PvP and Nodes: Adding complexity and reinforcing playstyles

daleybobs

So hot topic at the moment is PvP and its place in Ashes of Creation. I know that PvP is projected to be a core part of the game, and has become something of a point of contention amongst players and outside observers. Part of what makes AoC an interesting game is that it has a variety of playstyles, and I don't just mean classes; you can opt in to PvE content, PvP content, and even get to max level doing gathering, crafting and commission quests. Which... is why the idea of the current node PvP structure seems to come a little into conflict with that ideal.

Now, I don't want to be forced into direct PvP all the time, and I'm sure that's a sentiment many share, but I don't want to eliminate it entirely. Everything has a place is games like this but what matters most is that things like direct PvP can be avoided. So, is there a middleground? How do we retain AoC's unique world features without imposing on players that want to avoid direct certain elements of the game? I think there's a solution to be found in the game's 'Node Types' and 'Node Wars' by potentially marrying the two concepts.

Right now, any nodes that are above stage 3 are able to participate in any Node War content, regardless of their type. Personally, I feel as though there's a missed opportunity here. If we look to franchises like Sid Meyer's Civilization, there are different strategies for war time, and that's something that Ashes of Creation touches on, but more could be done in order to ensure that people's prefered playstyles are not infringed upon.

Personally I feel like we shouldn't be putting anyone and everyone at risk of their hard work being wiped out because they aren't willing to engage certain parts of Node Wars, things like sieges and citizen conscription. So, what I propose is this; each Node Type has it's own stratagems of Node Wars, with things like Sieges being specifically a Military Node thing. Of course, there will still be interactions with other ally nodes, which is what's planned already, so there will be opportunity to help other nodes without directly being involved in their affairs.

First and foremost, Military nodes have access to War Types associated with force, such as Sieges, Caravan Attacks and Territory Control. These are you traditional direct PvP style events that we're likely more familiar with.

Economic Nodes will undertake a more political driven approach. This could be Espionage, Hostile Takeovers, and Market manipulation. This is stuff that's gonna require savvy and gambling, using coin to try and win a trade war.

Scientific Nodes would be focused on supplies and skill. This could involve Service Denial, Blueprint Theft, and Sabotaging Crafting Stations. Things that require you to craft and use tools in the field.

Divine Nodes handle matters of faith and religion. Stealing Relics, Desecrating Shrines and Establishing Cults. These are things that require some sort of dungeon delving in order to accomplish.

Succeeding in a Node War rewards citizens who participated with Node-specific currency, while nodes that lost the war instead end up with a setback on their progress, potentially dropping them down tiers, or outright causing them to be destroyed or abandoned, ready to be picked clean.

So, in effect, players can effectively "choose" the type of Node Wars they engage with by being selective about what Node Type they become a citizen of. This in turn helps make different playstyles thrive, without forcing players feel as though their enjoyment is being stifled by being forced to participate in content they dislike. It also helps make different Node Types feel more unique in terms of governance and influence, creating a more intricate and varied world where PvP comes in many forms.

Taleof2Cities

Unlike most other PvE players, at least you've come to appreciate risk vs. reward as one of the core pillars of Ashes of Creation, daleybobs.

However, most of the current A2 complaints and suggestions are centered around portions of the game that aren't fully working as intended.

Which means players (including yourself) are taking wide liberties in suggesting wholesale changes to the game design ... when they just need to wait for the devs to fix what is currently broken. Especially on the PvP side and corruption.

Bottom Line: While there will be many things PvE players can do in Ashes ... opt-in PvP doesn't align with risk vs. reward and the game's vision. And, this has already been discussed in quite a few Forums threads over the years.

Andi

I don't know. The PVP-systems (like caravans, for example) could just flag you from start till the end, so they're essentially "opt-in", and nothing would be lost from what the game is about: politics, resources, node- and guild development.

Node wars can flag every citizen until the war is over. Guild wars can flag guilds for each other (but not outside the participants of the war), caravans could flag you, going on board a boat. Basically every action that has an actual impact would open you up to PVP.

You could remove non-consensual PVP, and nothing would change. It would be the same game, minus certain things like ganking.

The thing is, we already have this game. Corruption is so harsh and punishing, that the difference between this system and opt-in PVP won't be big. There is a different reason for an opt-in system, though, and that's perception: Many players don't care about PVP without a clear purpose. Many (I'd say MOST players) don't want to die in PVP at all. The sheer existence of people who can kill them while they're out hunting with their wife and kids, or gathering for an hour after work etc are an automatic turn-off and dealbreaker.

Look at games like EVE, Metin, Mortal Online, even BDO. They're not only niche, they're tiny. So tiny indeed, that CCP Software was bought by Pearl Abyss and EVE turned into a p2w clown fiesta, to milk the few whales still swimming in the pond.

So while I personally enjoyed games like Lineage 2, I also think that a game like Ashes, which is extremely dependent on population to even make the core gameplay loops work, is very vulnerable to falling into a downward spiral in which the casuals get driven off, the economy and nodes collapse, which then creates a chain reaction where even character progress is being blocked. And when that happens, the server dies. And when the last server dies, so does the game.

Lineage 2 didn't have that problem. While yes, a server could over time get a bit lonely, nothing would prevent you from going out and playing as usual.

It's easier to make adjustments to this NOW. Once the game is out, the core design has to be set in stone. If ganking drives someone off a title, they're extremely unlikely to give them a second chance.

And this isn't my opinion, it's data-driven experience.

daleybobs

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

Bottom Line: While there will be many things PvE players can do in Ashes ... opt-in PvP doesn't align with risk vs. reward and the game's vision. And, this has already been discussed in quite a few Forums threads over the years.

I can certainly appreciate that the intent is risk vs reward, I just would prefer that concept to go beyond just PvP. Going back to that Civilization comparision, going for an economic or cultural victory also comes with its own risks and rewards just as a military campaign does. You said yourself that politics and resources are keystone features, I'd just like that to play into the PvP element more.

I understand we're a long way off these features being actualized, but I think the reason people are talking about this now is because the sentiment is strong enough to merit a proactive discussion in hopes a community voice can influence future development, even if it's just an acknowledgement of concern. Personally? I just like theorycrafting solutions when discussion presents itself, if that's happening now I'm happy to contribute.

daleybobs

Andi wrote: »

Look at games like EVE, Metin, Mortal Online, even BDO. They're not only niche, they're tiny. So tiny indeed, that CCP Software was bought by Pearl Abyss and EVE turned into a p2w clown fiesta, to milk the few whales still swimming in the pond.

So while I personally enjoyed games like Lineage 2, I also think that a game like Ashes, which is extremely dependent on population to even make the core gameplay loops work, is very vulnerable to falling into a downward spiral in which the casuals get driven off, the economy and nodes collapse, which then creates a chain reaction where even character progress is being blocked. And when that happens, the server dies. And when the last server dies, so does the game.

Lineage 2 didn't have that problem. While yes, a server could over time get a bit lonely, nothing would prevent you from going out and playing as usual.

My personal experiences also coincide with this sentiment. Most recent example for me is Fallout 76, which initially had a similar system to Corruption (the bounty system) and player occupied spaces (camps and public workshops). This is a game that was released and remains active during AoC's development, so definitely a relevant comparison, even if the scale is much smaller.

During Fallout 76's continued development, many of the initial design ideas were abandoned. Initially, there was a strong push for PvP content, players were expected to compete over resources, whether fighting out in the open, or by attacking claimed public workshops and liberating them from other players. This all sounds very familiar, right? However, there was a crippling lack of engagement from players regarding open world PvP, as it turned out nobody was really that invested in it. If there was people raiding other players, it just motivated people to migrate to another server, or just quit the game entirely.

So, after that, a lot of the core PvP functionality was reworked; Players would have to opt-in in their settings to enable PvP in the open world and camps and workshops were instead attacked by NPC mobs to apply pressure instead of depending on players to do it. Will this happen to AoC? Unsure. While F76 had smaller servers and the ability to freely transfer, what happens in MMOs is people will usually gravitate to servers with community run content they like. This usually means some servers have more PvP than others, as people who like to PvP congregate, whereas in other servers, especially ones labeled by the community as Roleplay or Casual ones, PvP elements tend to languish.

This is all speculation right now, but if it happened to Fallout 76, Lineage 2 and EVE, there's a possibility of it happening here. Now, there are active games that have siege mechanics already like Guild Wars 2 and Elder Scrolls online, and what makes it work for them is that it takes place in an ongoing battleground where PvP is always enabled. Should AoC do the same? I'm not entirely certain. Part of my core suggestion is that Node PvP remains in the open world as intended, but only between citizens of Military nodes. Is that a fair compromise? I dunno, it's something that could be explored at least, even as just a fall-back option in case the current PvP structure fails to draw engagement.

Azherae

I don't believe that any aspect of PvP needs to be opt-in on the player level. Making it opt-in by 'area' is definitely more than enough, particularly in a game as complex as Ashes where the needs of the server 'rotate around' and we have real work for crafters and logistics to do.

Ashes can make use of the fact that its entire appeal is that the world has Nodes and isn't static. Watchtowers in Nodes or on Freeholds, different PK penalties in more 'peaceful' areas, etc.

If we want everyone to contribute to the gaming experience on the same servers (which for this game type may be all we get, but we'll see since we can watch what happens to the other recent release, over time) hard and fast blanket rules that work 'per player' are always going to make someone 'mad'.

The PvE-purists are probably long gone, and based on the current 'hot topic' as you put it, the PvP-purists may be next, but even though the game isn't for everyone, the skill of design for this sort of game is figuring out how to make different player types happy enough.

The problem I see with the OP's core suggestion is that we don't control what types of Nodes appear in specific areas. So if you have Military Nodes only, getting sieged, in the situation where you are suggesting it as 'a mitigation of risk for other nodes', I don't think it would work.

Sid Meier style games work because the player controls 'which City/whatever is which type' themselves, and it's not even strict for most of them. Without that control, you're barely even playing 'Campaign Mode', and as someone who spends a lot of time playing that game type and modding old ones, my opinion is that it would fail spectacularly.

daleybobs

Azherae wrote: »

The problem I see with the OP's core suggestion is that we don't control what types of Nodes appear in specific areas. So if you have Military Nodes only, getting sieged, in the situation where you are suggesting it as 'a mitigation of risk for other nodes', I don't think it would work.
...
Sid Meier style games work because the player controls 'which City/whatever is which type' themselves.

Ahah, something I didn't reall anticipate, admittedly.

Thanks for pointing that out. I don't think it should invalidate the idea, I believe there are measures in place to ensure there are adequate nodes of each type within each zone of influence, and depending on how sieges play out in this system I anticipate they will still have ample opportunity to grow, decline and even change the vassaling structure depening on the outcome.

Azherae

daleybobs wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

The problem I see with the OP's core suggestion is that we don't control what types of Nodes appear in specific areas. So if you have Military Nodes only, getting sieged, in the situation where you are suggesting it as 'a mitigation of risk for other nodes', I don't think it would work.
...
Sid Meier style games work because the player controls 'which City/whatever is which type' themselves.

Ahah, something I didn't reall anticipate, admittedly.

Thanks for pointing that out. I don't think it should invalidate the idea, I believe there are measures in place to ensure there are adequate nodes of each type within each zone of influence, and depending on how sieges play out in this system I anticipate they will still have ample opportunity to grow, decline and even change the vassaling structure depening on the outcome.

I don't believe this to be true in the strictest sense, but it depends on what you mean by that.

If an area has an Economy Node that is a City, then the nearest two nodes can only be Towns, for example (this isn't that simple but bear with me). If both of those Towns are, for example, Divine and then Scientific, they in turn lock out most of the other nearby Nodes from becoming anything more than Villages.

So you'd have a Military Village for example, that can be sieged, then rebuilt, then sieged, then rebuilt, etc.

There are 'benefits' to having the bigger node be Military, or not, but the precise design we have right now means that there is always the possibility that the Military node in an area is not raised enough to be a source of 'content', and then other cascading considerations need to happen.

Again, I'm only saying this relative to the idea that one could use such a system to mitigate the risks for other Nodes, I have many other concerns with making the Node system more 'Civ-game' like, but this isn't meant to address or put forward any of those relative to the idea.

daleybobs

From what I understand, Nodes can only siege other Nodes of the same size. I might be mistaken there so don't quote me on that, but it would mean two Military villages would be on equal footing.

You could potentially re-seige that node later on, sure, but by then you would likely of advanced the node by the time they're even back up to village status, prohibiting extensive repeat sieges on the same node.

Azherae

daleybobs wrote: »

From what I understand, Nodes can only siege other Nodes of the same size. I might be mistaken there so don't quote me on that, but it would mean two Military villages would be on equal footing.

You could potentially re-seige that node later on, sure, but by then you would likely of advanced the node by the time they're even back up to village status, prohibiting extensive repeat sieges on the same node.

I don't think that's true even for Node wars far less Node Sieges.

Sieges are initiated by players who have put in the work to do so, those players don't even need to be affiliated with Nodes.

Despite being a 'Nodes' type game, Ashes does not even function like most of the available similar concept-games. I hope it's not too rude to tell you to go read up on it more if you are interested in trying to work out a full 'rework' of your OP.

As it is now, you might be falling into the trap of 'assuming too many of the more sensible/required aspects of this type of game are planned or in place'. It's a common issue for this game, given where it is in its development.

daleybobs

Azherae wrote: »

Despite being a 'Nodes' type game, Ashes does not even function like most of the available similar concept-games. I hope it's not too rude to tell you to go read up on it more if you are interested in trying to work out a full 'rework' of your OP.

As it is now, you might be falling into the trap of 'assuming too many of the more sensible/required aspects of this type of game are planned or in place'. It's a common issue for this game, given where it is in its development.

Not rude at all! Like I said, I could be mistaken on a few of the details here. Until recently I assumed that Node Siege and Node Wars were synonymous. I'm gonna have a look into this and reconsider my original idea, thanks for bringing this to my attention!

EDIT: I've made amendments to my original post, reworking the concept to iclude all forms of Node Wars, not just Sieges.