Will pvp and pve be balanced differently?

All MMOs that offer both PVE and PVP suffer from balancing problems. The reason for this is that if you tune a class/spec to be competitve in PVE it usually breaks something in PVP. This is becuase classes have different tools that work differently in PVE and PVP.

PVP and PVE is so different that a simple 5% damage increase to a class to make it more balanced in PVE may break the whole game in pvp.

There are a few ways to solve this. There needs to be seperate balancing for PVP when it comes to abiltiies or stats. The most effective way historicly is to have different specializations, auguments, runes etc for PVE and PVP. Sometimes even spells that are unique to PVP.

An example of the balancing problem can be taken from WOW again. Mages in WOW can specialize in three ways, frost, fire and arcane. Arcena focused on single target dps, fire on AOE dps and frost on control. Frost had great utility and control but lacked in pure dps. Still, thanks to their control, utility and survivabilty they were amazing in PVP. When blizzard decided to buff the frost mage damage to be almost on par with fire/arcane the frost mage got completly broken.

Blizzard solved this 10 years later by making many of the utility and survivability abilities PVP only. They also had special ways to deal damage that only really worked in PVE.

How will AoC tackle this problem? How would you like it to be? Personaly I want AoC to have PVP ability augumentations that are seperated from other normal ones. These auguments will not work in PVE. In this way, PVP and PVE can live in harmony. Otherwise, it never will.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Ravudha

@bloodprophet Agreed.

I see balance as useful since it's an attempt to measure how players can impact the world and each other. It is somewhat used as one key metric in assessing fairness with respect to player effort vs reward. To that end, it is highly interwoven with player identity.

IMHO balance has become a prevalent theme because it's very hard for the RPG aspect of MMOs to keep up with combat. Thus, combat has become quite focal in the game experience, and balance accordingly has been weighted heavily with combat metrics.

I hope to see a future where MMOs entail heavier RPG elements so that player experience is less about number crunching and more about simply feeling rewarded for effort put in. Horizontal progression systems are a great way to do that.

Azathoth

I don't think balanced means everything has to be the same, nor do I think equal balance across the classes is reasonable or the goal. Now, for WotC, 4th ed. was for sure an exercise in balance has to equal homogenization.

Ravudha

4th ed made me sad because it felt like D&D being influenced by video games rather than the other way around.

Dygz

Gamers want "balance" across the classes because they want PvP combat to feel similar to combat in an FPS or, perhaps, a MOBA. Where they can pick any class and have pretty much an equal chance defeating any other class 1v1.
They don't really care that RPGs are designed for group play and having each of the individual classes rely on the strengths and weaknesses of the others. They don't care about the role each individual class has in the group - they care about being a good enough player that they can kill any individual they encounter, regardless of class choice. They think a Rogue in leather armor should be able to easily defeat a Paladin in plate if the Rogue player is great at PvP combat.
Their focus is on the skills of the individual players rather than on the combat roles of the individual characters.

mcstackerson

Dygz wrote: »

Gamers want "balance" across the classes because they want PvP combat to feel similar to combat in an FPS or, perhaps, a MOBA. Where they can pick any class and have pretty much an equal chance defeating any other class 1v1.
They don't really care that RPGs are designed for group play and having each of the individual classes rely on the strengths and weaknesses of the others. They don't care about the role each individual class has in the group - they care about being a good enough player that they can kill any individual they encounter, regardless of class choice. They think a Rogue in leather armor should be able to easily defeat a Paladin in plate if the Rogue player is great at PvP combat.
Their focus is on the skills of the individual players rather than on the combat roles of the individual characters.

Not really, if they didn't care about the RPG aspects then why would the care about class balance. They could just pick the most OP class and be good to go. The truth is they like RPGs and don't want to be punished for playing the class they like.

Caeryl

mcstackerson wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Gamers want "balance" across the classes because they want PvP combat to feel similar to combat in an FPS or, perhaps, a MOBA. Where they can pick any class and have pretty much an equal chance defeating any other class 1v1.
They don't really care that RPGs are designed for group play and having each of the individual classes rely on the strengths and weaknesses of the others. They don't care about the role each individual class has in the group - they care about being a good enough player that they can kill any individual they encounter, regardless of class choice. They think a Rogue in leather armor should be able to easily defeat a Paladin in plate if the Rogue player is great at PvP combat.
Their focus is on the skills of the individual players rather than on the combat roles of the individual characters.

Not really, if they didn't care about the RPG aspects then why would the care about class balance. They could just pick the most OP class and be good to go. The truth is they like RPGs and don't want to be punished for playing the class they like.

“Balance” people call for is usually self-centered, aimed for their benefit so their preferences are the strongest. True balance should be a rock, paper, scissors style that Intrepid so far seems to be going for. It allows for unique play styles between classes, and makes certain matchups preferred over others.

With the FPS/“just hop in and play” sort of balance involves bland playstyles, with minimal value of character choices.

Wandering Mist

https://youtu.be/e31OSVZF77w

This video may be old but it sums up the balance debate very well in my opinion. One thing I will add is that the more different gameplay elements you put into a game, the harder it is to balance, which is why games like Pokemon will never be anywhere close to balanced. There are simply too many options for the devs to handle.

Nagash

Wandering Mist wrote: »

https://youtu.be/e31OSVZF77w

This video may be old but it sums up the balance debate very well in my opinion. One thing I will add is that the more different gameplay elements you put into a game, the harder it is to balance, which is why games like Pokemon will never be anywhere close to balanced. There are simply too many options for the devs to handle.

hahaha hahaha did you really use extra credit

Wandering Mist

Nagash wrote: »

Wandering Mist wrote: »

https://youtu.be/e31OSVZF77w

This video may be old but it sums up the balance debate very well in my opinion. One thing I will add is that the more different gameplay elements you put into a game, the harder it is to balance, which is why games like Pokemon will never be anywhere close to balanced. There are simply too many options for the devs to handle.

hahaha hahaha did you really use extra credit

Is there a problem?

Ravudha

mcstackerson wrote: »

Not really, if they didn't care about the RPG aspects then why would the care about class balance. They could just pick the most OP class and be good to go. The truth is they like RPGs and don't want to be punished for playing the class they like.

It may well be that some players feel punished because they have inflated, unrealistic expectations of what their class should be able to do (i.e. be a well-rounded combatant while retaining it's RPG paradigm's characteristics). I think there are certainly cases like this that essentially overlap with @Dygz 's statement.

Caeryl

ravudha wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Not really, if they didn't care about the RPG aspects then why would the care about class balance. They could just pick the most OP class and be good to go. The truth is they like RPGs and don't want to be punished for playing the class they like.

It may well be that some players feel punished because they have inflated, unrealistic expectations of what their class should be able to do (i.e. be a well-rounded combatant while retaining it's RPG paradigm's characteristics). I think there are certainly cases like this that essentially overlap with @ Dygz 's statement.

Exactly this. Players want their characters to be strong, which means anything they perceive as stronger, whether it’s actually stronger overall or just a good matchup against their class in a 1v1, both scenarios are viewed under the guise of the class that defeats them as being overpowered.

A roleplayer can choose the mage and focus on an offensive augment class, but they have no right to cry OP when an assassin is able to get in close and kill them off. That scenario is unfortunately exactly how it so often goes. As they say:

“Nerf rock, paper is fine” - Scissors

Dygz

mcstackerson wrote: »

Not really, if they didn't care about the RPG aspects then why would the care about class balance. They could just pick the most OP class and be good to go. The truth is they like RPGs and don't want to be punished for playing the class they like.

I explained that already - what they consider balance is every class being able to defeat every other class 1v1.
Rather than rock, paper, scissors - which is how RPGs are designed - balanced for group v group; not for 1v1.

mcstackerson

Caeryl wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Gamers want "balance" across the classes because they want PvP combat to feel similar to combat in an FPS or, perhaps, a MOBA. Where they can pick any class and have pretty much an equal chance defeating any other class 1v1.
They don't really care that RPGs are designed for group play and having each of the individual classes rely on the strengths and weaknesses of the others. They don't care about the role each individual class has in the group - they care about being a good enough player that they can kill any individual they encounter, regardless of class choice. They think a Rogue in leather armor should be able to easily defeat a Paladin in plate if the Rogue player is great at PvP combat.
Their focus is on the skills of the individual players rather than on the combat roles of the individual characters.

Not really, if they didn't care about the RPG aspects then why would the care about class balance. They could just pick the most OP class and be good to go. The truth is they like RPGs and don't want to be punished for playing the class they like.

“Balance” people call for is usually self-centered, aimed for their benefit so their preferences are the strongest. True balance should be a rock, paper, scissors style that Intrepid so far seems to be going for. It allows for unique play styles between classes, and makes certain matchups preferred over others.

With the FPS/“just hop in and play” sort of balance involves bland playstyles, with minimal value of character choices.

ravudha wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Not really, if they didn't care about the RPG aspects then why would the care about class balance. They could just pick the most OP class and be good to go. The truth is they like RPGs and don't want to be punished for playing the class they like.

It may well be that some players feel punished because they have inflated, unrealistic expectations of what their class should be able to do (i.e. be a well-rounded combatant while retaining it's RPG paradigm's characteristics). I think there are certainly cases like this that essentially overlap with @Dygz 's statement.

You guys might have to expand on this for me.

I don't know either of these proves me wrong and seem beside the point. Dygz said that people who want perfect balance, want it because they don't like rpg elements. I disagreed with that saying that people could want perfect balance because they want to be able to pick a class off without worrying about combat performance. I also postulated that a person who didn't care about RPG elements wouldn't care about the class they play so they should be fine with picking the class the performs the best. I don't think saying they want it for selfish reasons proves what i said wrong.

You can assume motive all you like and say they have all the bad intentions in the world but I don't think it's weird or malicious for someone to want to be able to pick a class without worrying about who it's strong and weak against.

Would it make you feel better if i said i wasn't for perfect balance and support rock, paper,scissors balance? I'm really just pointing out an issue i see with dygz's logic.

Dygz wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Not really, if they didn't care about the RPG aspects then why would the care about class balance. They could just pick the most OP class and be good to go. The truth is they like RPGs and don't want to be punished for playing the class they like.

I explained that already - what they consider balance is every class being able to defeat every other class 1v1.
Rather than rock, paper, scissors - which is how RPGs are designed - balanced for group v group; not for 1v1.

I'm not sure if rock, paper, scissors is core to an RPG but if it is, does it really mean that a person can only enjoy an rpg if they enjoy that aspect of it? Can't people enjoy rpg class systems without enjoying rock, paper, scissors combat? I don't think it's that weird for a person who enjoys the aesthetic and lore of the wizard class to also not like auto losing to the warrior class that counters them. I don't think that person hates all RPG aspects because they want the game balanced so they stand a chance in that fight.

Caeryl

mcstackerson wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Gamers want "balance" across the classes because they want PvP combat to feel similar to combat in an FPS or, perhaps, a MOBA. Where they can pick any class and have pretty much an equal chance defeating any other class 1v1.
They don't really care that RPGs are designed for group play and having each of the individual classes rely on the strengths and weaknesses of the others. They don't care about the role each individual class has in the group - they care about being a good enough player that they can kill any individual they encounter, regardless of class choice. They think a Rogue in leather armor should be able to easily defeat a Paladin in plate if the Rogue player is great at PvP combat.
Their focus is on the skills of the individual players rather than on the combat roles of the individual characters.

Not really, if they didn't care about the RPG aspects then why would the care about class balance. They could just pick the most OP class and be good to go. The truth is they like RPGs and don't want to be punished for playing the class they like.

“Balance” people call for is usually self-centered, aimed for their benefit so their preferences are the strongest. True balance should be a rock, paper, scissors style that Intrepid so far seems to be going for. It allows for unique play styles between classes, and makes certain matchups preferred over others.

With the FPS/“just hop in and play” sort of balance involves bland playstyles, with minimal value of character choices.

ravudha wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Not really, if they didn't care about the RPG aspects then why would the care about class balance. They could just pick the most OP class and be good to go. The truth is they like RPGs and don't want to be punished for playing the class they like.

It may well be that some players feel punished because they have inflated, unrealistic expectations of what their class should be able to do (i.e. be a well-rounded combatant while retaining it's RPG paradigm's characteristics). I think there are certainly cases like this that essentially overlap with @Dygz 's statement.

You guys might have to expand on this for me.

I don't know either of these proves me wrong and seem beside the point. Dygz said that people who want perfect balance, want it because they don't like rpg elements. I disagreed with that saying that people could want perfect balance because they want to be able to pick a class off without worrying about combat performance. I also postulated that a person who didn't care about RPG elements wouldn't care about the class they play so they should be fine with picking the class the performs the best. I don't think saying they want it for selfish reasons proves what i said wrong.

You can assume motive all you like and say they have all the bad intentions in the world but I don't think it's weird or malicious for someone to want to be able to pick a class without worrying about who it's strong and weak against.

Would it make you feel better if i said i wasn't for perfect balance and support rock, paper,scissors balance? I'm really just pointing out an issue i see with dygz's logic and his attempt to label people who want "perfect balance."

Dygz wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Not really, if they didn't care about the RPG aspects then why would the care about class balance. They could just pick the most OP class and be good to go. The truth is they like RPGs and don't want to be punished for playing the class they like.

I explained that already - what they consider balance is every class being able to defeat every other class 1v1.
Rather than rock, paper, scissors - which is how RPGs are designed - balanced for group v group; not for 1v1.

I'm not sure if rock, paper, scissors is core to an RPG but if it is, does it really mean that a person can only enjoy an rpg if they enjoy that aspect of it? Can't people enjoy rpg class systems without enjoying rock, paper, scissors combat? I don't think it's that weird for a person who enjoys the aesthetic and lore of the wizard class to also not like auto losing to the warrior class that counters them. I don't think that person hates all RPG aspects because they want the game balanced so they stand a chance in that fight.

This is what we mean. Your idea of balance removes the impact of class choice, a key part of any RPG. If every class has the same relative strength to each other, with no particular strengths or weaknesses, then the game may as well not have any classes at all.

You choose your class knowing it cannot defeat every type of enemy. MMORPGs are balanced around groups, where people make up for each other’s weak spots.

Azathoth

And we're back to 4th ed D&D. Pick your class at random, because they are all identical. Oddly enough, a lot of old school D&D players were angry because the balance, use of 'at wills,' 'encounters,' and 'dailies' felt too much like an MMO.

mcstackerson

Caeryl wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Gamers want "balance" across the classes because they want PvP combat to feel similar to combat in an FPS or, perhaps, a MOBA. Where they can pick any class and have pretty much an equal chance defeating any other class 1v1.
They don't really care that RPGs are designed for group play and having each of the individual classes rely on the strengths and weaknesses of the others. They don't care about the role each individual class has in the group - they care about being a good enough player that they can kill any individual they encounter, regardless of class choice. They think a Rogue in leather armor should be able to easily defeat a Paladin in plate if the Rogue player is great at PvP combat.
Their focus is on the skills of the individual players rather than on the combat roles of the individual characters.

Not really, if they didn't care about the RPG aspects then why would the care about class balance. They could just pick the most OP class and be good to go. The truth is they like RPGs and don't want to be punished for playing the class they like.

“Balance” people call for is usually self-centered, aimed for their benefit so their preferences are the strongest. True balance should be a rock, paper, scissors style that Intrepid so far seems to be going for. It allows for unique play styles between classes, and makes certain matchups preferred over others.

With the FPS/“just hop in and play” sort of balance involves bland playstyles, with minimal value of character choices.

ravudha wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Not really, if they didn't care about the RPG aspects then why would the care about class balance. They could just pick the most OP class and be good to go. The truth is they like RPGs and don't want to be punished for playing the class they like.

It may well be that some players feel punished because they have inflated, unrealistic expectations of what their class should be able to do (i.e. be a well-rounded combatant while retaining it's RPG paradigm's characteristics). I think there are certainly cases like this that essentially overlap with @Dygz 's statement.

You guys might have to expand on this for me.

I don't know either of these proves me wrong and seem beside the point. Dygz said that people who want perfect balance, want it because they don't like rpg elements. I disagreed with that saying that people could want perfect balance because they want to be able to pick a class off without worrying about combat performance. I also postulated that a person who didn't care about RPG elements wouldn't care about the class they play so they should be fine with picking the class the performs the best. I don't think saying they want it for selfish reasons proves what i said wrong.

You can assume motive all you like and say they have all the bad intentions in the world but I don't think it's weird or malicious for someone to want to be able to pick a class without worrying about who it's strong and weak against.

Would it make you feel better if i said i wasn't for perfect balance and support rock, paper,scissors balance? I'm really just pointing out an issue i see with dygz's logic and his attempt to label people who want "perfect balance."

Dygz wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Not really, if they didn't care about the RPG aspects then why would the care about class balance. They could just pick the most OP class and be good to go. The truth is they like RPGs and don't want to be punished for playing the class they like.

I explained that already - what they consider balance is every class being able to defeat every other class 1v1.
Rather than rock, paper, scissors - which is how RPGs are designed - balanced for group v group; not for 1v1.

I'm not sure if rock, paper, scissors is core to an RPG but if it is, does it really mean that a person can only enjoy an rpg if they enjoy that aspect of it? Can't people enjoy rpg class systems without enjoying rock, paper, scissors combat? I don't think it's that weird for a person who enjoys the aesthetic and lore of the wizard class to also not like auto losing to the warrior class that counters them. I don't think that person hates all RPG aspects because they want the game balanced so they stand a chance in that fight.

This is what we mean. Your idea of balance removes the impact of class choice, a key part of any RPG. If every class has the same relative strength to each other, with no particular strengths or weaknesses, then the game may as well not have any classes at all.

You choose your class knowing it cannot defeat every type of enemy. MMORPGs are balanced around groups, where people make up for each other’s weak spots.

I'm not advocating for "perfect balance" as I said. Im just against the idea the all people who want it are against rpgs. I agree with classes having different strengths and weaknesses.

Assuming we are talking about the 8 base archetypes, we kind of have the option for both with how open the class system is as well as the other progression systems you can advance in. Not saying we have perfect 1v1 balance but we know that you can use the different forms of horizontal progression to either try to cover up your weaknesses or double down on your strengths. Once again, won't be perfect balance but there are a lot of options, A lot more then people are used to.

Ghoosty

Caeryl wrote: »

If every class has the same relative strength to each other, with no particular strengths or weaknesses, then the game may as well not have any classes at all.

Despite I am OK with group vs group balance, what you wrote is not true. The same relative strength does not mean your class do not have strengths and weakness. The different game-style define the classes.
example:
mage vs rouge:
rouge can hide, can silent the mage, etc if use his skills properly the rouge can win.
mage can use detect invisiblity, can freeze the rouge, can teleport if use his skill properly the mage can win.
mage vs cleric:
cleric can heal himself, can use curses, can remove harmful spells etc if use his skills properly the cleric can win.
mage can use dispell HoT spells, can remove curse, etc if use his skills properly the mage can win
mage vs warrior:
warrior can jump, can knock down, can make bleed damage, can use shield, etc, if use his skills the warrior can win
mage can burn, can freeze, can teleport if use his skill properly the mage can win.

As you can see they are balanced, but all classes are different. They can have much other non combat or group/support skills, the play-style is different so you can't say your class choice has no impact or it reduce the RPG part. Not even that we do not have any classes.

Azathoth

That was the tag line for selling 4th ed too, everything fell to support to distinguish classes. Because although the flavor text was different, and in some cases number of targets, the abilities were all equal. Luckily at a Table Top there is enough freedom to feel the difference in support roles, in an MMO they could all feel the same.

I still believe balancing for PvP or PvE only in a PvX game is not the right way to go. I do think asking for abilities/stats/etc. to be altered in PvP is a cheap move. Players that build PvP focused characters will obviously have an advantage against players that prefer a PvE character/game-play.

If, as a PvP player, your primary concern is rather or not the PvE focused player will be able to beat you because of their build, I would argue you are doing PvP incorrectly. Find other PvP players to challenge, join some form of alliance/guild to have access to other PvP players to travel with, and make sure your skill set is up to what ever PvE challenger you agro.

Dygz

mcstackerson wrote: »

You guys might have to expand on this for me.

I don't know either of these proves me wrong and seem beside the point. Dygz said that people who want perfect balance, want it because they don't like rpg elements. I disagreed with that saying that people could want perfect balance because they want to be able to pick a class off without worrying about combat performance. I also postulated that a person who didn't care about RPG elements wouldn't care about the class they play so they should be fine with picking the class the performs the best. I don't think saying they want it for selfish reasons proves what i said wrong.

I didn't say that gamers don't like RPG elements, I said they don't care about the RPG elements, what they primarily care about are the competitive player elements - more like an FPS than the cooperative interactions of the strengths and weaknesses of the various roles of each character in group combat.
RPGs are balanced so that each class/role in a group as strengths and weaknesses that the other classes don't have - so that each individual character has to rely on the other characters in the group to succeed - rather than being balanced so that any individual player can fairly commonly beat any other player 1v1 - especially if one of the players is a better player than the other.

A gamer might still prefer to play one class more than the other, but a gamer who wants the classes to be balanced evenly for 1v1 combat doesn't care about the group combat roles those classes are designed for in an RPG.
If classes are evenly balanced, I don't understand how it's possible for one class to perform the best.

mcstackerson wrote: »

You can assume motive all you like and say they have all the bad intentions in the world but I don't think it's weird or malicious for someone to want to be able to pick a class without worrying about who it's strong and weak against.

I never said that gamers who want the classes to be evenly balanced for 1v1 combat have bad intentions or that it's weird or malicious. It's just counter to roleplay -
Specifically, role each class was designed to play within a group.
It's kind of like wanting everyone in soccer to be able to control the ball with their hands, instead of leaving that feature something only the goal keeper can do.

Would it make you feel better if i said i wasn't for perfect balance and support rock, paper,scissors balance? I'm really just pointing out an issue i see with dygz's logic.

mcstackerson wrote: »

I'm not sure if rock, paper, scissors is core to an RPG but if it is, does it really mean that a person can only enjoy an rpg if they enjoy that aspect of it? Can't people enjoy rpg class systems without enjoying rock, paper, scissors combat? I don't think it's that weird for a person who enjoys the aesthetic and lore of the wizard class to also not like auto losing to the warrior class that counters them. I don't think that person hates all RPG aspects because they want the game balanced so they stand a chance in that fight.

Especially in MMORPGs, players can enjoy playing all kinds of ways.
Even though MMORPGS are designed for characters to level almost exclusively through killing stuff, some players still find ways to level to max with no kills or to level to max with no deaths. Players can spend all of their time soloing or all of their time crafting.
But, what we're really talking about here is the dev philosophy. It's no different than asking for separate PvE or RP servers. If the devs want to support that, great. That's the way they've chosen to design their game.
If the devs have chosen not to support that, we just have to wait to see if they're able to grab the numbers of players they're hoping to attract.
If the devs have chosen to return to a more traditional RPG class balance -"rock, paper, scissors"- then, we have to wait to see if they can attract the numbers of players they're hoping to attract.

It's interesting, though, how I say that gamers don't really care about the RPG elements of MMORPGs and you mirror back that I said they "don't like the RPG elements" and then escalate that to they "hate all RPG elements".

mcstackerson wrote: »

I'm not advocating for "perfect balance" as I said. I'm just against the idea the all people who want it are against rpgs. I agree with classes having different strengths and weaknesses.

Except... you are the only person who has said, "all people who want it are against rpgs".
I'm not aware of anyone else here stating that as a point of discussion.

mcstackerson wrote: »

Assuming we are talking about the 8 base archetypes, we kind of have the option for both with how open the class system is as well as the other progression systems you can advance in. Not saying we have perfect 1v1 balance but we know that you can use the different forms of horizontal progression to either try to cover up your weaknesses or double down on your strengths. Once again, won't be perfect balance but there are a lot of options, A lot more then people are used to.

The dev philosophy is to balance in order to promote a rock, paper, scissors relationship for the primary archetypes. Augments aren't really going to change those relationships significantly.

Dygz

Azathoth wrote: »

If, as a PvP player, your primary concern is rather or not the PvE focused player will be able to beat you because of their build, I would argue you are doing PvP incorrectly. Find other PvP players to challenge, join some form of alliance/guild to have access to other PvP players to travel with, and make sure your skill set is up to what ever PvE challenger you agro.

Exactly. Because most of the PvP in Ashes is intended to be objective-based for groups... sieges, guild/node wars and caravan runs.

Child Item