DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 13
I mean... Aika agreed with my interpretation, so... I don't understand what was unfair.
In Ashes, Economy and Politics are included under PvP.
To the extent that Inventory Bags are designed to have players contemplating "Economic Warfare" whenever they plan to Harvest.
PvP is not necessarily always PvP combat. We agree.
It depends on what you guys mean by "pvp is the main risk" do you mean that you are risking being forced to play pvp, or do you mean that pvp is just the catalyst that leads to other forms of risk?
If it's that "forced pvp gameplay" is the main risk in Ashes, I disagree, if its that "pvp is the main catalyst for other forms of risk" then I agree to an extent.
In the context of a systemic emergent gameplay loop "the potential of being forced to play pvp even if you don't feel like it" at times is a good thing, as that again falls under the idea that there is a potential consequence of a time-sink resulting in you temporarily not playing how you want to play, making that gameplay more engaging for thrill seeking players. You are going to be on your toes as an explorer if you are required to look out for pirates who can interrupt your desire to explore.
Its defintely not for everyone but for some it heightens the exploration experience. I don't consider that "forced pvp gameplay" in that circumstance, I just consider that risk. So in that context potential unwanted pvp is a risk, yes, but its not "forced pvp" from the perception of that type of player who is choosing to engage with that system. In other words, its not really "forced pvp", if that potential forced pvp is a part of the appeal when trying to do other activities.
Its just that risk kind of steps on the toes of agency in that case. If you want full agency of having no pvp gameplay then you are going to have to sacrifice some risk in the design, because then you would just be playing how you want at all times with not as much risk (at that point there would be no time-sink of playing a different way as a potential penalty, unless it manifest itself in another form by just time-sinking you in ways other than pvp which would just be the same kind if design anyway) If you could just explore 24/7 in a systemic/emergent atmosphere, then there is no risk of potentially not being able to explore, and (for the types of players that enjoy competition) no way of gaining a competitive advantage within that exploration because no potential setback exists.
But, pvp doesn't always have to serve as that distraction. If you are already pvping, you can be forced to travel if you die and lose resources as well. The distraction in that case is the time-sink of having to travel back to that location to continue playing pvp if thats what you desire to do in the moment, and the time-sink of having to regather or recraft goods to be competitive in your desired pvp gameplay again. So again, "forced to pvp" is not the "go-to" whenever risk is a thing.
Regarding pvp as a catalyst for other forms of risk:
Yes, I can agree with this, but this doesn't have to hinder your gameplay and risk can exist through pvp without forcing you to actually play pvp.
If you are a crafter providing goods for other players, a lot of the fun is through the crafting gameplay loop and the satisfaction of watching others succeed and compete using your crafted goods. In that case, you would want pvp to happen occasionaly in order to observe that performance using your goods. The risk at that point would be the bad performance of your crafted gear which would represent your potential failure as a crafter, and the risk of having to do non-crafting things to make up for that failure such as getting new materials, learning more about the game to craft better, etc.
So in that case "forced pvp gameplay" is good and necessary for that play-loop and not a "risk", but pvp would be a catalyst for the actual crafting risk that would affect crafting gameplay and competitive performance.
Yes some players want the potential for a completely purist gameplay experience (like pve only), but you shouldn't expect that in a systemic/emergent gameplay loop and the fact that emergent systems adds risk has nothing to do with saying "risk is all about just forcing this type of gameplay". There are some conundrums to an extent and the game is not for everyone.
Yes not all players like the feeling of having that extra "risk" in the design due to added stress, but that is one key benefit to maximizing risk and thus sacrifices are made for certain gameplay loops in order to provide that specific experience.
Risk exists in other form too. PvP is just very important because that hurts PvE players the most.
Economic node mayors are elected via a blind-bid auction where the citizen bidding the most money wins.[13][89][90][3]
Tavern games if added, will have risk too.
There will be jumping puzzles. You can fall and die without anyone pushing you.
That is true. But...
90% of the time when Steven uses the term Risk v Reward - he starts talking about PvP.
And he very rarely associates Risk v Reward with activities that don't involve PvP.
Especially since Steven wants all activities to be intrinsically tied to PvP as much as posibble.
Because Ashes is PvX.
He has to be sure people don't have illusions, like hoping to get PvE servers and then game content to compete with other PvE mmos.
So let him talk and remind about them.
But you dislike adrenaline rush so no matter how the risk manifests itself, you will not like it. If is not PvP then you will call it bad balancing and you will blame Steven anyway.
Mmmn. No.
Instead it's that Steven seems to not acknowledge arenaline rush from anything that does not include PvP.
When he talks about Reward - he tends to state that nothing really has meaning without the adrenaline rush from PvP, specifically.
I don't play MMORPGs for the adrenaline rush, but my playstyle includes plenty of PvE risk.
My main in EQ2 leveled (mostly Solo) to 80 only wearing starting rags. Her GS came from Weapons and Jewelry. So, combat encounters with mobs her Level, or slightly above, were risky.
I frequently play the Carebear challenge of leveling to max with 0 Kills.
I sometimes play the Perma-Death Carebear challenge of leveling as far as possible: 0 Kills, 0 Deaths
I don't want other players to decide for me - when I must engage in PvP.
I have 0 interest in playing on servers with non-consensual PvP. That's not the same thing as dislking adrenaline rush. Adrenaline rush can be OK sometimes. But, sure, I typically will attempt to minimize adrenaline rush - even when I'm doing things that involve risk. I am a Casual Challenge player.
There will be corruption which will protect to some degree.
But to find out if the other player wants to PvP or not, one must attack and flag up. And players will lose just a little bit of resources.
Adrenaline will not be as high as it could be in a full PvP game.
Might end up closer to a PvE experience while the PvP-ers are busy with the caravans, sieges, deep ocean, guild wars...
If you are a crafter providing goods for other players, a lot of the fun is through the crafting gameplay loop and the satisfaction of watching others succeed and compete using your crafted goods.
People who like to be mayors... every month will have nightmares about voting results.
But not the Ones who have "many Friends" in the same Node, right ? I think this is where "Discord-Mayors" (LOL) really come into play and start to shine.
But they won't be able to avoid a certain Logic.
In the End it doesn't matter if you can get elected again and again and again and again and all over again every single time. When People keep being dissatisfied with You for whatever the Reason - and start liking you less and less,
up to the Point where they might start hating You,
they will either leave the Node if the whole Area around it is not an Area they love very much and want to stay at,
OR they might even "help" an Enemy Node to bring You down. They could attempt to sabotage You and the whole Node in even a Node Siege.
I think we have nice Potential for sweet, sweet Drama here - in the future.
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
1
AikaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
He has to be sure people don't have illusions, like hoping to get PvE servers and then game content to compete with other PvE mmos.
So let him talk and remind about them.
That is WHY Steven talks about Risk v Reward.
This topic is about how Risk v Reward is defined.
In Ashes, Steven defines Risk v Reward as "There needs to be Risk associated with opportunity." "Not everyone is as excited about PvP, but , as I've always said, 'Ashes of Creation is not meant to be the game for everyone.' We want to encourage intelligent calculations of Risk v Reward. These are elements where I feel players feel really accomplished when they know they overcame Risk (PvP) for their trophy. That not everybody makes it, but I did."
---Steven, Open Seas reveal
There will be corruption which will protect to some degree.
The Open Seas adds too much non-consensual PvP to Ashes for my playstyle.
Great for people with Steven's and Margaret's playstyle.
I'm not sure why you mention that here, though.
"Protection" is irrelevant to this topic.
Adrenaline will not be as high as it could be in a full PvP game.
Might end up closer to a PvE experience while the PvP-ers are busy with the caravans, sieges, deep ocean, guild wars...
Adrenaline will not be as high as it could be in a full PvP game.
It is a matter of Principle at this point, i think.
In Reallife we are also not entitled to this Privilege of being unassailable. And i think the People who have the biggest Problem with being able to get attacked everywhere in the Open World of Verra,
are People who think they will be more or less "safe" when that is not the Case. They think (hope?want?) that it will be like in the later World of Warcraft.
Where a single Person can more or less safely butcher whole LANDSCAPES full of Enemies - especially when You are familiar with where which kind of Enemies reside and how many of those.
In WoW Vanilla - when You were not careful and pulled just a single Mob more than usual -> you were in ACTUAL Danger of your Character being killed.
Korthia from the Shadowlands ? Is a JOKE.
Pretty much every single Area in Shadowlands ? Including Zereth Mortis ? Is a JOKE !!!
This is the Case for pretty much all Area's in quite many Expansions EVEN BEFORE Shadowlands. Usually the only Danger is when one is unexpectedly ambushed by a powerful Rare Mob.
But Who are we ? To demand that other Players don't have to be a possible Scource of Danger nearby us ?
Are we "that" privileged ?? Last time i checked, our only Privilege in a Game with countless possible Enemies IS DEATH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The only way we could stack the Danger even higher than being able to get PvP'ed everywhere, is to enable Friendly Fire like in Planetside Two.
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
0
AikaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The Open Seas adds too much non-consensual PvP to Ashes for my playstyle.
Great for people with Steven's and Margaret's playstyle.
I'm not sure why you mention that here, though.
"Protection" is irrelevant to this topic.
I mean one would argue it's also consensual since you have the choice not to engage with that content. Like instead of moving your caravan through the sea to save 30mn travel time, you know you'll be in an unrestricted pvp area and you're risking it
Also there's always the option to hire people to accompany you mitigating the risk but lowering the reward also since you pay for their service
But Who are we ? To demand that other Players don't have to be a possible Scource of Danger nearby us ?
Owners of something.
After a node is destroyed, the footprint of the node will enter a ruined state and will become an open PvP zone for a number of days equal to the node's level. These ruins consist of a debris field of treasures that are lootable by certain players.[5][6][7][8][9][10]
For Ashes, it's Steven's Pillar to have PvP intrinsicly tied to all Rewards.
Typically, when Steven talks about Risk, he really means PvP combat.
"Risk is a healthy thing. Risk makes us value reward. Without risk we would not pursue certain achievements, because anybody could achieve them. Risk makes us have a sense of thrill, or have some sense of anxiety; and those are all emotional responses that get elicited when risk is present. So, risk isn't a bad thing. We like risk, not just in PvP but in PvE as well: when you can't always predict the environment or encounter you are part of, risk is something like 'Ah, I've never seen this boss do that before.' or these adds came at an ill-placed time, there's a trap here that I didn't experience before. There's a lot of elements that risk introduces that keep gameplay less stale; that keep it more dynamic; that introduce environments where the unexpected can occur. That is a good thing.[2"] – Steven Sharif
For Ashes, it's Steven's Pillar to have PvP intrinsicly tied to all Rewards.
Typically, when Steven talks about Risk, he really means PvP combat.
Indeed - having money doesn't make one correct on every count. Steven can be objectively wrong sometimes too.
I am not entirely sure you understand the meaning of the word "objectively".
Sure I do.
You can have an opinion on some things, and that is subjective.
However, if someone tries to tell me that using base10 as a system, 1+1=6, they are objectively wrong.
This is the same as someone saying time is not the only risk players have in an MMORPG. Any other 'opinion' that is contrary to that (as opposed to building upon it), is objectively wrong.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I mean one would argue it's also consensual since you have the choice not to engage with that content.
We can’t truly argue it here because the mods would start banning if I gave you concrete examples of consent and non-consent, but…
Yes. That’s why Ashes including non-consensual PvP with no Corruption in the Open Seas is a deal breaker for me.
Since I don’t consent to non-consensual, I refuse to play on servers that have that mechanic.
Since so many people have asked me to play anyway - I simply will ignore all forms of Risk and Reward and Progression while I explore as much of the map as possible while maintaining the lowest Adventurer Level possible.
Like instead of moving your caravan through the sea to save 30mn travel time, you know you'll be in an unrestricted pvp area and you're risking it.
I consider Caravans, Sieges and Wars to be Meaningful Conflict, rather than Risk v Reward.
I’m a fan of Meaningful Conflict - especially since those forms of PvP are all consensual.
For Ashes, it's Steven's Pillar to have PvP intrinsicly tied to all Rewards.
Typically, when Steven talks about Risk, he really means PvP combat.
Indeed - having money doesn't make one correct on every count. Steven can be objectively wrong sometimes too.
I am not entirely sure you understand the meaning of the word "objectively".
Sure I do.
You can have an opinion on some things, and that is subjective.
However, if someone tries to tell me that using base10 as a system, 1+1=6, they are objectively wrong.
This is the same as someone saying time is not the only risk players have in an MMORPG. Any other 'opinion' that is contrary to that (as opposed to building upon it), is objectively wrong.
It's also like persons who thinks they hold the only truth to such an extent that they think their opinions are objective. Such people objectively have a superiority complex or a psychiatric disorder of some kind.
Not everyone can claim to be a dogmatist. That implies much more intellectual rigor than you do Noaani.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
In Real Life, we are also not entitled to this Privilege of being unassailable.
Actually, we are entitled to that privilege in the US. The penalties for non-consensual attacks are high enough that most people will never be attacked as an adult.
And i think the People who have the biggest Problem with being able to get attacked everywhere in the Open World of Verra are People who think they will be more or less "safe" when that is not the Case. They think (hope?want?) that it will be like in the later World of Warcraft.
It’s a concern for those of us who play MMORPGs on PvE-Only servers.
First question has always been, why would I play an MMORPG with no PvE-Only server.
But that was also when we thought Ashes would be the next impactful MMORPG to release before 2020.
Which made Corruption perhaps a worthwhile compromise.
Of course, now, there will be plenty of other MMORPGs to play that are better suited for those of us who abhor non-consensual PvP.
So… it’s all good.
Ashes isn’t made for everyone…
I don’t recall any demands being made.
This topic is about how Risk v Reward is defined.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
For Ashes, it's Steven's Pillar to have PvP intrinsicly tied to all Rewards.
Typically, when Steven talks about Risk, he really means PvP combat.
"Risk is a healthy thing. Risk makes us value reward. Without risk we would not pursue certain achievements, because anybody could achieve them. Risk makes us have a sense of thrill, or have some sense of anxiety; and those are all emotional responses that get elicited when risk is present. So, risk isn't a bad thing. We like risk, not just in PvP but in PvE as well: when you can't always predict the environment or encounter you are part of, risk is something like 'Ah, I've never seen this boss do that before.' or these adds came at an ill-placed time, there's a trap here that I didn't experience before. There's a lot of elements that risk introduces that keep gameplay less stale; that keep it more dynamic; that introduce environments where the unexpected can occur. That is a good thing.[2"] – Steven Sharif
That is a great quote, my friend.
It’s from the next Livestream after the Open Seas reveal - which is when Steven began obsessing over Risk v Reward.
In the September Livestream, Margaret had to remind Steven that risk is not just about PvP.
“Oh. Yes. Right.”
The quote you’ve posted here is from a section that Steven asked Margaret to put together to help him respond to constructive criticism and debate around the ramifications of the Open Seas being added.
And, you know, it would be right I stated that the Open Seas is a deal-breaker for me.
So… yes…
With notes prepared with help from Margaret, it is easier for Steven to remember to also discuss risk in relation to PvP.
But, when Steven extemporaneously discusses Risk v Reward, 95% of the time, he will focus on PvP and not mention PvE risk (mobs/NPCs/Bosses).
It's also like a person who thinks they hold the only truth to such an extent that they think their opinions are objective.
In a non pay to win MMORPG, the only input players have is time, thus the only risk is time.
It is an objective truth.
It is nothing to do with any superiority complex. One could claim it is being dogmatic, but laying something down as an undeniable principle (ie, being dogmatic) is actually the correct thing to do when you are talking about an undeniable principle.
You disagreeing with it is no different to flat earthers that honestly believe they are right. The rest of the world has been dogmatic in stating that the world is an oblate spheroid, and such people are not wrong to be dogmatic about that.
You disagreeing with it is no different to flat earthers that honestly believe they are right.
Yes excatly. And you are the flat earthers in this story. Whatever you can tell them, they will still be sure that the earth is flat ). They think it's an "objectve point of view".
But you're not dogmatic, so don't rejoice too quickly. And you don't seem to understand the term correctly. To take your flat earth example again, you'd have to be able to demonstrate scientifically that the earth is flat, and I doubt you would.
If there is no longer any doubt that the earth is flat, it's because thousands of scientific demonstrations have been made.
You disagreeing with it is no different to flat earthers that honestly believe they are right.
Yes excatly. And you are the flat earthers in this story. Whatever you can tell them, they will still be sure that the earth is flat ). They think it's an "objectve point of view".
Most definitely not.
I have an incredibly simple method for you to prove me wrong. All you need to do is specify one thing players put in to a non pay to win game that isn't time.
I would assume you want to say skill, but since you are not putting that in to the game (you retain your level of skill, you do not place it in the game), it isn't applicable.
You may want to mention something about unique items that could be lost - but even then what you are really losing is the collective time it took to acquire that item.
If you can't name anything other than time that players put in to a game, your next step is to explain how players could risk something they haven't put in to the game.
If you can't answer either of these questions, then you should rethink who the flat earther here is.
I mean one would argue it's also consensual since you have the choice not to engage with that content.
We can’t truly argue it here because the mods would start banning if I gave you concrete examples of consent and non-consent, but…
Yes. That’s why Ashes including non-consensual PvP with no Corruption in the Open Seas is a deal breaker for me.
Since I don’t consent to non-consensual, I refuse to play on servers that have that mechanic.
Since so many people have asked me to play anyway - I simply will ignore all forms of Risk and Reward and Progression while I explore as much of the map as possible while maintaining the lowest Adventurer Level possible.
I also want you to play the game because I think players like you would make the game community better.
But you risk losing your good reputation or gaining a different one.
I define fun in my designs and somewhat in life as time spent freely expressing one's identity in the context of a challenge or social situation.
Risk is any scenario in which your ability to achieve fun can be set back considerably, either to a previous state of advancement (relative to the fun specifically) or you can be prevented from being able to experience the same fun for a certain amount of time.
Reward is anything where your success at 'fun' leads to a progression in your ability to achieve similar fun.
I define it this way mostly because it helps to unite multiple types of gamer personality. People who go red and stay red can be viewed as Risking little if they get to continue to have their expressive fun. People who get ganked and lose stuff are also risking little if they get to continue to have their expressive fun.
I don't view time spent as a risk, for this reason, unless we are looking at the really old days of design where one needed to spend long periods not having fun, to advance your ability to occasionally have fun.
So tl;dr:
Risk is a potential setback to your ability to have more kinds of fun, and Rewards are when you gain more ways to have fun. Fun itself is relative.
First time the word "fun" was mentioned in the thread.
From an objective standpoint, this is the only correct answer.
This is simply because time is the only thing we players put in to an MMORPG other than the subscription that only grants access.
Even Azheraes notion above of risk being a setback of your ability to have fun is still a risk of time. That setback simply means you need to spend more time in order to have the fun you want from the game.
Fun can stop coming and often even spending more time cannot bring it back.
Fun is the reward.
Burn out is a risk which you get by spending time.
Some players may need illusions to get fun. Those illusions can be lost or destroyed. Spending more time may not build them back, depending on illusion type.
Information and knowledge plays a role too.
Some people have more fun not knowing things and discovering things gradually. As they gain more and more knowledge, they run out of things to discover. Risk is getting information you don't want to get.
Then come the streamers who have other objectives than having fun in the game and will not make the game more enjoyable for most of us. They are a risk.
Fun can stop coming and often even spending more time cannot bring it back.
Fun is the reward.
Again, if we are talking about risk vs reward as a game design concept, this is actually not true.
The point of the game is to be entertained, or to have fun. This part is very true.
However, that does not mean fun is the reward in regards to risk vs reward from a game design perspective.
If that were the case, there would be no need for gear, or for leveling, or for any form of progression, or for in game currency. All of these things are the reward side of risk vs reward, "fun" is not. Fun is something that should be inherent to the game as a whole (not necessarily every single part of it, but the vast majority of it).
Again, keep in mind that the concept of "risk vs reward" is specific. It is not a term about fun for the game over all, it is not a term about burnout, it is not a term about anything like that.
Rather, the specific game design concept of "risk vs reward" is limited to the idea of "here is a piece of content, what risk do players have when participating in this one specific piece of content, and as a result what is an appropriate reward for this one piece of content".
That is it. That is the limit in scope of what risk vs reward is.
Comments
In Ashes, Economy and Politics are included under PvP.
To the extent that Inventory Bags are designed to have players contemplating "Economic Warfare" whenever they plan to Harvest.
PvP is not necessarily always PvP combat. We agree.
Like I said, my bad.
Just a bad habit I need to get over.
If it's that "forced pvp gameplay" is the main risk in Ashes, I disagree, if its that "pvp is the main catalyst for other forms of risk" then I agree to an extent.
In the context of a systemic emergent gameplay loop "the potential of being forced to play pvp even if you don't feel like it" at times is a good thing, as that again falls under the idea that there is a potential consequence of a time-sink resulting in you temporarily not playing how you want to play, making that gameplay more engaging for thrill seeking players. You are going to be on your toes as an explorer if you are required to look out for pirates who can interrupt your desire to explore.
Its defintely not for everyone but for some it heightens the exploration experience. I don't consider that "forced pvp gameplay" in that circumstance, I just consider that risk. So in that context potential unwanted pvp is a risk, yes, but its not "forced pvp" from the perception of that type of player who is choosing to engage with that system. In other words, its not really "forced pvp", if that potential forced pvp is a part of the appeal when trying to do other activities.
Its just that risk kind of steps on the toes of agency in that case. If you want full agency of having no pvp gameplay then you are going to have to sacrifice some risk in the design, because then you would just be playing how you want at all times with not as much risk (at that point there would be no time-sink of playing a different way as a potential penalty, unless it manifest itself in another form by just time-sinking you in ways other than pvp which would just be the same kind if design anyway) If you could just explore 24/7 in a systemic/emergent atmosphere, then there is no risk of potentially not being able to explore, and (for the types of players that enjoy competition) no way of gaining a competitive advantage within that exploration because no potential setback exists.
But, pvp doesn't always have to serve as that distraction. If you are already pvping, you can be forced to travel if you die and lose resources as well. The distraction in that case is the time-sink of having to travel back to that location to continue playing pvp if thats what you desire to do in the moment, and the time-sink of having to regather or recraft goods to be competitive in your desired pvp gameplay again. So again, "forced to pvp" is not the "go-to" whenever risk is a thing.
Regarding pvp as a catalyst for other forms of risk:
Yes, I can agree with this, but this doesn't have to hinder your gameplay and risk can exist through pvp without forcing you to actually play pvp.
If you are a crafter providing goods for other players, a lot of the fun is through the crafting gameplay loop and the satisfaction of watching others succeed and compete using your crafted goods. In that case, you would want pvp to happen occasionaly in order to observe that performance using your goods. The risk at that point would be the bad performance of your crafted gear which would represent your potential failure as a crafter, and the risk of having to do non-crafting things to make up for that failure such as getting new materials, learning more about the game to craft better, etc.
So in that case "forced pvp gameplay" is good and necessary for that play-loop and not a "risk", but pvp would be a catalyst for the actual crafting risk that would affect crafting gameplay and competitive performance.
Yes some players want the potential for a completely purist gameplay experience (like pve only), but you shouldn't expect that in a systemic/emergent gameplay loop and the fact that emergent systems adds risk has nothing to do with saying "risk is all about just forcing this type of gameplay". There are some conundrums to an extent and the game is not for everyone.
Yes not all players like the feeling of having that extra "risk" in the design due to added stress, but that is one key benefit to maximizing risk and thus sacrifices are made for certain gameplay loops in order to provide that specific experience.
He has to be sure people don't have illusions, like hoping to get PvE servers and then game content to compete with other PvE mmos.
So let him talk and remind about them.
There will be corruption which will protect to some degree.
But to find out if the other player wants to PvP or not, one must attack and flag up. And players will lose just a little bit of resources.
Adrenaline will not be as high as it could be in a full PvP game.
Might end up closer to a PvE experience while the PvP-ers are busy with the caravans, sieges, deep ocean, guild wars...
But not the Ones who have "many Friends" in the same Node, right ? I think this is where "Discord-Mayors" (LOL) really come into play and start to shine.
But they won't be able to avoid a certain Logic.
In the End it doesn't matter if you can get elected again and again and again and again and all over again every single time.
up to the Point where they might start hating You,
they will either leave the Node if the whole Area around it is not an Area they love very much and want to stay at,
OR they might even "help" an Enemy Node to bring You down. They could attempt to sabotage You and the whole Node in even a Node Siege.
I think we have nice Potential for sweet, sweet Drama here - in the future.
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
Oooh I see, I completely misunderstood you, apologies
This topic is about how Risk v Reward is defined.
In Ashes, Steven defines Risk v Reward as "There needs to be Risk associated with opportunity."
"Not everyone is as excited about PvP, but , as I've always said, 'Ashes of Creation is not meant to be the game for everyone.' We want to encourage intelligent calculations of Risk v Reward. These are elements where I feel players feel really accomplished when they know they overcame Risk (PvP) for their trophy. That not everybody makes it, but I did."
---Steven, Open Seas reveal
The Open Seas adds too much non-consensual PvP to Ashes for my playstyle.
Great for people with Steven's and Margaret's playstyle.
I'm not sure why you mention that here, though.
"Protection" is irrelevant to this topic.
Corruption is a mechanic in play in some areas of the map. Yes.
That is irrelevant to this topic.
Also irrelevant to this topic.
It is a matter of Principle at this point, i think.
In Reallife we are also not entitled to this Privilege of being unassailable. And i think the People who have the biggest Problem with being able to get attacked everywhere in the Open World of Verra,
are People who think they will be more or less "safe" when that is not the Case. They think (hope?want?) that it will be like in the later World of Warcraft.
Where a single Person can more or less safely butcher whole LANDSCAPES full of Enemies - especially when You are familiar with where which kind of Enemies reside and how many of those.
In WoW Vanilla - when You were not careful and pulled just a single Mob more than usual -> you were in ACTUAL Danger of your Character being killed.
Korthia from the Shadowlands ? Is a JOKE.
Pretty much every single Area in Shadowlands ? Including Zereth Mortis ? Is a JOKE !!!
This is the Case for pretty much all Area's in quite many Expansions EVEN BEFORE Shadowlands. Usually the only Danger is when one is unexpectedly ambushed by a powerful Rare Mob.
But Who are we ? To demand that other Players don't have to be a possible Scource of Danger nearby us ?
Are we "that" privileged ?? Last time i checked, our only Privilege in a Game with countless possible Enemies IS DEATH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The only way we could stack the Danger even higher than being able to get PvP'ed everywhere, is to enable Friendly Fire like in Planetside Two.
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
I mean one would argue it's also consensual since you have the choice not to engage with that content. Like instead of moving your caravan through the sea to save 30mn travel time, you know you'll be in an unrestricted pvp area and you're risking it
Also there's always the option to hire people to accompany you mitigating the risk but lowering the reward also since you pay for their service
The adrenaline must flow.
After a node is destroyed, the footprint of the node will enter a ruined state and will become an open PvP zone for a number of days equal to the node's level. These ruins consist of a debris field of treasures that are lootable by certain players.[5][6][7][8][9][10]
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Node_destruction
"Risk is a healthy thing. Risk makes us value reward. Without risk we would not pursue certain achievements, because anybody could achieve them. Risk makes us have a sense of thrill, or have some sense of anxiety; and those are all emotional responses that get elicited when risk is present. So, risk isn't a bad thing. We like risk, not just in PvP but in PvE as well: when you can't always predict the environment or encounter you are part of, risk is something like 'Ah, I've never seen this boss do that before.' or these adds came at an ill-placed time, there's a trap here that I didn't experience before. There's a lot of elements that risk introduces that keep gameplay less stale; that keep it more dynamic; that introduce environments where the unexpected can occur. That is a good thing.[2"] – Steven Sharif
I am not entirely sure you understand the meaning of the word "objectively".
I read that our Freeholds are like magically untouchable and can not be sacked and/or attacked as long as our Node still stands.
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
do not promote removing safe places in a world full of danger. People need a place to chill and a freehold is a form of housing.
Sure I do.
You can have an opinion on some things, and that is subjective.
However, if someone tries to tell me that using base10 as a system, 1+1=6, they are objectively wrong.
This is the same as someone saying time is not the only risk players have in an MMORPG. Any other 'opinion' that is contrary to that (as opposed to building upon it), is objectively wrong.
Yes. That’s why Ashes including non-consensual PvP with no Corruption in the Open Seas is a deal breaker for me.
Since I don’t consent to non-consensual, I refuse to play on servers that have that mechanic.
Since so many people have asked me to play anyway - I simply will ignore all forms of Risk and Reward and Progression while I explore as much of the map as possible while maintaining the lowest Adventurer Level possible.
I consider Caravans, Sieges and Wars to be Meaningful Conflict, rather than Risk v Reward.
I’m a fan of Meaningful Conflict - especially since those forms of PvP are all consensual.
As always, that is a patently absurd suggestion which in no way ameliorates any concerns with forced, non-consensual behavior.
It's also like persons who thinks they hold the only truth to such an extent that they think their opinions are objective. Such people objectively have a superiority complex or a psychiatric disorder of some kind.
Not everyone can claim to be a dogmatist. That implies much more intellectual rigor than you do Noaani.
It’s a concern for those of us who play MMORPGs on PvE-Only servers.
First question has always been, why would I play an MMORPG with no PvE-Only server.
But that was also when we thought Ashes would be the next impactful MMORPG to release before 2020.
Which made Corruption perhaps a worthwhile compromise.
Of course, now, there will be plenty of other MMORPGs to play that are better suited for those of us who abhor non-consensual PvP.
So… it’s all good.
Ashes isn’t made for everyone…
I don’t recall any demands being made.
This topic is about how Risk v Reward is defined.
It’s from the next Livestream after the Open Seas reveal - which is when Steven began obsessing over Risk v Reward.
In the September Livestream, Margaret had to remind Steven that risk is not just about PvP.
“Oh. Yes. Right.”
The quote you’ve posted here is from a section that Steven asked Margaret to put together to help him respond to constructive criticism and debate around the ramifications of the Open Seas being added.
And, you know, it would be right I stated that the Open Seas is a deal-breaker for me.
So… yes…
With notes prepared with help from Margaret, it is easier for Steven to remember to also discuss risk in relation to PvP.
But, when Steven extemporaneously discusses Risk v Reward, 95% of the time, he will focus on PvP and not mention PvE risk (mobs/NPCs/Bosses).
In a non pay to win MMORPG, the only input players have is time, thus the only risk is time.
It is an objective truth.
It is nothing to do with any superiority complex. One could claim it is being dogmatic, but laying something down as an undeniable principle (ie, being dogmatic) is actually the correct thing to do when you are talking about an undeniable principle.
You disagreeing with it is no different to flat earthers that honestly believe they are right. The rest of the world has been dogmatic in stating that the world is an oblate spheroid, and such people are not wrong to be dogmatic about that.
Yes excatly. And you are the flat earthers in this story. Whatever you can tell them, they will still be sure that the earth is flat ). They think it's an "objectve point of view".
But you're not dogmatic, so don't rejoice too quickly. And you don't seem to understand the term correctly. To take your flat earth example again, you'd have to be able to demonstrate scientifically that the earth is flat, and I doubt you would.
If there is no longer any doubt that the earth is flat, it's because thousands of scientific demonstrations have been made.
Most definitely not.
I have an incredibly simple method for you to prove me wrong. All you need to do is specify one thing players put in to a non pay to win game that isn't time.
I would assume you want to say skill, but since you are not putting that in to the game (you retain your level of skill, you do not place it in the game), it isn't applicable.
You may want to mention something about unique items that could be lost - but even then what you are really losing is the collective time it took to acquire that item.
If you can't name anything other than time that players put in to a game, your next step is to explain how players could risk something they haven't put in to the game.
If you can't answer either of these questions, then you should rethink who the flat earther here is.
But you risk losing your good reputation or gaining a different one.
First time the word "fun" was mentioned in the thread.
Fun can stop coming and often even spending more time cannot bring it back.
Fun is the reward.
Burn out is a risk which you get by spending time.
Some players may need illusions to get fun. Those illusions can be lost or destroyed. Spending more time may not build them back, depending on illusion type.
Information and knowledge plays a role too.
Some people have more fun not knowing things and discovering things gradually. As they gain more and more knowledge, they run out of things to discover. Risk is getting information you don't want to get.
Then come the streamers who have other objectives than having fun in the game and will not make the game more enjoyable for most of us. They are a risk.
The point of the game is to be entertained, or to have fun. This part is very true.
However, that does not mean fun is the reward in regards to risk vs reward from a game design perspective.
If that were the case, there would be no need for gear, or for leveling, or for any form of progression, or for in game currency. All of these things are the reward side of risk vs reward, "fun" is not. Fun is something that should be inherent to the game as a whole (not necessarily every single part of it, but the vast majority of it).
Again, keep in mind that the concept of "risk vs reward" is specific. It is not a term about fun for the game over all, it is not a term about burnout, it is not a term about anything like that.
Rather, the specific game design concept of "risk vs reward" is limited to the idea of "here is a piece of content, what risk do players have when participating in this one specific piece of content, and as a result what is an appropriate reward for this one piece of content".
That is it. That is the limit in scope of what risk vs reward is.