The 3 Big Design Flaws in AoC and how to solve them.

My last attempt at sending the game in a positive direction. These are the 3 paradoxical issues.

1. A large-scale impactful PvP game is a totally unachievable goal. The more impact the players have on each other, and the more skill based the contest, the smaller must be the contest/divisions/rewards/stake to ensure enough positive feedback to enough players, so that a quorum keep on playing.

2. PvP apart the Investment risk in building a Node over weeks/months, cant be balanced against the reward for knocking it down and looking it in <1.5 hours. No one is spending weeks/months building something that can be destroyed so easily. To balance it you need to make it take 6 weeks of active play to knock it down.

3. Players cant drive an economy, unless the economy is closed. As long as you bleed in glint, or gear drops from mobs, in other words adventuring, it becomes a competing profession, you have to balance professions with adventuring, which is very hard to do as adventuring is fun and artisanship isn't.

These are the 3 fixes:

1. You have to make negative effects for losing as trivial as possible, and all gameplay rewards for winning cosmetic. Losing PvP has to inconsequential to game progress or future PvP competition. Moreso than other MMOs where the world is smaller.

2. Nodes can only be knocked back temporarily, and looting has to be relatively minor. As much as you want to indulge your sadist tendencies, there are not enough masochists in the world to satisfy all of you! Only way this is going to work is if we all stay positive. Bragging rights should be enough.

3. Currency from adventuring has to be separate from artisan earnings, and drops from adventuring have to be BOP. Now this may be the intention anyway. There also cant be a cost to processing or crafting. People paying to work is a ridiculous capitalist fantasy. Finally, I'm thinking that levelling should be quest/story arc driven entirely, or levels bought using glint/gold. Otherwise levelling artisan skills just stops you having fun playing the game for too long.

These are all 3 really hard fails as far as I can see right now. There simply is no point in testing for me, until I see them get worked on. I just cant see me or anyone investing time in a game where these 3 issues are not fixed, to some degree.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Azherae

I'm sure there are many players still/already enjoying what is available, because nearly every type of gameplay out there has an audience it appeals to, especially in the short-to-medium term.

So, while I'm not going to 'disagree with you', I'll just point out the usual. Nearly everything we have now relative to anything you mentioned, is placeholder.

Hunting and Gathering: explicitly placeholder
PvP Incentives and Flagging: partly placeholder
Caravans tuning: placeholder
Node relationships in this Alpha-2: Mostly placeholder
Economy relative to currency and crafting: Probably placeholder
Economy relative to drops from mobs: According to some old data, probably placeholder
Freehold functionality: Placeholder

The thing we need to care about now: "Are Nodes leveling correctly?"

I personally don't want them to apply 'fixes' based on people's reactions to transitional placeholder content.

CROW3

RedLeader1 wrote: »

1. A large-scale impactful PvP game is a totally unachievable goal.

Well, I guess if you say so… let’s just pull stakes and go home. 🤦‍♂️ I respect your opinion, but this is just an unprovable assertion until it’s accomplished. I mean humans simply cannot set foot on the moon.

2. PvP apart the Investment risk in building a Node over weeks/months, cant be balanced against the reward for knocking it down and looking it in <1.5 hours. No one is spending weeks/months building something that can be destroyed so easily. To balance it you need to make it take 6 weeks of active play to knock it down.

I agree with the spirit of this, though your proposed solution might as well establish Stormwind and Orgrimmar with pvp instances - aka nothing new. Once there are over 80 nodes, the population distribution will be pretty wide - with the pve’rs moving to less populated areas and the PvP/vXrs managing the core population centers. Having some solid back and forth build and destruction will be unique and fun. I do think (here’s where we agree) that the primary node siege activity needs to be decided over an longer period of time and laddered battles based on the size of the node. 2hrs seems way too volatile for the impact to material & time put into the node.

3. Players cant drive an economy, unless the economy is closed. As long as you bleed in glint, or gear drops from mobs, in other words adventuring, it becomes a competing profession, you have to balance professions with adventuring, which is very hard to do as adventuring is fun and artisanship isn't.

This seems more a reflection of Alpha state testing than the core intended design. Though I think it’s clear they need some much better virtual economists on staff that better understand supply-chain dynamics. Particularly for managing the supply / respawn rates of raw material. I think this can take glint into account, though I agree on increasing the amount of BoP across both crafted and dropped goods. A relatively well thought out dismantle skill could help with controlling excess low level items and recycle raw mats for crafters. To concern #2 - the easier it is to recoup material losses it will reduce the overall drama when some of that material is lost in a siege.

IMO the biggest rethink required that really will make or break Ashes is the corruption system. This is the obvious Achilles heel in both A2 phases. Without this system being rock solid and calibrated well - the entire PvX foundation turns to sand, and the game collapses into an unmitigated mess.

RedLeader1

Well,

CROW3 wrote: »

RedLeader1 wrote: »

1. A large-scale impactful PvP game is a totally unachievable goal.

Well, I guess if you say so… let’s just pull stakes and go home. 🤦‍♂️ I respect your opinion, but this is just an unprovable assertion until it’s accomplished. I mean humans simply cannot set foot on the moon.

That wasn't all I said though, what I am alluding to are the Game Theory, positive and negative feedback loops of winning/losing. The model for ashes is that with a large pool of players and a large impact, any node suffering defeat will immediately be at a disadvantage to any other team on the server from then on and denied access to content, for all content, not just PvP.

If after one defeat you create too large a benefit for the winner and too large a deficit for the loser, to overcome, the loser will give up, as if he lost an even match up, he will likely lose forever with a deficit to make up as well. Given the effort of building/repairing a node as well. The penalty for losing is too high.

I would like to see a flow-chart or something that describes the gameplay loop for a player/guild/node that loses a node siege, and how they regain access to the game content they had before they lost that siege. Or are they supposed to just quit the game? Or start a new node?

I'm worried and nearly certain that the game will just descend into a sort of corpse camping/griefing orgy at a node/guild level.

CROW3

I imagine the players of the destroyed node will do one of three things (assuming they don’t quit) they’ll: join the winning node, join a competitive third node, or disperse to a much more remote location either to build up a smaller node or remain nodeless.

The best possible outcome for a sustained, scaled PvP experience would be for competitive nodes to recruit the refugees of the losing node. This would bolster its position relative to the victorious node creating some equilibrium for a time, and/or possibly allow it to siege the victor later.

It’s also possible that the winning node absorbs the citizens of the losing node - the obvious problem being that you just end up with some super node that stagnates the whole premise (or becomes a boring tyranny that fades with player attrition).

I think from the get go, a number of hardcore casual solo players (there are many more of these than folks realize) will start the game by moving to relatively remote locations to build modest, peaceful nodes and remain relatively off the radar of the larger (more PvP/vX) areas. So, if your node gets whomped this may be an attractive option for refugees that just want to focus on mid-level economics /artisanship.

The $64,000 question is how Intrlepid can incentivize and balance the deck enough so that the first /best outcome is also the most probable outcome. This could be something simple like providing some benefit to refugees joining one of those larger non-victor nodes, or something more interesting like node growth acceleration for taking in x refugees y days after a node’s destruction.

The point is the game is much broader than a simple 1:1 model, because unlike checkers the game isn’t over after a loss; there are more players to account for. And unlike something like poker, the winning node doesn’t take the entire pot after the win. So, the assertion that ‘a large-scale impactful PvP game is a totally unachievable goal’ still seems waay too preliminary and short-sighted to lead with.

bloodprophet

RedLeader1 wrote: »

Well,

CROW3 wrote: »

RedLeader1 wrote: »

1. A large-scale impactful PvP game is a totally unachievable goal.

Well, I guess if you say so… let’s just pull stakes and go home. 🤦‍♂️ I respect your opinion, but this is just an unprovable assertion until it’s accomplished. I mean humans simply cannot set foot on the moon.

That wasn't all I said though, what I am alluding to are the Game Theory, positive and negative feedback loops of winning/losing. The model for ashes is that with a large pool of players and a large impact, any node suffering defeat will immediately be at a disadvantage to any other team on the server from then on and denied access to content, for all content, not just PvP.

Curious? How is this a thing?

RedLeader1

bloodprophet wrote: »

RedLeader1 wrote: »

Well,

CROW3 wrote: »

RedLeader1 wrote: »

1. A large-scale impactful PvP game is a totally unachievable goal.

Well, I guess if you say so… let’s just pull stakes and go home. 🤦‍♂️ I respect your opinion, but this is just an unprovable assertion until it’s accomplished. I mean humans simply cannot set foot on the moon.

That wasn't all I said though, what I am alluding to are the Game Theory, positive and negative feedback loops of winning/losing. The model for ashes is that with a large pool of players and a large impact, any node suffering defeat will immediately be at a disadvantage to any other team on the server from then on and denied access to content, for all content, not just PvP.

Curious? How is this a thing?

Game theory is a branch of math that has been allegedly going since the 18th Century. It has really come into its own more recently with AI in games. John Nash (The Beautiful Mind Guy) won his Nobel Prize for his contribution to Game Theory in 1950. The Nash Equilibrium, if I remember right, is a sort of calculated stalemate/checkmate where neither player in a game can improve their strategy, so the result (win/lose/draw) is determined before the end.

That is kind of what we have here. if a player in AoC is defeated, and has no chance of "Winning/Achieving their goal", they will retire/give up. Obviously, if you are making a game you want to avoid that.

I was a math geek in school, its how I got into computers. My best buddy in University's project was in Game Theory.

I'm a little worried that as a kind of private game developer, Intrepid are ignoring the finer points of game development, and metaphorically just holding their finger up in the air to judge what players want. If they do that they will just be putting lipstick on a pig. Meaning it will be a very pretty bad game, like a lot of games these days. Building a game does have a component, that is more like building a bridge. Customers can love it, want to use it, and it can look very pretty, but if it falls down, all that doesn't matter.

With Agile Development and a capitalist outlook, it would be easy to forget that a game needs to work mathematically, even though risk/reward is supposed to be a pillar of development. It is easy to miss that, and for a game to last it needs to reset after every PvP contest, so that the next contest is fair. As soon as it becomes permanently unfair, the likely loser will stop playing. This is why you normally separate PvP from PvE. It keeps the losers playing as they still work on "winning" the PvE game, no matter how long it takes, or how much they lose PvP. PvX sounds great in principle but if it blocks or negates PvE, it is likely to be toxic to game longevity.

And if you have ever played any sport, you will understand that everyone loses eventually.

Lucascp92

CROW3 wrote: »

The $64,000 question is how Intrlepid can incentivize and balance the deck enough so that the first /best outcome is also the most probable outcome.

I don't believe they can. The history of the territories will be written by the players, its guilds, betrayals and lovers.

RedLeader1

Lucascp92 wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

The $64,000 question is how Intrlepid can incentivize and balance the deck enough so that the first /best outcome is also the most probable outcome.

I don't believe they can. The history of the territories will be written by the players, its guilds, betrayals and lovers.

The easiest and traditional way is to separate PvP and PvE progress. Or to make PvP success mostly inconsequential. Making PvE success (mostly) inconsequential, yet very grindy, seems destined for failure!

As I say, I would love to see the intended gameplay loop for a player of a defeated/vassal node. If it is very significantly different to that of the winning node, then the game is going to have a problem, because no one is going to invest in a game with that kind of investment risk.

CROW3

RedLeader1 wrote: »

With Agile Development and a capitalist outlook, it would be easy to forget that a game needs to work mathematically, and risk/reward is supposed to be a pillar of development.

I think you’re trying too hard. 🙄

It’s relatively simple, folks want pvx because not everyone wins. It’s hard to overcome both human and ai challenges, so that if they win it has greater meaning, & greater reward.

This is why themepark pve games drive a lot of us nuts, because everyone wins. Everyone gets a trophy. It’s just a matter of time.

bloodprophet

RedLeader1 wrote: »

bloodprophet wrote: »

RedLeader1 wrote: »

Well,

CROW3 wrote: »

RedLeader1 wrote: »

1. A large-scale impactful PvP game is a totally unachievable goal.

Well, I guess if you say so… let’s just pull stakes and go home. 🤦‍♂️ I respect your opinion, but this is just an unprovable assertion until it’s accomplished. I mean humans simply cannot set foot on the moon.

That wasn't all I said though, what I am alluding to are the Game Theory, positive and negative feedback loops of winning/losing. The model for ashes is that with a large pool of players and a large impact, any node suffering defeat will immediately be at a disadvantage to any other team on the server from then on and denied access to content, for all content, not just PvP.

Curious? How is this a thing?

Game theory is a branch of math that has been allegedly going since the 18th Century. It has really come into its own more recently with AI in games. John Nash (The Beautiful Mind Guy) won his Nobel Prize for his contribution to Game Theory in 1950. The Nash Equilibrium, if I remember right, is a sort of calculated stalemate/checkmate where neither player in a game can improve their strategy, so the result (win/lose/draw) is determined before the end.

That is kind of what we have here. if a player in AoC is defeated, and has no chance of "Winning/Achieving their goal", they will retire/give up. Obviously, if you are making a game you want to avoid that.

I was a math geek in school, its how I got into computers. My best buddy in University's project was in Game Theory.

I'm a little worried that as a kind of private game developer, Intrepid are ignoring the finer points of game development, and metaphorically just holding their finger up in the air to judge what players want. If they do that they will just be putting lipstick on a pig. Meaning it will be a very pretty bad game, like a lot of games these days. Building a game does have a component, that is more like building a bridge. Customers can love it, want to use it, and it can look very pretty, but if it falls down, all that doesn't matter.

With Agile Development and a capitalist outlook, it would be easy to forget that a game needs to work mathematically, and risk/reward is supposed to be a pillar of development. It is easy to miss that, and for a game to last it needs to reset after every PvP contest, so that the next contest is fair. As soon as it becomes permanently unfair, the likely loser will stop playing. This is why you normally separate PvP from PvE. It keeps the losers playing as they still work on "winning" the PvE game, no matter how long it takes, or how much they lose PvP. PvX sounds great in principle but if it blocks or negates PvE, it is likely to be toxic to game longevity.

And if you have ever played any sport, you will understand that everyone loses eventually.

Interesting. So making sure I understand.

If a node gets destroyed, the losing side loses everything and can never recover(compete at a later date)?

No matter how good somebody is at something there will always be someone that come along and beats them at some point. Weather it is through strategy or random chance. Moved left when they should have moved right.
Game theory is a very interesting topic.

All that said I don't think it is a hard reset like your thinking.
Lost a few mats for crafting and no gear. Dust your self off and get back in the ring.

RedLeader1

bloodprophet wrote: »

All that said I don't think it is a hard reset like your thinking.
Lost a few mats for crafting and no gear. Dust your self off and get back in the ring.

As a "Vassal" Node? and having to fight as a level 5 node against a level 6? And the potential loss of all stored warehouse material and artifacts?, Sounds more like move node, and start again, against everyone else that has a head start.

Can we discuss it honestly? There is no way you can think recovering from a node defeat is just "Dusting yourself off"!

This is why I want to see the gameplay loop for a citizen of a vassal node. Do they become a 2nd class citizen of the parent node? Or do they just somehow join the Parent Node team with all the same rights and privileges of the victors?

CROW3

Exactly, that’s the point. Imagine a 5 player game of Othello. The nodes aren’t the players. The nodes are the pieces being traded back and forth.

bloodprophet

RedLeader1 wrote: »

bloodprophet wrote: »

All that said I don't think it is a hard reset like your thinking.
Lost a few mats for crafting and no gear. Dust your self off and get back in the ring.

As a "Vassal" Node? and having to fight as a level 5 node against a level 6? And the potential loss of all stored warehouse material and artifacts?, Sounds more like move node, and start again, against everyone else that has a head start.

Can we discuss it honestly? There is no way you can think recovering from a node defeat is just "Dusting yourself off"!

This is why I want to see the gameplay loop for a citizen of a vassal node. Do they become a 2nd class citizen of the parent node? Or do they just somehow join the Parent Node team with all the same rights and privileges of the victors?

I do see it that way. It is not a permanent state. Only a temporary condition.

The warehouse loss is stated as:

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Node_destruction

Treasures in the debris field will take time and tools to uncover.[5][6]

The warehouse debris will contain a portion of all Materials (crafting components) and Gatherables that were stored in the destroyed node.[6][7][8][9][10]
The reliquary debris will contain a stockpile of shards of the relics that were stored there.[15][6][7][16][17]
The town hall debris might contain tax-oriented certificates that were held within the vaults and in the treasury.[7]
The stables debris might contain mount certificates that can be added to caravans in the future or sold on the auction house.[7]
Gatherables and crafting materials that were stored in in-node housing and apartment storage chests become lootable. These are not lootable if the node survives the siege- even if the housing buildings are destroyed or damaged during the siege.[8]

The biggest concern I see is people have gotten to used to there being no setbacks. If there is a setback of any kind it is viewed as a catastrophic event they can never overcome.

Was reading a thing a couple of weeks ago they attributed it to social media. Where people only see the positive up side in a short 10-30 second clip and never see all the hard stuff that takes place outside of that. Then then get confused when life is does not match up to their expectations.

Games like GW2 and current WoW reinforce this mindset. No what what you do there is always and only forward progress. The trick as I see it is getting people to not attribute the setback as a personal affront.

"Failure is an event, not a person. Learn to pick yourself back up. Learn from your failure and improve."

If this was a permadeath project I would agree.

Azherae

RedLeader1 wrote: »

bloodprophet wrote: »

All that said I don't think it is a hard reset like your thinking.
Lost a few mats for crafting and no gear. Dust your self off and get back in the ring.

As a "Vassal" Node? and having to fight as a level 5 node against a level 6? And the potential loss of all stored warehouse material and artifacts?, Sounds more like move node, and start again, against everyone else that has a head start.

Can we discuss it honestly? There is no way you can think recovering from a node defeat is just "Dusting yourself off"!

This is why I want to see the gameplay loop for a citizen of a vassal node. Do they become a 2nd class citizen of the parent node? Or do they just somehow join the Parent Node team with all the same rights and privileges of the victors?

You have to remember that in the end, Ashes is mostly catering to/marketed to players who explicitly don't like the fact that humans aren't willing to keep fighting a losing battle.

There's just a subset of humanity who really needs/wants it to be true, and want a game to incentivize it into a state of 'truth', so they'll support any game that makes the effort to make it so.

People like that want to apply Game Theory in a way that gets to the result they desire, and will probably keep trying until the genre finally succeeds at it. It's just that 'success' at it means different things for different people.

So from their perspective, those people already are discussing it honestly, they're giving you their honest perspective on what they want the game to be like, and they also want the game to be successful. Claiming that those two things are impossible if attempted at the same time, doesn't advance the conversation because often, those players aren't interested in that interpretation, they want designers to push the limits in hope of finding the answer.

RedLeader1

bloodprophet wrote: »

The biggest concern I see is people have gotten to used to there being no setbacks. If there is a setback of any kind it is viewed as a catastrophic event they can never overcome.

Was reading a thing a couple of weeks ago they attributed it to social media. Where people only see the positive up side in a short 10-30 second clip and never see all the hard stuff that takes place outside of that. Then then get confused when life is does not match up to their expectations.

Games like GW2 and current WoW reinforce this mindset. No what what you do there is always and only forward progress. The trick as I see it is getting people to not attribute the setback as a personal affront.

"Failure is an event, not a person. Learn to pick yourself back up. Learn from your failure and improve."

If this was a permadeath project I would agree.

Unfortunately, what you are proposing is that people become insane, or at least irrational. You also ignore the fact that the winner got stronger both by beating you, and in the time you spent building yourself back up.

All other things being equal you will never as an unequivocal mathematical certainty, get to a point where your chances of winning are better than theirs, or your chances are better than the first time you tried to win. From this point on they are just farming you, for as long as they can persuade you to keep trying, with your chances declining each time.

I'm not even going to test again, until they do another wipe, or create a fresh server, because if I didn't enjoy testing the first time, I'm going to enjoy it even less when I am behind everyone. And you know why, because I can!

And this is why many are calling the game a scam. I don't think it is a scam, because there is no attempt at deception. It is just that the people designing the game don't understand game theory, which is a bit of a handicap when you are designing a game.

In real life, there is no alternative, you just have to do your best. However as entertainment, if it is not a very enticing project, people can just pass.

Unless Intrepid change the product it will never launch. They obviously have some vague appreciation of certain concepts as evidenced by their risk/reward pillar, but this seems more of a tactical level appreciation and they don't yet seem to have applied the concept at the strategic level.

bloodprophet

RedLeader1 wrote: »

bloodprophet wrote: »

The biggest concern I see is people have gotten to used to there being no setbacks. If there is a setback of any kind it is viewed as a catastrophic event they can never overcome.

Was reading a thing a couple of weeks ago they attributed it to social media. Where people only see the positive up side in a short 10-30 second clip and never see all the hard stuff that takes place outside of that. Then then get confused when life is does not match up to their expectations.

Games like GW2 and current WoW reinforce this mindset. No what what you do there is always and only forward progress. The trick as I see it is getting people to not attribute the setback as a personal affront.

"Failure is an event, not a person. Learn to pick yourself back up. Learn from your failure and improve."

If this was a permadeath project I would agree.

Unfortunately, what you are proposing is that people become insane, or at least irrational. You also ignore the fact that the winner got stronger both by beating you, and in the time you spent building yourself back up.

All other things being equal you will never as an unequivocal mathematical certainty, get to a point where your chances of winning are better than theirs, or your chances are better than the first time you tried to win. From this point on they are just farming you, for as long as they can persuade you to keep trying, with your chances declining each time.

I'm not even going to test again, until they do another wipe, or create a fresh server, because if I didn't enjoy testing the first time, I'm going to enjoy it even less when I am behind everyone. And you know why, because I can!

And this is why many are calling the game a scam. I don't think it is a scam, because there is no attempt at deception. It is just that the people designing the game don't understand game theory, which is a bit of a handicap when you are designing a game.

In real life, there is no alternative, you just have to do your best. However as entertainment, if it is not a very enticing project, people can just pass.

Unless Intrepid change the product it will never launch. They obviously have some vague appreciation of certain concepts as evidenced by their risk/reward pillar, but this seems more of a tactical level appreciation and they don't yet seem to have applied the concept at the strategic level.

Have to admit I don't understand. Perhaps we are talking passed each other.

Unfortunately, what you are proposing is that people become insane, or at least irrational. You also ignore the fact that the winner got stronger both by beating you, and in the time you spent building yourself back up.

If you lost no gear and maybe 25% of stored mats. How can this be a thing?
Why would moving to another node be such a massive setback?

The rest is just your personal opinion and unless you work in the building or know the people there personally it will only be that.

blktauna

Mathematics aren't opinion.
This is also a thing that concerns me. I would like a more clear vision of what is going to happen on these wars. Building a node is a giant time and resource sink. Destroying it should be just as much of a time and resource sink.

Again I come back to the odd imbalance of risk and reward I've seen so far in this test
There's an awful lot of penalty and not a lot of meaningful reward to most everything I've tested so far.

Azherae

blktauna wrote: »

Mathematics aren't opinion.
This is also a thing that concerns me. I would like a more clear vision of what is going to happen on these wars. Building a node is a giant time and resource sink. Destroying it should be just as much of a time and resource sink.

Again I come back to the odd imbalance of risk and reward I've seen so far in this test
There's an awful lot of penalty and not a lot of meaningful reward to most everything I've tested so far.

Ah, but the people who think mathematics and the related outcomes are a matter of opinion are a big overlap with the type of people who play MMORPGs for large scale PvP.

Child Item