AOC is NOT a PVP game.

AoC is a PVX game and that means something.

This started as a reply during another Forum post but It became long winded so I just made a post. As always any thoughts of your own are appreciated.

I think there is a general confusion on what AoC is trying to be and why some people incorrectly think that this game is being designed around Nostalgia or PVP. Its not.

I look at this game as closer to a Story to be read, or something you could write about and even if you didn't play there would be stories you would want to hear. You can have a version of meaningful conflict with out PVP for sure but the more you risk the bigger the conflict and the more interesting the story. Just look at Eve Online, I've barely touched that game but I've heard the stories and there's a chance you have to.

The idea isn't that you need to focus on your inventory when out collecting but that its a dangerous world full of conflict(terror). You need to address that, no one will likely disturb you but there is a chance and that chance pushes players in to Social content essentially. Players may provide protection services or people will group to collect to ensure safety or be aware of the other players and maybe be a little more friendly etc. Its simply not as simple as "other players want to kill me while I collect flowers and that's silly". Its that with out that you are sacrificing the core of the game and reducing the need for players to rely on each other.

Even the Nodes are designed to create conflict. So the goal is to create a world that feels in conflict. (Ideally they do add corruption effects to your character when you increase in corruption.) Where you are going out in to the world and your safety isn't guaranteed. When you see a player you ask yourself, who is that? what are they doing? what do they want? If they are corrupted, what do I do ? Did they kill someone that pissed them off or are they just out to cause trouble? You have just entered into conflict simply by being there.

People should be very clear that this is NOT a progression train that you hop on and off with no need to interact with other players and even when you do they might as well be AI for the value that it brings to the experience. I think In-fact you are most likely to prefer bots because the players tend to gravitate towards toxic behavior with a " if you slow me down you are hurting me and now I am pissed off" style of development. When i say Modern MMO's/RPGs feel empty it barely seems to even scratch the surface.

I played Wayfinder and that games feels so dam empty just like so many before it, for what it is its probably decent but I am not interested. There are a lot people that are upset that T&L has auto-play but because there is such a focus on just instant gratification that players and companies seem to just assume that anything outside that wont work, they design games that are one breath away from being AutoPlay. So clearly Autoplay was the next logical step.

Which is probably why it takes someone like Steven Shariff to change things. Remember WoW had 0 experience going in to making their MMO with only a vision and not enough money, before WoW they made RTS's and Action RPGs in a world where gaming itself was certainly not mainstream. If anyone remembers how silly their launch was and how little content the game had it would probably blow them away. It took them a full year or more to even get their servers in line. Either way they developed a game that everyone wanted to play for that time. Everyone projected a massive failure. They came out on top because their vision of WOW at that time hit the right chord.

Despite being the most popular MMORPG to date Blizzard are also oddly enough the last developer anyone should talk to before making their own MMORPG. They made what they made and that worked for them and that's it, even recently though it seems they don't understand why anyone keeps playing their own game.

Main Point is this, stop focusing on if this game is PVP or PVE, they operate together to achieve a larger goal from a Man who made a world as a Dungeon Master and wants to see that world live. Telling him to reduce the conflict points would be like telling GRR Martin to stop killing characters.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Fiddlez

CROW3 wrote: »

Fiddlez wrote: »

To be fair I don't think I've really seen any conflict outside of PVP that matters.

So, dungeons, raiding, and open-world bosses aren't conflict, aren't meaningful, or neither meaningful or conflict?

What conflict happens in dungeons and raids? People arguing over DKP or need vs greed? Open World drama of who tagged the raid boss first?

Yeah. I definitely don't think I've ever experienced any worthwhile conflict unless it was just players being toxic because your gear score was too low.

Yeah not interested in that type of conflict.

CROW3

So the mmo dungeons, raids, and ow-boss content itself doesn't involve conflict. Are you sure?

Fiddlez

curious_ontologist wrote: »

I agree with the post. The emptiness of other MMORPGs is astounding and I haven't really invested in a game since Warframe (before it was bought by the current company that owns it). There just lacks that spark of role-playing that games like Rust once had. However, PVP should exist.. It is worth discussing the criminal aspect of playing the game because as you said conflict in the world around you as a result of existence is necessary for peak immersion. As a criminal type myself, I would like to coordinate a heist on the local bank. I would like to go into a tavern and be that one bard who runs a bunch of people for their money. I enjoy the thought of being a villain in this game. The concept of having negative morality in AoC is necessary for full immersion. Without having the good as well as the bad from a player-on-player aspect, it lacks realism which makes the game feel fake. Without the bad, there is no good, without good, there is no bad. I just hope that this yin/yan aspect of the game is not only represented in the story of the game, but also seen everywhere in player-on-player interaction. I loved when you said, "When you see a player you ask yourself, who is that? what are they doing? what do they want? If they are corrupted, what do I do? Did they kill someone that pissed them off or are they just out to cause trouble? You have just entered into conflict simply by being there." This player-on-player interaction should include the idea that he may rob you, he may kill you, he may convince you to go on a mission where he double crosses you and you wouldn't have known that his criminal rating came from evil rather than defense from evil. It may very well be a feels bad should this nameles person be evil, but you as a player will certainly grow due to the encounter. That is something few other games have. In the end, I hope they don't scale back the villainy of players too much, but strike a good balance between having fun being a villain and just going around greefing.

Hit the nail on the head. Can't have full immersion or Meaningful conflict with out Good Vs Bad.

Having rivals in game can be infuriating but it's not boring. Long as you can handle that there will be conflict it should be a good time

Ludullu

Fiddlez wrote: »

What conflict happens in dungeons and raids? People arguing over DKP or need vs greed? Open World drama of who tagged the raid boss first?

Yeah. I definitely don't think I've ever experienced any worthwhile conflict unless it was just players being toxic because your gear score was too low.

Yeah not interested in that type of conflict.

CROW3 wrote: »

So the mmo dungeons, raids, and ow-boss content itself doesn't involve conflict. Are you sure?

I tried finding context for this "argument", but I feel like I've failed.

Are you sure you're talking about the same thing? Cause I feel like either you have a misunderstanding, or I'm completely misunderstanding what you're both talking about.

Fiddlez

CROW3 wrote: »

So the mmo dungeons, raids, and ow-boss content itself doesn't involve conflict. Are you sure?

Meaningful conflict? not that I have ever experienced. You can read a story about it and maybe that dungeon has a good story but it hardly creates much conflict for you.

Fiddlez

NiKr wrote: »

Fiddlez wrote: »

What conflict happens in dungeons and raids? People arguing over DKP or need vs greed? Open World drama of who tagged the raid boss first?

Yeah. I definitely don't think I've ever experienced any worthwhile conflict unless it was just players being toxic because your gear score was too low.

Yeah not interested in that type of conflict.

CROW3 wrote: »

So the mmo dungeons, raids, and ow-boss content itself doesn't involve conflict. Are you sure?

I tried finding context for this "argument", but I feel like I've failed.

Are you sure you're talking about the same thing? Cause I feel like either you have a misunderstanding, or I'm completely misunderstanding what you're both talking about.

I mentioned I don't think you can get meaningful conflict with out PVP. He is apparently trying to imply that there is? I am not sure yet.

Ludullu

Fiddlez wrote: »

I mentioned I don't think you can get meaningful conflict with out PVP. He is apparently trying to imply that there is? I am not sure yet.

Ok, yeah, if that's what Crow meant that I just misunderstood that part. And if that is the case then I'd say I agree with you. To me fighting mobs or doing quests is not conflict at all.

Dygz

Fiddlez wrote: »

Minus the cake thing this is why it's important to call it PVX.

PvX is a meaningless term.

Fiddlez wrote: »

To be fair I don't think I've really seen any conflict outside of PVP that matters. Maybe I am told the conflict by a story but socially generated conflict always seems to be better. Not sure what sort meaningful content you are referring to.

Maybe watch the Kickstarter video.
Ashes defines Meaningful Conflict as Sieges, Caravans, Node Wars and Guild Wars. Objective-based PvP.

Dygz

Fiddlez wrote: »

I mentioned I don't think you can get meaningful conflict with out PVP. He is apparently trying to imply that there is? I am not sure yet.

I am not implying anything of the sort. You are misinferring. Perhaps because you think I hate PvP?
Meaningful Conflict - as defined by the Ashes devs - is Sieges, Caravans, Node Wars and Guild Wars:
Objective-based PvP.

Ludullu

Dygz wrote: »

I am not implying anything of the sort. You are misinferring. Perhaps because you think I hate PvP?
Meaningful Conflict - as defined by the Ashes devs - is Sieges, Caravans, Node Wars and Guild Wars:
Objective-based PvP.

Fiddlez is talking about Crow3

Isth3reno1else

Dygz wrote: »

My issue with Steven's new obsession with Risk v Reward and PvP/PvX is his desire for us to be contemplating Economic Warfare whenever we are choosing which type of bag to bring with us to pick some flowers.

You keep saying this is new, but 5 years ago you did an hour long risk vs reward podcast. At the 1:50 mark you say steven brings up risk vs reward a lot.

https://youtu.be/1Braf3Ou4f4?si=_IQJtub5A5L2Y8Ga

At the 5:08 mark you semi quote Steven saying you 'wont be able to enjoy the game without a lot of risk.'

What's the difference between those quotes then and what's happening now? To me it sounds the same.

Dygz

Fiddlez wrote: »

What conflict happens in dungeons and raids? People arguing over DKP or need vs greed? Open World drama of who tagged the raid boss first?

Yeah. I definitely don't think I've ever experienced any worthwhile conflict unless it was just players being toxic because your gear score was too low.

Yeah not interested in that type of conflict.

I think Steven would place contested bosses under Risk v Reward.
I don't recall contested bosses being included in Meaningful Conflict.

Dolyem

Dygz wrote: »

Fiddlez wrote: »

I mentioned I don't think you can get meaningful conflict with out PVP. He is apparently trying to imply that there is? I am not sure yet.

I am not implying anything of the sort. You are misinferring. Perhaps because you think I hate PvP?
Meaningful Conflict - as defined by the Ashes devs - is Sieges, Caravans, Node Wars and Guild Wars:
Objective-based PvP.

All conflict has meaning. Otherwise it wouldn't be in the game nor affect the game. But yes, there are many objective based PvP formats

Dygz

Isth3reno1else wrote: »

At the 5:08 mark you semi quote Steven saying you 'wont be able to enjoy the game without a lot of risk.'
What's the difference between those quotes then and what's happening now? To me it sounds the same.

It could be that Jeffrey Bard would mostly talk about Meaningful Conflict and Steven would mostly talk about Risk v Reward.
And then, after Jeffrey left, we stopped hearing about Meaningful Conflict.

But, also, if you listen to the podcast - at this point, we were still thinking Risk v Reward might apply to other aspects of the game - besides "MeaningLESS Conflict" which is how Steven typically talks about RvR now.
You'll hear Fantmx question if Steven is saying Risk v Reward when he means challenge.
Tsagh asks if there is Risk v Reward associated with crafting items (do we roll a 1 and craft something that explodes or sucks?).
Tsagh says he thinks Risk v Reward, it's PvP or PvE combat related... but the Reward from farming and crafting will be combat related.
And, when Tsagh posits that, I associate it with MeaningFUL Conflict: Node Sieges, Caravans and Castle Sieges.
We start this video by contemplating ways Risk v Reward could apply to other aspects fo the game besides just PvP combat.

I think we had some hint, at this point, that Sieges would be a Mode for Apocalypse, so...
Meaningful Conflict was still mentioned about as often as Risk v Reward - if not moreso, IIRC.
For the past year, when Steven mentions Risk v Reward, it's not just PvP, but very specifically PvP that is not associated with Meaningful Conflict. When Steven discusses Risk v Reward it's the Open Seas FFA PvP or Corruption-flag PvP on the mainland.

I think at the time of this video, I was using Risk v Reward interchangeably with Meaningful Conflict.
Even towards the end of this video, you will hear Tsagh equate Risk v Reward with Sieges and Caravans.
Neuro also equates Risk v Reward with Meaningful Conflict - Sieges.
But, recently, I realized that Steven now tends to use Risk v Reward very specifically for the adrenaline rush of "random" PvP, like contested bosses, rather than scheduled PvP of Sieges and Node Wars.

But, also... I think shortly after the reveal of the Open Seas, I heard Margaret mention that all of her most memorable moments in MMORPGs were durin high adrenaline risk encounters - that nothing really has value unless there is high risk. And I realized not only would I not want to play an MMORPG on the same server as Steven, I also would not want to play on the same server as Margaret.
Then I watched her and some other Ashes devs playing games during Extra Life and learned those devs are highly competive trash talkers - and I don't want to play MMORPGs on the same servers they're on, either.
So, Steven obsessing over adrenaline rush PvP being intrinsically tied to every aspect of the game pinged more strongly than when I was thinking the game was more about Meaningful Conflict: Sieges, Caravans and Node Wars.

Dygz

Dolyem wrote: »

All conflict has meaning. Otherwise it wouldn't be in the game nor affect the game. But yes, there are many objective based PvP formats

Which is fine, but...
Ashes defines Meaningful Conflict quite specifically as Sieges, Caravans, Node Wars and Guild Wars.

Fiddlez

Noaani wrote: »

Fiddlez wrote: »

In Crowfall/MO2/Eve/Albion The PvE is filler for the PVP. It's just there to provide a gap filler and to be a form of RPG but if you go out there is basically 0 reasons not to PvP every player you see.

I played EVE for just under a year.

Never once got in to a PvP fight in that game. Not going to get in to what I was actually doing for my corporation, but that is where I learned to fight against other guilds without PvP (I've talked about this on the forums here a few times recently).

The thing with EVE is that the people that matter rarely actually fight - same with the people directly around them. The only time they really do is in regards to major PvP events (literally no major events happened in the time I played). There are people on the periphery that fight often, but the people that matter literally can't afford to get in to fights often.

I spent more time PvP'ing in EQ2 than I did in EVE - yet I would still consider EVE to be a PvP game and EQ2 to be a PvE game, simply because even though we weren't PvP'ing every day (or every year), every action we took was in relation to winning that next PvP encounter.

You say that literally everything in these games is designed to push players in to PvP and so they are PvP games - yet don't seem to say the same thing for Ashes.

Have you even looked at the game systems in Ashes?

Literally every system Steven talks about in any detail is designed to incite player conflict - even the land management system is literally just a means of inciting conflict in relation to resource harvesting.

If your definition of a PvP game is one where the systems are designed to incite PvP, then Ashes is far more PvP oriented than any of the games you have listed.

In the same way EVE had people on the periphery that were PvP'ing every day while the bulk of players simply weren't (in my experience of the game), Ashes will be the other way. The bulk of players will be involved in PvP daily (many times a day), and there will be that periphery of players that are less involved in PvP (but still are on occasion).

Additionally, in the same way I consider EVE to be a PvP game due to the fact that every action you take is in service of trying to win that next PvP fight, the same will be true in Ashes.

Sure, players may put effort in to nodes - but they will do so to get stronger either personally or as a guild. Sure, players may spend time tending their freehold - but they will do so to get stronger either personally or as a guild. Sure, players may kill world bosses - but they will do so to get stronger either personally or as a guild.

By our current understanding, there is no top end goal in Ashes other than PvP, so everything in that game is in service of PvP.

You seem to want to say the game isn't PvP focused - yet the literal focus of the game is PvP. It just happens to be one more step than those games you talk about.

I have played plenty of both and AoC will play SUBSTANTIALLY different and judging by how the market is leading towards more genuine experiences it's especially important we describe this game properly to prevent confusion and MAKE them ask the question, What is PvX?

A better way to do this would be to describe Ashes as PvP, and then continue to explain.

PvX means nothing, and so is just a barrier in communication. There is no world in which accurately communicating anything is best served by using an undefined term, and PvX is indeed an indefined term.

Any argument that using that term is good as it will encourage questions of what ever is literally the same argument as saying good communication involves creating your own words as it encourages questions.

That is clearly not the case.

Ok so yeah. Eve is PVP and EQ2 is PVE we agree. The main intent of the game is why were refer to them as such.

The main intent of Ashes isn't just PVP. It's just as much PVE and PVP. You keep telling me why everyone does everything. I am saying you don't know. This game has dungeons, Raids and crafting. It has adventuring and people will spend a whole lot of time doing both. I ran around and played a whole lot of L2 barely ever PVPing.

The main purpose is not just entirely conflict. I would say its two parts. Both social interaction and conflict.

Where you are wrong is thinking everything serves PVP. In almost every way the PVP serves the PvE and the PVE servers the PvP. They work in tandem. This game is also not a railroad experience. It's meant to be horizontal as well and social. The PVP and PVE focused development aren't there to just be content. They are there to make the world interesting.

I am not saying by ANY means that PVP won't be in the game or have a presence in alot of activities. I am looking forward to the PVP aspect. I probably lean like 70/30 with PVP.

My biggest thing is there are a massive amount of PVE things that you can focus on and your priorities will change. What about the players that want to focus on raiding and dungeons, exploration ? Will they run across PVP, probably but is that their main focus? Nope it's not and that's 10000% possible in AoC. There are plenty of people out there who don't mind PVP but would prefer to do more PVE. They won't do much GVG, they might do a caravan or BGs. Really they want to kill that dragon. So I definitely disagree that everything s designed to push people to PVP. The reason PVP is an option in all things is because that's the development vision, intertwined content.

There will never be 100% PVP or PVE. You can focus on PVE let's say 80% and 20% PVP. Definitely very possible the same reason why you didn't PVP in EvE and PVPed in EQ2 is why it's so different. You will not be able to do only 1 or the other. You will be forced in some measure to participate in both but your level of participation will be up to you.

Adding open world corruption adds danger,conflict and social nudging. PVP has massive value and most purely focused PVP games are far more social then PVE games. That is the value of bringing it in to the game. With out it people will not interact nearly as much.

Steven is basically being a god level DM for DnD. This is his world for Pathfinder that he is trying to create in a massive way. So the intent is not to create a PvE or PVP game.

They are bringing a living world to life. How you interact with the world will be up to you.(queue the cinematic)

Dolyem

Dygz wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

All conflict has meaning. Otherwise it wouldn't be in the game nor affect the game. But yes, there are many objective based PvP formats

Which is fine, but...
Ashes defines Meaningful Conflict quite specifically as Sieges, Caravans, Node Wars and Guild Wars.

Activities that reward daring adventurers and foster meaningful conflict.

World PvP | Caravans | Guild wars
Node sieges | Castle sieges
Player corruption | Bounty hunters
Arenas
Achievements | Leader boards | Trophy park
Exploration | Treasure hunting
Stock exchange (sharemarket)

First thing under Risk vs Reward on the wiki is World PvP when defining meaningful conflicts.
Even Corruption seems to be considered meaningful

CROW3

Ah, so you’re narrowing the definition of conflict to only be player on player?

Got it. I disagree, but see what you’re saying now.

Fiddlez

Dygz wrote: »

Fiddlez wrote: »

Minus the cake thing this is why it's important to call it PVX.

PvX is a meaningless term.

Fiddlez wrote: »

To be fair I don't think I've really seen any conflict outside of PVP that matters. Maybe I am told the conflict by a story but socially generated conflict always seems to be better. Not sure what sort meaningful content you are referring to.

Maybe watch the Kickstarter video.
Ashes defines Meaningful Conflict as Sieges, Caravans, Node Wars and Guild Wars. Objective-based PvP.

Yeah...so you agree?

Fiddlez

Dygz wrote: »

Fiddlez wrote: »

I mentioned I don't think you can get meaningful conflict with out PVP. He is apparently trying to imply that there is? I am not sure yet.

I am not implying anything of the sort. You are misinferring. Perhaps because you think I hate PvP?
Meaningful Conflict - as defined by the Ashes devs - is Sieges, Caravans, Node Wars and Guild Wars:
Objective-based PvP.

And yeah, that was meant towards Crow3

Child Item