Is there enough 24/7 structured PvP available?

The only structured PvP that is not time restricted, not limited to server prime-time (castle & node sieges & related fights) and not occasional (caravans,) is Node Wars and Guild Wars. From the wiki: "These can be declared at any time, but the quest objectives will only spawn during server prime-time, but players can kill each other at any time during the war (not only during server prime-time)."

So to always have PvP available a player will need to be part of a constantly waring node and/or guild.

I have not mentioned Naval PvP because that is 'between ships' according to the wiki, although players can use ranged skills. Nor am I considering corruption as that is likely small scale roamers at best.

So to get as much of an open-world PvP fix as I do on the GW2 WvW maps, I need to join a constantly waring node and/or guild. Right/Wrong/Good/Bad?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Ludullu

Vargos wrote: »

And with such hard penalty system for PK (as in AoC), they will know that in 99% of cases they won't be killed in a PK.

The penalties are there if you die as a Red, but we don't know how harsh the corruption clearing speed will be on release.

Vargos wrote: »

If someone is the first to arrive to resource vein and start mining resources, what is the point for him to flagging for PvP? They will just continue to mine resources while standing there.

Like I said, save time, save resources, remove an annoying pest that keeps hitting you over and over and might even bring mobs to you (if that's possible).

Vargos wrote: »

Wait half a day, maybe a siege will start...
Run around the node for a few hours, maybe someone will launch a caravan...
Spend a few hours farming in different locations, maybe you'll find someone from an enemy clan...

In the end, during prime time, for example at 5 hr of playing, spend 4 hours to looking for someone to PvP with, and maybe half an hour or an hour of fun, but if you get killed, then it's another half hour to get back from your respawn spot.

Just plan better for the future. We don't know whether you can or cannot have several registrations for sieges, so, considering that sieges will always be during prime time, as long as you plan ahead accordingly you'll have yourself a daily dose of mass pvp all across the world.

Vertical movement through a continent is ~30m, so even if you had to move from top northern point of one continent to the bottom southern point of another one - that's still 45m at worst. And you can do this running either before the siege or after (to your tomorrow's siege).

And on the way there you might run across random purple players or caravans or any other interesting content. And of course there's gonna be the seas between the continents, so probably some pvp there.

And in case we can't multi-register - I'll definitely give feedback to change that.

Vargos wrote: »

Of course, there will probably be PvP between warring clans at farming spots, raid bosses, and so on. But again, the motivation for joining a clan, or accepting a war declaration from another clan, is unclear at this point. If people on a PvE location don't want to PvP, it will be hard to force them.

Wardecs might only require one side to begin. But we'll have to see if that's the case on release.

Vargos wrote: »

Kill their healer in PK?
Well, they'll come back faster than you'll clear your PK status.

That'll depend on how fast we can clear the corruption and how fast a full party can come back to the same location.

Vargos wrote: »

The point here is not that there won't be any PvP in PvE areas, of course there will be to some extent. The point is, when you're tired of grinding and want to distract yourself with PvP, will it be possible to find PvP without spending hours looking for caravans, searching for enemy clan members in locations, or waiting half a day for a siege to start?

Most likely not, because Ashes is not a "get your desired content w/o any issue or anyone in the way". If Intrepid succeed in balancing their game's PvXness, you'll constantly have breaks from pve with pvp and you'll need to finish pvp in order to pve. These constant breaks slow down your progress, which allows Intrepid to stay ahead of that "soft cap" with their content. Which then keep up the cycle of pve>pvp>pve.

Though again, there'll be arenas with seasons, there'll be mayoral/castle/private caravans running around, guild wars for pvp guilds (and potentially merc help for pve guilds), node wars for ease of "finding enemies", the damned seas, node ruins too (in case any of those node sieges end in destruction), and obviously any potential owpvp anywhere in the world.

Xnate13X

Noaani wrote: »

Think of my question as, 'what will all the lovers of GW2 WvW do when they try AoC?' There is going to be a lot of down time as they search for objective based PvP groups to fight, compared to what they are used to.

Hey, I am a GW2 on release 2012-quitting due to horrible first expansion & lack of pvp updates player... I LOVED WvWvW back then. I LOVE roaming PvP, absolutely wrecked. All my builds were made for that. All I would do is farm dungeons, build legendaries best for PvP so I could show them off when I drop attack people in WvWvW. I think I understand what you want & I wouldn't push them to make MORE. I would join in with me and the other roamers out there that build characters that can fit a pvp open world roaming style but can also handle pvm so you can go along with your day and jump people whenever you see someone you want to attack. My play style is to merch on game's AH, farm dungeons/resources, build/acquire BIS weapons and smack every single person in my way if I think I can take them. That way, your reward for killing that person is the resources they were going to take, but since you dropped them, you get it. IF I DIE, then I'll usually look out for the player for a rematch. If I end up losing again, I'll find a new place to farm and call it defeat.

This will all change if corruption doesn't allow you to bank, craft, or other nonsense that you'd want to do. If that's the case then no one will ever want to be corrupted and it'll be forced content for PvP which will honestly stink. I hate war PvP. I'm a roamer and I want no game destroying penalty for killing people. That's just plain stupid.

Spif

NiKr wrote: »

Also, in a group vs group situation, the attackers would just need to PK the victim's healer and then protect their own PKer, while the victims can either die to mobs w/o a healer or leave the room. And while there's a chance that the gamer population has completely changed and would absolutely never flag up in no case - I somehow doubt that those kind of people would even play Ashes in the first place. And considering that dungeons will be some ways from nodes, people would be even less inclined to waste time running around instead of proving they're strong enough to hold a location.

Protecting a PKer will be harder than you make it sound, especially if there are random players around. I think it's going to be a giant beacon to pile on, more than in L2. (I only played L2 for 6 months at US release) Because in L2 you went purple if you hit a red. In ashes you stay green. And I don't think you can count on it being the group tank that goes red, since it's killing blow based.

Killing a green healer could be really tough, greens can't be CC'd. IMO there is going to be a lot of gamesmanship with flagging, which is why I don't like the green/purple/red flagging system much, and would prefer force-flag combat areas

Going red is going to have more downside in Ashes than L2. Your corruption gain increases as you do more PKs through the life of the character, and the wiki says it will take more xp than L2 to work off corruption. That's why I don't expect people to go red to steal gatherables in most situations. You risk dropping equipped gear for a bunch of (possibly rare) rocks.

IMO there is going to be a strong PvE contingent in this game (server specific of course) because of the throwback nature of slower leveling and raids. Not to mention the AAA title draw.

Ludullu

Spif wrote: »

Because in L2 you went purple if you hit a red. In ashes you stay green.

Unless this was the case in the very first chronicle or prelude - this is not the case in L2. You stay "green" when you hit a red. So it's the same as Ashes.

Spif wrote: »

Killing a green healer could be really tough, greens can't be CC'd.

I was talking about a party vs party situation, which would most likely happen around mobs, so the targeted party will already be under attacks. That party wouldn't flag back (according to your assumption), so attacking the healer with a tank would just start burning that healer's mana, would distract him from healing the party which could even lead to some additional green deaths and it would lead to the tank becoming a PKer. EZ life.

Obviously this will be gamed out to all hell, but that's the system Steven decided to go with because he likes it. But that gaming of the system is exactly why I think that majority of parties will just flag back to avoid overcomplication of their situation.

And I'll be definitely giving a lot of feedback to support the victim party in the situation where they get flagged upon while farming mobs. I've already done so in the past too.

Spif wrote: »

Going red is going to have more downside in Ashes than L2. Your corruption gain increases as you do more PKs through the life of the character, and the wiki says it will take more xp than L2 to work off corruption. That's why I don't expect people to go red to steal gatherables in most situations. You risk dropping equipped gear for a bunch of (possibly rare) rocks.

Yes, this is one of the things I kinda disagree with in the current design. I'd prefer if the severe harshness came on the 10th+ PK, rather than right from the start. And that harshness would immediately start scaling really high and the PK count removal methods would be very pricey.

This would allow people to PK here and there before either stopping completely (because even a single PK would cripple them) or spending a ton of time and resources to reduce the PK counter. But we'll have to see how it turns out.

Spif wrote: »

IMO there is going to be a strong PvE contingent in this game (server specific of course) because of the throwback nature of slower leveling and raids. Not to mention the AAA title draw.

Oh, I'm sure Intrepid will be swarmed and drowned in feedback along the lines of "owpvp is bad, mkay". We've seen it a ton of times already in the past few years and the game is barely even known.

But again, it's Steven who wanted to have L2's owpvp system. If he wants to tune it to such a harsh degree that literally no one even dares to PK - then why in hell is the system even there. Now, if Steven changes his mind down the line and removes corruption all together, I'll just leave cause the game would no longer be for me, but I'd be very interested in seeing the general reaction of the backers and current supporters of the game, because removal of corruption (or maybe even just effective removal of it through bad balancing) would mean a pretty strong turn in one of the design's core pillars.

Solvryn

After volunteering to not read a single post on this thread.

MMOs do not need 24/7 structured PvP. There's goal based PvP and owPvP.

PvP is 24/7 - you either want to be the best or you dont.

Noaani

Solvryn wrote: »

After volunteering to not read a single post on this thread.

MMOs do not need 24/7 structured PvP. There's goal based PvP and owPvP.

PvP is 24/7 - you either want to be the best or you dont.

Yeah, this is my opinion here as well.

Structured, objective based PvP is for prime time, other PvP is 24/7.

Noaani

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

It is very important hating carebears

Of all people, you should be the most accepting of carebears.

Without them, you wouldnt have anyone you are able to kill in PvP!

Solvryn

Noaani wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

It is very important hating carebears

Of all people, you should be the most accepting of carebears.

Without them, you wouldnt have anyone you are able to kill in PvP!

As an honor PK from the old days, I actually love carebears and noobs. They're fun to teach and kill stuff with because they're always dying and running around in circles.

Blindside

As someone who values fair play and meaningful competition, I derive my satisfaction from taking on opponents who are on par with my skill level. The idea of preying on weaker players or engaging in unbalanced fights holds no appeal to me. That's not true competition - it's nothing more than bullying.

Structured PvP emphasizes the aspects of true sportsmanship, providing an environment where players can test their skills and compete on a level playing field. In contrast, open world PvP feels more like a random street fight, where anything goes, and the outcome is often determined by luck rather than skill.

However, I understand the appeal of both open world PvP and structured PvP. While structured PvP provides a level playing field and a competitive environment that rewards skill and strategy, open world PvP offers a more dynamic and immersive experience. I fully support those who enjoy both formats, but I believe that it's entirely subjective to say that one is more fulfilling than the other. Some gamers thrive in the highly-competitive environment of structured PvP, while others find joy in the spontaneous and unpredictable nature of open world PvP.

At the end of the day, what matters most is creating an environment where both can coexist and thrive.

Gospell1

My acquaintance with mmo began with L2. In l2 there are no fucking vegetable gardens, fck cows that need to be milked and other garbage. Of course, there is a fck grind in there, but it is in order to become stronger and kick someone's ass. Everything in the game is designed for pvp. And a lot of people still play this game. It's very difficult for me to understand PvE players. I just hope AoC is more PvP oriented than PvE... It's bad that red players get more debuff in AoC than in L2, it's disappointing for me

Noaani

Gospell wrote: »

My acquaintance with mmo began with L2. In l2 there are no fucking vegetable gardens, fck cows that need to be milked and other garbage. Of course, there is a fck grind in there, but it is in order to become stronger and kick someone's ass. Everything in the game is designed for pvp. And a lot of people still play this game. It's very difficult for me to understand PvE players. I just hope AoC is more PvP oriented than PvE... It's bad that red players get more debuff in AoC than in L2, it's disappointing for me

Ashes is aiming to be a much more structured game than L2 was.

Players will have more, and be able to lose more, than they could in L2.

The thing with PvE players - and this is a thing that no PvP game has managed to capitalize on as yet - is that they are the bread and butter targets for PvP players. A game that is able to attract and hold a PvE crowd, even with open PvP in the game, is a game that will have actual vibrant servers. If a game loses it's PvE players, PvP players just lost half or more of their content.

As such, don't try to understand PvE players, just attack them and take their stuff.

Gospell1

Noaani wrote: »

. If a game loses it's PvE players, PvP players just lost half or more of their content.

I think pvp players can have fun without pve players.

Songcaller

Gospell wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

. If a game loses it's PvE players, PvP players just lost half or more of their content.

I think pvp players can have fun without pve players.

Naked pvp is some of the best pvp lol.

Gospell1

Neurath wrote: »

Gospell wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

. If a game loses it's PvE players, PvP players just lost half or more of their content.

I think pvp players can have fun without pve players.

Naked pvp is some of the best pvp lol.

And we're talking about different concepts There are forced actions, such as crafting things for pvp and a special pastime like picking carrots. In English, these are called care bears (?)

Songcaller

Well, the gear is pvx gear so its best to have pve players on side. You never know how much resource you will need to repair your gear and multiple sources of income are better than none.

Gospell1

In some games, you can get equipment from the arena or in the course of completing quests. and caravans is also a pvp process. But I think you are right. It will be necessary to find a few slaves PvE players

Songcaller

We can get modifications from the arena but not whole armour sets. I'm not sure how often a caravan will drop whole items - I believe it will be resources most of the time. Also, I doubt you can solo a caravan so connections with others will still be a priority.

Noaani

Gospell wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

. If a game loses it's PvE players, PvP players just lost half or more of their content.

I think pvp players can have fun without pve players.

I didn't say they couldn't.

I said they can have more fun, for a longer time, in the same game with them.

Probably the biggest issue with Ashes right now is that there is a lot of PvE in general that is needed (or, more accurately, a lot of non-PvP that is needed), yet the game doesn't really appeal to anyone other than PvP centric players right now.

The game still needs a shift to either just be a PvP game, or towards some actual content that will attract more PvE oriented players.

Songcaller

I hope we don't go full pvp or full pve. I love pvx hence I backed.

Kilion

I think most people who will try to play this as an exclusive PvP or PvE game will find their experience seriously lacking. From what I hear in the interviews with the devs and see in the systems presented so far, PvE activity will increase incentives for PvP activity and PvP activity will increase incentives for PvE activity. Which - theoretically - will result in the same players having to shift back and forth between both or they will find themselves isolated from progression.

Child Item