Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
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.
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.
I don't recall contested bosses being included in Meaningful Conflict.
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
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.
Ashes defines Meaningful Conflict quite specifically as Sieges, Caravans, Node Wars and Guild Wars.
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)
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
Got it. I disagree, but see what you’re saying now.
Yeah...so you agree?
And yeah, that was meant towards Crow3
I'm just saying that conflict outside of PvP is inferior.
Ok.
I have two points to make to this effect.
The first is that conflict among players is not something that needs to exist in a game. It obviously does need to exist in a PvP game, but it is not an inherent requirement for multiplayer games. It is not even necessarily a good thing - as the original point of conflict in multiplayer games was to make it more enjoyable when cooperation worked out.
Thus, conflict exists to heighten enjoyment from cooperation, rather than being the goal in and of itself.
That said, the second point I want to make is that BY FAR the game with the most intense player conflict I have ever played was EQ2. Honestly, games like EVE, Archeage, BDO, and Albion don't even come close.
PvP is not needed for conflict.
Yeah you would have to explain that. I've never come across PvE conflict that was memorable.
1: I had to mow down 200 Goblins with a tractor. It felt horrific to do so while they were screaming and fleeing in terror.
A few times I had to back over some several times to ensure they were completely squished.
2: I had to fire bomb 200 Goblins who were gathered on a cliff. They also ran around screaming in terror. Sometimes in so much pain, they threw themselves off the cliff.
PvP in MMORPGs is mostly forgettable - except for the assholes who tipped me over the edge with non-consensual PvP to rage-quit PvP servers and move to PvE-Only servers.
I expect Sieges, Caravans, Node Wars and Guild Wars to be memorable in Ashes because those actually cause significant changes to the world dynamics as cities rise and fall.
That is probably because you have never played a game with PvE that was memorable.
Quite honestly, I don't even think you know what what tools players have at their disposal for conflict in a PvE game.
I've played them all. Feel free to enlighten me.
Nothing beats when the conflict affects you directly though. Not even sure how one could argue reading about someone else's conflicts would compare to your own direct ones.
To each their own though
Yeah I am in BG3 starting a new game. This time I am going to see how dark the game gets and see if I can't get past the good side and just be the evil guy. I never seem to make it all the way. I mean it's ok but...yeah....I've never had my adrenaline going from any of that.
What?
Who said anything about "reading" about others conflict?
What are you even talking about here?
You very clearly have no idea at all what non-PvP player conflict even looks like.
I want to know if players who want to PvE in raids and dungeons, need also to be ready to PvP in the dungeon or when they get out with the loot.
The most basic form this conflict takes place (in a game without PvP) is being both faster at assembling a force to take on the encounter when it spawns, and also better in being able to actually kill the encounter (keep in mind the discussions we have had in regards to how hard top end PvE actually is, and how many attempts can be expected before you get a kill - being first to assemble a force that has a shot does not mean you get the kill).
Once you understand these two points, there are then many things you can do to hamper your rivals - both in game and out of game. I have (more than a dozen times) seen guilds crash the server to prevent kills, yet crashing the game server isn't even the most extreme thing I have seen PvE based conflit result in - not by a fairly long shot (I am not going to talk about anything past that, as I do not condone it and expect at least some of these actions to be possible in Ashes).
Or, you know - you could read about it (wtf?).
Honestly, fighting is the most basic, bottom tier form of conflict expression in all scenarios.
Edit to add; PvP in an MMORPG is not implemented to deal with conflict - and in fact it functionally can not do so.
For example, lets imagine you have an issue with something I said in game, and you want me to take it back. I refuse, and thus conflict.
If you walk up to me in game, attack me and kill me, how is that a resolution to that conflict?
The answer, dear reader, is that it is not, in fact, a resolution to that conflict. I just respawn and carry on with my day. The only conflict a PvP system in a game can resolve is conflict in relation to the in game systems that PvP is designed to resolve (ie, we both want to harvest that rock).
Those are all certainly meaningful pieces of the puzzle yes, and may even set Ashes aside from other MMORPGs. However, those role-playing interactions throughout the world are what people want. Yes, the PVE and the game is probably going to be good. But it is the ability to use the imagination and do what you want in the game that will make it truly special. This is why animes like SAO and Log Horizon were popular. You want to feel like you are there and you direct to some degree the world around you. PVP out in the streets is what fills the game with life and energy. The tavern fights, the arguments in econ cities about land disputes. People talking about the most effective weapons and enchantments to craft. The "meaningful conflict" you are talking about is crafted in part by the devs and in part by the players, but its the side stuff that keep people coming back!
Well just for reference, it's not the rock. It's that castle, it's that node, it's that treasure. PVP doesn't solve conflict it creates it. It can come to some sort of resolution but more often then not it just continues.
I've never had a rival that came about from PVE encounters. I've had friendly rivals with in a guild Group A and a Group B raid groups but I've never claimed you can't have conflict but it's never close to as interesting as PVP related conflicts. Ashes is actually upgrading this to Rival Nodes and guilds as well, besides just people and guilds. Might be some dungeon/open seas/world boss conflict too.
Yes at very competitive ends of the spectrum you will have conflict. I just don't find who killed the boss first nearly as interesting as a long time rival coming to your Castle and sieging it with a another group who you thought was going to side with you but instead turned and sieged you as well. Having to defend your Keep and in this case we were successful despite being out numbered 2-1. Then fallout afterwards lasted months.
A faction in the guild deciding they wanted to split off but they want to take their share of the spoils so they wait for an opportune time because secretly they dont like leadership and decide to take the raid boss loot and kill the people not in the secret faction.
Guilds and people will become KoS for groups. Sorry but there's just no chance that this group wants to kill the boss before you that just competes with PVP based conflict. All the conflict you can have with PVE you can have with PVP except I can kill you too and take your shit.
It's also why this game which you have mentioned yourself points every thing towards conflict, has alot of PvP in it, adding PvP to its PvE elements.
Yep and that's the beauty of it. It would also be a very large undertaking to assault a raid group. Scouting becomes a major thing. Organization will be key.
It's also where you play politics. Hey Big ass PVP guild, can you watch our backs while we do this raid boss? Alliances and politics are key. If you hate PVP in every fashion this game will not be for you the same way I don't expect Call of Duty players to love WoW.
If you want to avoid PVP and focus on PVE to a larger extent it's definitely possible in AoC though.
No, I think they're just doing a little bit of trolling
no.
For me a PvX game is not one where you have to be ready to PvP every day you play. Sometime you want PvP sometime PvE only.
If you insist that PvX means that the game has both PvP and PvE and you must be ready for PvP anytime, because so wants Steven, then that is a PvP game. I don't care about your arguments that there are NPCs too which we fight. That is just a filler content.
I am saying conflict that impacts you directly is far more impactful then indirect. Which is the primary form in PvE. Like when Sylvanas burned Teldrassil and players reacted to the story or lore.
Your examples are PvE conflict I definitely wouldn't label as meaningful. Trying to give you something to bite on. You seem to be struggling to come up with something that you claim is so obvious. I don't see how racing for a first kill on a Raid boss has that much conflict. It's competition but competition doesn't mean conflict. Now when Montreal Plays Boston in the NHL then you will experience conflict because they are rivals. When Calgary plays Edmonton they are the first games to sell out because they are rivals. So just competing isn't conflict or if it is is very minor.
Crashing the server is definitely greifing and the farthest thing from meaningful conflict. I'm starting to wonder if you have been had meaningful conflict in a game before. You are talking about the only conflict coming from Open World PVP and I just gave you 3 personal experiences out of many that comes from PVP.
Put it this way in that race for the Raid Boss. Competing for the kill is competition. It's just a race. When you add PvP ALL of that still exists but now I can kill you before, during,after. I can take your stuff.
It's ok if you haven't experienced it. PvP focused games and players take up way less of the population then PVE focused. I am not saying your moments in PvE didn't matter but I personally have never had a thing compare to what is caused by PVP. Just to be clear resolution has nothing to do with it it's about creating it.
I think Ashes will be really good for you and I am excited for you. It's going to be a blast.