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
I don't understand your point.
Yes, you can use the same logic in reverse, but I'm not sure the conclusions are necessarily true.
Sure, some world bosses might not be as contested as others. The rarer they are, and the better loot they drop, the more contested they will be. And trust me, they WILL be contested, if they're worth killing. But we can't really know that right now, not until they actually finish the game and we get to experience it.
Just the fact that another group can come in and kill you, makes it not purely a PvE thing, but rather a PvX thing. Now in most cases, and this is based on my experience from other games, killing a boss isn't even the main or the most exciting thing about the whole event. It's the PvP against other group(s) itself that makes it fun and engaging.
I also feel that bosses for example might not be particularly hard to kill, so again, the fun doesn't come from overcoming a challenging fight against a boss, it comes from beating the other group and taking the boss down yourselves, or even just stopping the other group from killing it.
This begs the question, is that kind of experience going to be fulfilling and satisfying for PvE enjoyers? Are they going to have fun? I don't think so.
If not, this just means the boss is designed with PvP in mind.
Then again, just because people don't contest it, it doesn't mean that it's not an event designed for PvP. It's a PvP event, that is basically finished by a one-sided victory. The event is done before it even started, now you just get to kill the boss.
Again, this also begs the question, are PvE players going to be satisfied by only being able to engage in PvE content, only when other groups decide to not show up? It's totally up to other people whether you will have an enjoyable PvE experience, or just a PvP battle.
To me, this just doesn't seem like a PvE event at all. And it doesn't seem enjoyable to people who only want to do PvE.
Now I could absolutely be wrong about this, because I have no idea how they plan on designing the open world bosses. Maybe they will be mechanically challenging, and hard to take down, on top of there being PvP happening around.
Also, to be honest, this game is just not the game for anyone who's looking to only do PvE. It will be possible, but it doesn't mean it will be particularly great.
With all of that being said, I would like there to be challenging instanced content that can provide decent gear or great looking items when you complete it. Not everything should be in the open world, and not everything should be contestable.
Archeage had dungeons. Now the gear you get from there might not be endgame gear, but it's still decent, and will get you started at endgame. The main gear was crafted gear. I think it will be similar with Ashes as well, but I haven't heard much about dungeons and instanced content so far.
In my opinion, instanced, challenging content should absolutely be added. The loot doesn't have to be the best, it just needs to be good enough, that if you wear that gear, you're useful in PvP. Just useful, and obviously crafted gear will be better if you want to be "competitive" - but not sooo much better that it makes dungeon gear useless. But if someone decides they just want to PvE, gather stuff, maybe try and run some caravans and hope it goes well, they should absolutely have PvE only content that they can do, like instanced dungeons, and raids.
I put caravans and gathering in there just for fun, but even if there is no PvP risk, it's still not "PvE" content.
I used to be more against this idea but after hearing the debate surrounding "PvX", the PvE side of things absolutely DOES need to have meaningful content that provides a sense of progression and reward that pvp CANT interfere with.
I've liked the following ideas:
1.) (My favorite) Farming mobs and elites in a dungeon has the chance of dropping "boss room locks" or perhaps some kind of key that summons a private instance to attempt a boss encounter without the risk of being ruined by pvp. The RISK in this instance is frontloaded to the farming of said boss summon keys from surrounding monsters in a given dungeon.
2.) Instanced content will yield rewards but only on a daily or weekly loot lockout. Beyond that, if you want to farm, you have to do it in the open world.
Primary PvE because there might not be PvP.
That isn't a strong argument.
In your experience of PvP enabled open world MMORPG's with open world raid bosses, how often do they go uncontested?
I've seen a handful of spawns over many years, with many hundreds of contested spawns.
If that is the best argument you have at your disposal, I would drop the point all together, to be honest.
I disargree. If the boss is looting some legendary items, the players are going to provoke this situation you're talking about. And there will be full of people 24/24 on the area only to make the boss appear.
I play alot of PvP games and 80% of the world bosses fight tend to go uncontested you tend to get muiltipul attempts at bosses before a opposing group can even get enough people to contest it.
The only ones i see that get contested often is when it a planned spawn or there a giant server announcement when a boss spawns.
Also with the size of AoC with limited fast travel also make it harder for groups to quickly organise and contest a boss.
Also the argument there was just a counter argument to a pretty bad statment from the first post which boiled down to PvP may happen when doing the task so that task it now a pvp task. But Flipping it around is PvP might not happen so its not a PvP task.
Their PvX tasks almost everything is a PvX task in this game and shouldnt fall under PvP or PvE tasks.
tbh i think people are fear mongering PvP a little to much atm it not gonna happen as much as people seem to think it gonna be, imo dont complain about PvP content atm wait and see, the world size and design of the game is gonna limit it quite a bit.
This is kinda my point most PvE task are PvX, Most PvP tasks are PvX aswell.
Even things people see as only PVP still comes back to being PvX, Ganking greens like an ass you then have to PvE to clear corruption, Seiging/nodewars has PvE involved aswell, Caravans might not get attacked by other players but u most likly need to PvE to clear a path through mobs somewhere.
With a couple of exceptions everything in this game boils down to PvX so slapping the PvE/PvP label on things is pointless since u can flip it around and it still works.
I think the argument about pve vs pvp content though is that pvp can interfere with pve but not visa versa. That's a problem. As a primarily pvp motivated player myself, there's a long term issue if there isn't a way for people who enjoy pve to have meaningful content that pvp cant interfere with. They need their own loop.
That's where an idea like farmable "boss summon keys" comes in. Farming dungeon mobs/minibosses has a chance to drop parts for a boss summon item/key that will provide your group/guild with an item that summons a timed instance for a worthy boss fight.
What's the risk v reward?
1.) Farming the dungeon mods for keys can be contested by pvp.
2.) If you fail to defeat the boss/encounter in the time onces it spawned, you lose. No refunds. Go farm and try again.
3.) Getting out safely with your loot!
At least with this system, pvers can enjoy the actual meaningful challenge (not to mention bosses can actually be tuned correctly) and still wager for a chance at loot.
This kind of approach would also feel fairer to me, cause if my pvp interferes with someone's pve, then the only proper counterbalance is for their pve to be able to interfere with my pvp.
This would work even better if those tools increase the looting rights values, outside of direct dmg stuff. PvErs aggro a mob/boss > see a pvp fight going on nearby or get attacked themselves > use their tool-abilities to interact with the boss in a specific way (ideally with mob/boss properly reacting to the situation cause its AI is designed correctly) > the pvp/attackers get interrupted, the pvpers gotta defend themselves from the mob/boss which helps the pvers finish it off > ??? > profit.
Obviously this is super surface lvl stuff and would need to be tested extensively, but I see this as a much better pvx compromise than "let's just all have our own little corners of content where no one can touch us
What kind of PvP games are you playing where people are waiting to have enough people to contest the boss before they work on preventing other guilds from killing it?
If I am by myself at a boss spawn and another guild is trying to kill it, I am trying to stop them.
But then that just comes back to the problem of PvE being an afterthought for players who *primarily* enjoy pve. I'd hardly consider "leashing a boss into a group of enemy players" riveting pve...It sounds more like trolling than anything else.
Not to mention, that would hardly work. PvP oriented players will just annihilate the group of PvErs anyway.
So that doesn't solve the problem, at all. I think my (and many others, primarily forwarded by Virtek from TGFT) where you could farm boss room keys better balances the PvX equation because the risk fully exists while farming and competing for mobs that drop the keys as well as getting out of the placewith your loot (if you can even beat the fight in time before the key/summon expires).
And my entire point is that pvpers shouldn't be able to just annihilate the pvers, exactly because pvers brought the mobs/boss with them.
Again, if people see pvp as "interrupting content", then why can it not be mirrored by the other side? If anyone can just come and attack you while you're doing whatever - why can't someone else use a mob to retaliate against that person?
The entire interaction would be so much deeper and complex AND it could potentially let weaker groups make an impact in a bigger pvp fight, cause they can bring a strong pve foe into it.
I've experienced this exact system in L2. There you needed to do a certain quest (which required you to kill certain mobs) if you wanted to enter the big boss room. This would be highly contested on the mob farming side and then around the boss room, and then in the boss room (cause in L2 doors would stay open for anyone for a few minutes).
PvErs would be delusional to think that magically they'd be able to just get to that boss or even farm it. And any kind of lockout mechanic (i.e. only one summoning item can be crafted per kill of the boss; only one boss can be killed per some period of time) will simply lead back to the same issues pvers have now - pvpers won't let them do that content.
From what I've read/heard of this suggested mechanic, it's supposed to alleviate the issue of "pvpers interrupting pve", but it does not prevent pvpers locking out that pve. It will most likely do the opposite and make it easier for pvpers to do that, especially if those pvpers are in a huge guild that can track any location where these summoning items can be farmed.
Just a fun little tibbit here about PvE not being able to interfere with PvP it can
1- New world has the issue where unflagged player would pull mobs onto node PvP flagged people were trying to harvest to interupt there harvest and steal there node
2- Most PvP objectives has PvE quiet often pvp fights get interupted by mobs and the dmg they deal determines the fight
3- You been able to train/pull mobs onto pvp players who are engaged in fights or what not.
4- Often there NPC guards in games that will assist in seiges
5- battle grounds often have PvE elements take alteract valley in WOW had those 8 or something rider you could summon who would run down and engage the other group (wolf riders for horde for example)
Every Openworld PvP game has PvE heavily interwined with it and some instances PvP also has PvE involved in it that can/will intervene with PvP content. Most PvP in games is actually PvX, that also being said quite often alot of PvE games is indirectly PvX too since u are competing with players around you in some way or form aswell even if it isnt straight up attacking the players
How often are 2 groups just happen to run across a boss at the same time doesnt realy happen unless everyone knows X boss is spawning at X time (which is a spawn mechanic i dont want for AoC, shouldnt have predictable spawns unless it part of like a world event). Alot of the time you can sneak bosses in especialy when it comes to like dungeon bosses where if anyone want to contrest it would have to be in the dungeon already or the first group would have to fail alot for enough time for another one to get to the boss room.
That being said AoC also lacks fast travel aswell compared to other MMO.
Once a few guilds know that window, there should always be someone from one of those guilds in that general area.
Again, I've never seen what you seem to be claiming is normal. In 20 years killing open world raid bosses in both PvP and PvE games, I have only ever once killed a raid encounter without others being present.
If a raid boss is even remotely hard (which I would state as a requirement to consider it as PvE content as opposed to PvP content), it literally only takes one player to stop and entire raid.
I'm wondering if we have differing ideas as to what a boss actually is.
After thinking about this and reading your replies, I think the answer to my question: what does meaningful PvE content look like? has already been designed into the game. I think the element of exploration is something that has been talked about as a core design of AoC.
PvP generally happens for specific gains in power, for resources, for MMR, etc. But the meaningful PvE content happens in exploring every square inch of verra (and overcoming the challenges to do that exploration!). The PvE enjoyers exploring and finding the secrets of verra will be the ones who direct their PvPers to capitalize on that knowledge.
PvE enjoyers worry that their content is only to be cattle for PvPers to farm. After thinking about the design of AoC, I think that is a myopic take based on the history of themepark and sandbox differences. In a true "sandpark" I think it is the PvE players who hold the knowledge of verra and create the content through their discoveries.
We havent seen any updates on these PvE systems. Most of the systems we've seen in showcases are sandbox-esque. I think the PvE community wants to see a little bit more of the "park" in sandpark that was promised and are tired of hearing "the game isnt for everyone." I hope we get to see some of these PvE loops... maybe with the rouge showcase.. maybe with the scribe tradeskill.
I am a PvP enjoyer, but I think our PvE comrades need to see some promises to them fulfilled too.
The vast majority of PvE gamers are not "explorers". This is a very minor subset of PvE players.
In my expereince, the bulk of PvE player are more interested in problem solving - where those problems are presented in the form of PvE encounters.
A game that assumes exploration is what PvE gamers want is a game that is doomed to fail.
I think that element is definitely a large chunk of what satisfies the average PvE enjoyer.
New content isn't about discovery, it is about new problems to solve (aka, new things to kill).
There is a reason many PvE players are quite happy running the same raid or dungeon a dozen or more times - exploration isn't the driver at all.
Not even a little bit.
Exploration to the average PvE player is about as important as exploration is to the average PvP player.
Edit to add; the core, the focus of PvE content to the PvE player is the large encounter. Whether that is a solo encounter, a group encounter or a raid encounter, that is what it is about.
Quests and stories are fine, exploration is ok to have as well, but it is these encounters that make or break PvE. Without these encounters being on point, the rest is wasted.
You (a PvP player) saying to me (someone that prefers PvE over PvP) that you think exploration is what satisfies the average PvE player is about the same as me telling you that worthwhile crafting is what satisfies the average PvP player.
You are offensively incorrect in your assumption.
There is no PvE sandbox.
Sandbox games are an excuse for developers to not create content. They just create a world, put players in it and let them be each others content.
That is why Ashes is not a sandbox. It needs that content to survive. However, it also needs the sandbox elements of PvP to survive - so it is both.
Edit to add; and yes, I am waiting for you to say "but Minecraft"...
You are talking about content types, and then asking what meaningful content means.
These are different things.
Instanced dungeons can be meaningful, but they can also be meaningless - it is about the design of the encounters. Same with open dungeons, they can be meaningful if they are good, or meaningless if they aren't.
Bosses are inherent to meaningful content - if there is no boss, there is no content. This is inherent to the notion that PvE content is about the encounter. I am not meaning about some trash mob that doesn't even deserve it's own name (there is a reason they are referred to as trash), "the encounter" is boss mobs in what ever form they take.
These are the essence of PvE.
Although maybe i was wrong including that in my thoughts about the element of discovery. I did assume that solving an encounter loses value when you do it over and over. TIL something about how some people like to play.
Encounters are just one part of that loop, however. And I have a feeling intrepid is thinking about more than just "the encounter puzzle," yet we havent seen much evidence of it. I really just want to keep the hope going for my PvE comrades, that's why im invested in this topic.
In order for there to be meaningful PvE, that PvE needs to exist without the possibility of PvP. If PvP exists as a possibility with PvE, then one of two things will be true;
1, the PvE will be impossible to kill, as good PvE will be made impossible with a single well placed arrow from a ranger.
2, that PvE will be dead easy to kill, as the idea is that the challenge froms from the PvP around it.
Neither of these make for meaningful PvE. You can make an argument that they make for meaningful content, but not that they make for meaningful PvE.
As a comparison, look at PvE content as if it is golf.
When you have done a course, that doesn't mean that you can't do that course again, and doesn't mean you can't enjoy it. Sometimes it becomes even more enjoyable when you have worked out all the specifics of a given course.
However, if you play golf often, you still want to go to new courses any chance you get.
An actually enjoyable encounter is enjoyable after the 100th kill. While most games don't give players a reason to need to kill any encounter that many times, there are indeed a number of actually fun encounters that I have killed many hundreds of times purely because they are fun.
Who would have thought that a game could be fun... They are the only part that matters.
Exploration means nothing if you don't find something fun - and in the context of PvE in an MMORPG, that is the encounter. Exploration of the encounter itself - sure, you can argue that. However, if the encounter isn't fun, that exploration is wasted.
Crafting means nothing if you don't need the upgrades to kill something you can't kill without them. Likewise, the loot upgrades from the previous encounter mean nothing if you don't need them for the next encounter.
Quests mean nothing if they don't lead to enjoyable content - an encounter. If story is what we want, games have yet to surpass books or movies as a storytelling medium. Story is a precursor to the encounter.
Social aspects of the game mean nothing without the encounter - we could just be on Discrod talking while playing some other game.
It is the encounter at the center, always has been.
In every single one of those scenarios listed, a PvEer would be secondary. PvP is the determining factor in all of those scenarios.
Again, for PvErs, they want challenging and rewarding content that can't be overridden by pvp. This doesn't mean ALL pve content should be "safe". It just that means there should be SOME to compliment the dirth of pvp content in Ashes.
Having the ability to collect time sensitive boss lock/summon keys would be a good balance.
Everything you guys have listed so far still make challenging pve an afterthought that can still be trumped by pvp.
This is neither challenging or meaningful pve in the first place and is again an example of pve in the "pvx" equation being an afterthought.
A few mobs getting burned down in the middle of a pvp battle isn't meaningful pve. Again, an afterthought where pvp is primary.
Same thing as point 1, that's not meaningful pve gameplay. Pve enjoyers play pve bot to fuck with other people but to enjoy challenging and rewarding boss fights. This again proves my point that pve so far is an afterthought.
That will have players around them making the first threat a pvp one. Again, not a pve challenge.
Mindless mobs that were sprinkled in with hordes of other players. Again, a side show for pve.
I'll reiterate the point:
PvErs want meaningful content that is challenging and rewarding and that can't be interfered with by other players.
Being able to farm open world monsters for boss summon items that give you a small window to fight challenging bosses with your buddies is still the most balanced solution because you risk competing for those mobs, you risk wasting the key if the fight can't be beat and you risk losing your loot to gankers after you're done. But you WILL be able to just focus on a good challenging pve encounter while you're actually fighting it and the devs can actually design engaging pve fights around that knowing pvp won't get in the way of it.
THATS what pvers want.