal online,
the list goes on,
AoC are those games? Sorry Liniker not sure what you're saying.
I was getting to the point where people say any game that has PvP is only a PvP game and not PvX. And since AoC is not like any I listed in terms of content. The logical conclusion is its PvX.
I guess as I write this, you're right all the games you listed are also PvX.
yea I thought you were asking for examples of PvX mmorpgs, my bad
So, if EvE Online and ArcheAge and UO and Lineage II are PvX MMORPGs...
When I ask Steven if he's hoping Ashes PvP is like EvE and ArcheAge - the answer should be yes.
When I tell him those games are too PvP-centric for me, he should say... "Well, Ashes is not made for everyone, so maybe you are not part of the target audience."
Or say, "Well, we consider those games to be PvX, like Ashes, rather than PvP-centric."
PvX MMORPG is the same thing as a PvP-centric MMORPG. Which is why the term PvX is meaningless.
PvP servers on EQ/EQ2/WoW are also PvX.
Saying Ashes is PvX does not help players who refuse to play UO, EvE Online and ArcheAge understand that Ashes isn't made for their playstyle.
Other MMORPGs tend to favor one side or the other too much, making the dominant focus significantly overshadow the lesser. You can see this on many PvE servers where even the instanced PvP is extremely lacking.
The problem for PvE-only players is they want absolutely nothing to do with PvP, so even a PvX game which is perfectly balanced in utilizing both PvE and PvP sounds abhorrent to them, while a majority of the PvP players will be happy to play the full experience.
Imagine you and I are on different servers, mine has significantly more PvP than yours (servers will have vastly differing amounts of PvP - that is basically a given).
You and I both venturing out to work the same content look at facing very different risk via PvP, yet we each only stand to gain the same rewards from that content we are planning to work.
Thus, the risk and reward are not connected. At all.
If they were connected, the more risk you actually face (not potentially face), the greater your rewards.
By that logic, every server should have the exact same nodes progressing in the same way. Because, from my understanding, we should each have the exact same experience according to you.
It isn't supposed to be consistent or the same every time you go to the same spot.
We don't have the same risks on different servers in the same spot? Surprise, we likely won't even have the same PVE content there either
Edit: I think your main issue is with the gamble of not knowing what you may gain in a PvP confrontation.
And as long as you get a reward taking a risk, that alone is the connection. It's open world PvP, it's supposed to be unpredictable and spontaneous.
Dolyem's server would have way more competition, which would make the whole encounter with the Big Monkey require more people (either in the same group or split into the "farming" and "protecting" groups). But all of those people would have to be rewarded for their efforts, so whatever the reward from the boss would be - every member would get a smaller part.
This is also a reason why pvp inclined people get kinda butthurt when pvers ask for pve servers. Because in that case they'd be getting higher reward for less risk.
Also, if Intrepid make a system that tracks player interactions (mainly pvp encounters) and then showcase that during the server choice, your server with less pvp might attract more people. Which might then lead to more pvp, because there'd be more competition. And Dolyem's server might lose some people to your server or just to other games (would depend on how good AoC is as a game).
So the risk/reward equation of both servers would balance out in the long run.
My logic isn't that anything in the game should change - it is simply that calling PvP "risk vs reward" is inaccurate.
Depends how a server ended up having less PvP.
Maybe has less PvP and can maintain that state.
Also on a PvE server would be better to have more Big Monkey bosses, even instanced, because if fewer players can kill it, the others do what? Or maybe efficiently farming the Big Monkey boss gives more in return in a given time than on a chaotic PvP server?
PvE has risk vs reward in some aspects. You can often opt to take on a harder version of a mob or an easier version. The harder version is obviously harder, but has either more or better loot.
That is a situation where the risk and the reward are connected. PvP is not an example of risk and reward being connected. I'm not asking for PvE servers for Ashes (and have told more than a few people asking for them why they won't get them), but I still don't get why a PvP player would care.
In a game like Ashes, nothing at all that happens on a different server matters to you. As long as you are content with the game you have on your server, why care what happens on other servers?
It does matter though. Because the amount of people determines the amount of risk. Bringing more people means lessening the risk. But with more people (and less risk) you are also reducing the reward per member.
For those who are able to bring fewer people (so higher risk) and still win - the reward would be higher per member.
This is the correlation of risk and reward, when pvp is included.
But devs limit the amount of people you can bring, right? Because the encounter is designed around a specific number and the difficulty comes from that limitation.
Can't you see that these are the same situations? I'd assume you can bring fewer people to that easier version and still kill it, right? (as long as you have the skill of course) So that worse loot would go up in value, because the amount of people-time spent on it has decreased.
Choosing to bring fewer people to a pvx encounter is the same boost of risk as going for a harder mob in pve. And in the case where the pve encounter provides just more loot, instead of directly qualitatively better - it's even the same distribution of said loot. Higher risk - higher reward per member.
I disagree, you believe that risk and reward being connected requires correlation. But risk never has to have a certain outcome, such as an equivalent reward from players you PK. Part of the risk you take PKing someone for loot is a gamble on not knowing how much loot they really have.
All that is needed is the knowledge that players you kill can drop loot, at the risk of them fighting back or them giving you corruption. Risks and rewards.
Your correlation point of view works better with PvP events such as caravans and also sieges on prominent nodes.
It is "risk is a component of the game, and reward is a seperate, disconnected component of the game".
Again, I am not saying PvP doesn't provide some risk, I am saying it doesn't provide actual risk vs reward, because the reward component isn't connected to the risk component - they are both totally seperate.
This notion came directly from an MMO developer saying that their method of working out risk vs reward is in relation to how much time they expect players to spend on a thing. If they add content that they expect 6 players to spend 6 hours on, that is 36 hours worth of risk. If they make something that they expect 24 players to spend one hour on, that is 24 hours worth of risk.
From there, they talked about the chances of not getting the reward. If that group of 6 only had a 50% chance of getting the reward at the end (for what ever reason), then that 36 hours gets doubled, meaning they are risking 72 hours. If that raid of 24 players have a 33% chance to get the reward, that 24 hours gets trippled to 72 hours as well.
How this translated to PvP is that if you have 100 players and I only have 10, sure, you have a greater chance at winning than I do, but it is costing you 10 times what it is costing me. Thus, the actual risk (using the above forumula) is actually about the same for both of us. If we determine that I have a 10% chance of getting the reward in this situation, then we are literally risking as much as each other at 100 hours each.
In an owpvp mmo everybody has the same chance to be attacked, me included. It is equal for everybody. Whoever is the better mmo player overall, both in progressing and in fighting off other players, is considered the winner.
Managing to progress your character, building wealth and gaining good gear, influencing server events due to alliance rivalries and war, whilst constantly being under the threat of random pvp, is a great experience.
I dislike restricted pvp (Battlegrounds, pvp zones, faction based pvp "reds vs blue" ) etc etc, because it removes player agency and the option to take matters to ones own hands and prevail.
For me, winning 1 battleground or 1000 is totally pointless. Winning random encounters in the open world, while I aim to progress my character, or establishing dominance with my large guild, or fame with my smaller guild is way more important.
I push for a lengthy time to reach level cap because I dont want the journey to end. And I advocate you level cap increase, new gear, new hunting zones, few new class abilities and new quests, every 1-2 years for the same reason. So that the journey never ends.
Look at eso, wow and ff14. These people are on a treadmill. The same dungeons 100000 times. The same battlegrounds "10 mins of fighting, win or lose" with people you dont really interact because they are a just random opposing team.
The journey and the adventure of these mmos ends quick and it is borring through-out.
Although I do sometimes like structured pvp like battlegrounds and such. Not so much arenas, anymore at least because I am getting old and my body does not work like it used to lol. I am just not as fast as others. You mention that you like owpvp better, and I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment. For me it feels more realistic. To use your skills to hunt, to take by surprise, or to be taken by surprise is thrilling and still gets my adrenilin pumping. I lose more than I win for sure but the reason I like it is because even though I am not good enough, sometimes I do win, and overcome that obsticle. In the pvp world you earn each others respect, you earn honor. Through that real life relationships are born. You might hate each other in game on the battlefield, but can talk in discord like old friends at the same time, because you have respect for one another. That to me is one of the meaningful rewards through gameplay.
One example, that I'll admit doesn't fit into AoC is factions. You focus your entire game on the idea that you build yourself up to beat down the other faction. Just because that is what you are supposed to do.At this point you are probably down to satisfaction and disappointment in terms of gains/losses. So there is technically gains and losses here to, but it's mostly on the emotional level.
Then there is a lot of things that I'd say is more indirect gains, for instance if you hold this fort your entire group/faction gains a mostly symbolic boost to XP or gathering speed. It's technically still a measurable gain, but the gains are small enough that it's mostly there as spice, it wont really affect the game greatly.
I'll also willingly admit that to some extent it might be about packaging/subtelty. Caravans are mostly direct gain/loss, but they are packaged more interestingly.
Defending your node in AoC is interesting in the way that it is probably going to be on a range from symbolic gains to very direct gains, depending on how heavily the individual player is invested in the node.
Hopefully this somewhat visualizes what I mean with looking at it differently, even if what you are saying is also technically true/a way to view it
I wouldn't attribute it to owpvp at all. Vanilla wow had the sense of community and camaraderie back then too, it had all the guild drama and name recognition that you're talking about and on PvE servers that had no owpvp. I honestly just think the gaming community was different 20+ years ago. You had a smaller group of people that played online games and it was something new, I think that's why it was so tight knit.
Don't get me wrong I love nostalgia as much as the next millennial, but no matter how exclusive you make it, or how much gatekeeping you do... You won't get the same thing that you used to have.
When people say you need 'casuals' to keep a game in this genre alive, and you respond that no you don't and use examples from 20 years ago... Those games survived like that because of what gaming was back then, that won't last today because the world is different now.
I'd say they're still connected. But I think I see what you are meaning now. So what do you believe should be done to have open world PvP kills correlate the reward for the risk taken? Assuming that you believe it even needs to be done.
your stats arent affected when you fight a bounty hunter, and bounty hunters will appear purple to you, allowing you to cc them first too
Maybe the real reward are the friends we made along the way.
So when talking about a world boss for example.
Depending on what the world boss drops, it might be more popular and more valuable to kill it, rather than some other bosses. It probably means there will be more risks trying to kill it, because there will be more competition for it. So the reward, while already being good, is increased by the fact that if your group is the one who gets to kill it and loot it, is also rewarded emotionally. They do not get any extra loot for fighting off other players. There will be more satisfaction if you fight off other players, and kill the boss, rather than just killing the boss without any competition.
If my group of 100 kills the boss - we'd have to kill it another 10 times to have a "1 per player" item/reward value.
In other words, you group would pretty much have 10 tries of beating us on that boss and if you win once - you've won more than we have, because we'd only have 90% of our reward, while you'd have 100%.
And depending on loot tables, your one win might snowball your power, so your chances of future wins go up. And considering that on average small groups that want to kill bosses are most likely more skilled, while zergs exist exactly because the players are shite - your small elite squad would be able to outpace a 100-member raid, in terms of reward acquisition.
Your risk is still high, purely because the numbers might overwhelm you at any point or the boss itself would just be harder for you to deal with (or just take longer), but the reward is waaaay more impactful for you than for my group.
This is why I'm saying that even with pvp this equation still holds up.
did you quote yourself? weird
this seems oddly inappropriate.