It depends on the scope of what you demand/suggest/predict.
If, for example, you agree with the sentiment I just quoted from myself in the last comment ("Scheduled 500v500 sieges [...]"), then I could say that my harsh criticism might mostly be my wrong interpretation of what you're vouching for. But if you can't really agree with that, then I do think there's still a disagreement that's worth discussing.
I can say that I would never want Ashes PvP to be primarily about 'military operations'.
So to go back. I began by talking about the way MOBAs are 'effectively really sped up versions of PvX MMORPG servers' and suggested that some efforts to be at least at the MOBA levels of retention would be good because the MOBAs have the retention advantage here through methods that aren't available in MMORPGs.
But I realize now that I have made an assumption in my arrogance, so I'll pinpoint where.
Since the coordination is on-the-fly, and both sides tend to be at the peak of their potential at the same time because of the natural flow of the game, there is a better chance of underdogs winning against a zerg by making better decisions in the moment.
The flow we started that led to that criticism was 'Noaani and I noting that you have to avoid the player retention problem in some way', and this came about because of MOBA stuff.
But here's the thing about that, MOBA Ranked queues often don't even let you queue with a full group. All coordination is on the fly, and both sides are at natural 'peak potential flow'. Similarly, it's often considerably better for a 'full stack' to train to fight together without any direct coordination at all.
And the issue is that this is exactly why dominant guilds remain dominant in PvP MMOs. We're talking people that don't have to discuss anything to be super effective. They just 'know' from experience with each other. They make mistakes, certainly, but not at the level that the 'ragtag alliance' normally can do anything about. This whole thing was my thought process going into it, so your response seemed weird to me.
MOBAs also do whatever they can to protect 'random group of 5 players queued together' from 'full stack of 5 who know each other's tactics perfectly', because the result from the Randoms is generally not 'hey guys let's be friends and work out our strategy to beat those guys'.
Your thoughts on this post were about 'scheduled PvP' and how it's not necessary, but I wasn't talking about any of that really. Because at '1/100th speed' a MOBA match doesn't have any scheduled PvP. But it does have enough structure to keep things somewhat fair to keep you from just getting beat on, or to let you know that if you are getting beat on, there's an upside somewhere else.
This is where PvP MMOs fall short, and where they have to work to get up to where MOBAs are.
Your thoughts on this post were about 'scheduled PvP' and how it's not necessary, but I wasn't talking about any of that really. Because at '1/100th speed' a MOBA match doesn't have any scheduled PvP. But it does have enough structure to keep things somewhat fair to keep you from just getting beat on, or to let you know that if you are getting beat on, there's an upside somewhere else.
Regarding the first sentence: It was a big part of what the thread author talked about. Scheduling, balance, etc.
You were still perfectly in your right to comment without taking scheduling/protection measures into account at all: The thread's title was definitely open to any ideas about what good PvP is comprised of in general. But that was why I interpreted your remarks to be related to that topic. I probably Occam's-razored too indiscriminately there, sorry. (Which is my copium-infused way of saying that I may have jumped to stereotypes.)
I took your comparison to the 1/100th speed MOBA in a complex theoretical/ideological sense. In my vision, the level 4 Ryze was a group of PvE players doing their thing, and the roaming level 18 Darius at minute 5 was a bunch of zergers stealing their castle in the night, purely by merit of bad game balancing.
And the way in which the balance of predictability, self-accountability for overextending, and general merit-rewarding nature of the MOBA would be introduced to that scene in your proposed game design change, was through scheduled sieges and Corruption.
But now I think you meant it a bit more practically than that.
In a more practical example, I really like the idea of directly managing this ambition of establishing the MOBA balance of "Correct play versus incorrect play = Advantage":
If not pre-scheduled, this could be achieved through tasks that naturally need to happen at certain times in the game, so people would organically run into each other at certain natural hotspot times, in naturally balanced numbers (perhaps only a certain number of players can benefit from being at a certain location, or perhaps you do control how many people may go through a portal, or you increase the resource cost for every person who steps through), with advantages restricted by their success in the game up to that point.
If this were to happen in the game without always requiring the formal "We'll attack your castle at 6pm in two days, be prepared" announcements, every time for every size of territory-related PvP objectives (Again, not saying the game has to have specifically forts and castles; it's just what I know that works better than just loot opportunities) then I would absolutely love it.
Like literally sending a predictable number of players down "lanes" when the minions spawn, just at a larger scale and with a longer game clock.
It's my initial interpretation of your suggestion as "do whatever it takes to make it a 5v5 or a 20v20, with a pre-announced event timer" that I took issue with.
MOBAs also do whatever they can to protect 'random group of 5 players queued together' from 'full stack of 5 who know each other's tactics perfectly', because the result from the Randoms is generally not 'hey guys let's be friends and work out our strategy to beat those guys'.
Yeah. I think MMOs should aspire to far less protection in the pure skill department. Some matchmaking ranking for an arena would be fine, but in general, I think it's the nature of the beast that at the very least a pure skill&coordination difference should lead to the expected advantage for the tryhard guild/group. That's definitely an aspect of MMO design where I think you have to leave it up to the players to learn to pick their battles, and I'd argue 99% of players are aware of that and accept that when they do something like join a guild.
No one but yourself can validate you for all the posts you *didn't* write.
Your thoughts on this post were about 'scheduled PvP' and how it's not necessary, but I wasn't talking about any of that really. Because at '1/100th speed' a MOBA match doesn't have any scheduled PvP. But it does have enough structure to keep things somewhat fair to keep you from just getting beat on, or to let you know that if you are getting beat on, there's an upside somewhere else.
Regarding the first sentence: It was a big part of what the thread author talked about. Scheduling, balance, etc.
You were still perfectly in your right to comment without taking scheduling/protection measures into account at all: The thread's title was definitely open to any ideas about what good PvP is comprised of in general. But that was why I interpreted your remarks to be related to that topic. I probably Occam's-razored too indiscriminately there, sorry. (Which is my copium-infused way of saying that I may have jumped to stereotypes.)
I took your comparison to the 1/100th speed MOBA in a complex theoretical/ideological sense. In my vision, the level 4 Ryze was a group of PvE players doing their thing, and the roaming level 18 Darius at minute 5 was a bunch of zergers stealing their castle in the night, purely by merit of bad game balancing.
And the way in which the balance of predictability, self-accountability for overextending, and general merit-rewarding nature of the MOBA would be introduced to that scene in your proposed game design change, was through scheduled sieges and Corruption.
But now I think you meant it a bit more practically than that.
In a more practical example, I really like the idea of directly managing this ambition of establishing the MOBA balance of "Correct play versus incorrect play = Advantage":
If not pre-scheduled, this could be achieved through tasks that naturally need to happen at certain times in the game, so people would organically run into each other at certain natural hotspot times, in naturally balanced numbers (perhaps only a certain number of players can benefit from being at a certain location, or perhaps you do control how many people may go through a portal, or you increase the resource cost for every person who steps through), with advantages restricted by their success in the game up to that point.
If this were to happen in the game without always requiring the formal "We'll attack your castle at 6pm in two days, be prepared" announcements, every time for every size of territory-related PvP objectives (Again, not saying the game has to have specifically forts and castles; it's just what I know that works better than just loot opportunities) then I would absolutely love it.
Like literally sending a predictable number of players down "lanes" when the minions spawn, just at a larger scale and with a longer game clock.
It's my intitial interpretation of "do whatever it takes to make it a 5v5 or a 20v20, with a pre-announced event timer" that I took issue with.
Then I'm glad, it seems that we got through all that and I can confirm we're on the same page in that regard. It is what I'm hoping for and expecting from Ashes. I have some other perspectives that I may share in another thread sometime relative to this (it's an Elite Dangerous thing, though, so it has too much preamble).
The tl;dr for if this thread is of any use to Intrepid is:
By implementing NPCs and 'Security Levels' and whatnot on 'both sides', Elite manages some 'True PvX' situations in its Conflict Zones without adding too many restrictions. I don't have to build 'the #1 PvP battleship' because the Conflict Zone will already contain some number of those on my 'side', I just have to figure out how to help them. At the same time, there's not going to be a lot I can do if a bunch of true enemy ace pilots show up to take them all out. I just won't need to think about 'how far I am from being able to 1v1 a Federal Corvette'.
I understand why scheduled PvP is a thing, I understand why 'no warning' PvP is a thing, and the current design seems to be 'building up toward benefits for the former' and 'discouraging the latter if not consensual'. I'm looking forward to Caravans and Dungeon clashes the most because those are the perfect 'inbetween' for me.
I understand why scheduled PvP is a thing, I understand why 'no warning' PvP is a thing, and the current design seems to be 'building up toward benefits for the former' and 'discouraging the latter if not consensual'. I'm looking forward to Caravans and Dungeon clashes the most because those are the perfect 'inbetween' for me.
I totally get that, and there's a realistic chance that will be how Ashes turns out. I just think there are many additional options that should be explored to make the game more engaging and meaningful for PvPers.
For example, if you wanted to make sure you discourage non-consensual "no warning" sieging: Why not make non-consensual outpost sieging opt-in, and confer a certain non-trivial, but still dispensable benefit to those (mayors/guilds/node citizens) who allow the risk (because they feel confident they can muster up the defences in time)?
Seconding everything else you've outlined.
No one but yourself can validate you for all the posts you *didn't* write.
In an MMORPG, one's PvP performance needs to depend on both skill and stats. Removing or reducing the stats part makes it a non-RPG game (as far as PvP goes). A trash well geared high level player shouldn't have much issue defeating a good low level player who hasn't yet put in the time and effort in progressing their character.
OWPvP is a must, unexpected PvP encounters, as well as PvP where you're not bound by some gamemode victory conditions, to a lot of us are the most enjoyable content.
High-rewarding group PvP gamemodes (sieges, etc.) are a good motivator for a PvPer to continue playing and progressing.
Gamemodes where you can prove yourself individually and as a group (dueling/arenas) are the cup of tea for lots of PvPers.
I think the only check AoC doesn't mark here is 1v1 dueling/arenas, due to rock-paper-scissors approach to classes. I suppose 1v1 arenas could be locked to your own class category.
Just wanted to comment on your first dot point.
Skill definetly needs to matter however the skill ceiling cant be to high either else you get darkfall effect when players were unkillable if they knew what they were doing and could escape or massacre less skilled players everytime :P cause thats causes people to quit its fine balance in making skill matter so i t feels impactful but not an impossible mountain for less skilled players to overcome at times.
Would also like to see terrain play a roll when it comes to strategic choices/location for combat. Often with tab target games terrain play a very little role in combat, ambushes/high grounds and thing were not super effective and wouldnt mind seeing terrain and location play a roll in large scale stuff
Same here, most of my memorable pvp moments were open world PvP encounters, plus a few exceptionally hilarious moments from ops or arranged fights.
I think the major difference between "encounters" and "arranged fights" (arena, battlegrounds etc.) is the former usually feels like a "live-or-death fight", while the later feels like a "sports game". The emotions you invest into them are just different.
That being said, satisfying "encounters" are usually hard to come by -- given that in an open world environment, the attacker usually starts with multiple advantages and the fights are rarely fair:
- attackers start with element of surprise
- attackers generally pick targets that they perceive to be weaker / "beatable"
- attackers are usually far more prepared (attacking using "pvp builds", in games where such thing exists)
And so you often end up with one sided wins, or the other party just runs or evades you (if they can), or you're forced to yolo yourself into an unwinnable fight out of pure boredom. (Basically sums up my Eve Online pvp experience)
That's where arranged fights come in imo. It won't give you the most satisfying experience (coz you're not as invested in it), but can reliably provide you with moderately satisfying experiences (coz fairness is usually enforced to a certain degree).
Open world pvp. Swift kicks over steep cliffs make me happy.
1
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited June 2023
What makes for good pvp can be a number of factors..
1) good reason
Good reason in the first place, be that political rivalry, defensive or offensive strategy, monetary gain..
2) suitable challenge
no fun in inequitable pvp,;be that too easy or too difficult. If suitably difficult.. now difficult may be seen as the individual fight itself or the larger issue of the ongoing battle or larger again the war..
When at war, it is less relevant if an individual fight was easy or hard and more the bigger agenda.
3) reward
What is the end goal; territory, bosses, resources..
What makes PvP good, is the "Unknown" knowing that most people will not bother you because of repercussions. Though you always have to keep your head on a swivel and eyes open, their will ALWAYS be someone willing to take the risk to see what you have in your backpack!
I don't want to play a game where I have a 100% comfort blanket on. I don't want to have to "Flag" like new world, if you enter a area where you can be killed then trust no one. If someone comes up to you and says "Hey you like my new spear"? And as you reply it's inserted in your face.
TwitchTV Streamer: The Hidden Dagger Inn Saturday's 5:00 PM Cst And
Wednesday's at 7:00 PM Cst
Dopamine
PvP feels good & rewarding when there are good PvE and PvP reasons & rewards for doing so. In AoC the PvE and PvP reasons, risks and rewards all revolve around node control, and hence synergistic PvX gameplay should emerge! In other words, everything from gathering to wars revolves around node control, and this will give us that oft-quoted but illusive 'meaningful' gameplay that we have been promised by every MMO since EQ. Adrenaline
PvP feels good when there are unpredictable moments, unbalanced encounters and unscheduled events building excitement, danger and unpredictability. I a note sure what random and unexpected PvP moments will arise in AoC, apart from a spot of bother from the occasional corrupted.
Unpredictability, simply put i enjoy pvp especialy open world pvp becuase it makes the world unpredictable, pve games are incredably boring to me since there so predictable.
PvP especialy open world pvp is unpredictable and not always fair so getting jumped or sneaking up on somone gets the blood flowing to either escape or come out on top, those tend to be more memorable moments when you overcome the odds either winning a fight your outnumbered or escaping a zerg, or getting a big score or loosing one these tend to have more emotional responses which makes them more memorable and an experience.
Mindlessly pveing/grinding without a care in the world is just boring because no threat or unpredictability where developers have tried to make the most "fair" PvE experience by removing thing like mob trains, high level mobs from zones or any form of possible unpredictability that can occur the zones and gameplay feel so ridgid and predictable.
Everquest for me has beed the best PvE experience for me for some reasons below
- Same level mobs didnt mean same difficulty there was like 5 difficulties (Easy, normal, hard, difficult and im gonna fk you up) not all lvl 25 mobs were the same in strength
- Mob patrols (still exsist in some games to date not as common though)
- trains mobs didnt leash so you had to be wary of mob trains to the zone, player would usualy shout it in chat so u knew to get out of the way but sometimes they couldnt.
- High level mobs in low level zones
- factions and reputation for mobs most mobs had a faction that reduced and increased faction with other mobs for example killing enough guards in a town might actualy make mobs dungeons not KoS to you cause they like you killed the guards Also some cities had corrupted guards which if your not carful might become KoS to you and wack you in town (Non corrupted guards would also assist the corrupted guard aswell because they dont know better)
All in all the older games PvE wise felt more alive/living world than the current ones on the market which seems to have deleted the living world elements to make the game convient for more players.
I think the major difference between "encounters" and "arranged fights" (arena, battlegrounds etc.) is the former usually feels like a "live-or-death fight", while the later feels like a "sports game". The emotions you invest into them are just different..
That being said, satisfying "encounters" are usually hard to come by -- given that in an open world environment, the attacker usually starts with multiple advantages and the fights are rarely fair:
- attackers start with element of surprise
- attackers generally pick targets that they perceive to be weaker / "beatable"
- attackers are usually far more prepared (attacking using "pvp builds", in games where such thing exists)
And so you often end up with one sided wins, or the other party just runs or evades you (if they can), or you're forced to yolo yourself into an unwinnable fight out of pure boredom. (Basically sums up my Eve Online pvp experience)
This is my experience as well, and is usually rampant during the early days of a new game/server, when people are leveling up. Some leverage the level difference as much as they can. Over time, most players reach the level cap, and "only" skill, gear and numbers seperate players.
During the early days of World of Warcraft, the jungle was a common gank spot. We used to hide a few friends behind tree's, and park a low level bait in the middle of the path. What made it hillarious, was the oh so predictable outcome.
I understand why scheduled PvP is a thing, I understand why 'no warning' PvP is a thing, and the current design seems to be 'building up toward benefits for the former' and 'discouraging the latter if not consensual'. I'm looking forward to Caravans and Dungeon clashes the most because those are the perfect 'inbetween' for me.
I totally get that, and there's a realistic chance that will be how Ashes turns out. I just think there are many additional options that should be explored to make the game more engaging and meaningful for PvPers.
For example, if you wanted to make sure you discourage non-consensual "no warning" sieging: Why not make non-consensual outpost sieging opt-in, and confer a certain non-trivial, but still dispensable benefit to those (mayors/guilds/node citizens) who allow the risk (because they feel confident they can muster up the defences in time)?
Seconding everything else you've outlined.
I find your discussion interesting.
My first thought going through the early posts was how MOBA vs MMO in some ways are comparable to Planetside vs Counterstrike.
Counterstrike is a fixed number of players fighting for control in a limited area with (mostly) predictable movement patterns and conflict zones, whereas Planetside is more chaotic in nature.
In my initial analysis of your discussion, I thought the same would apply for MOBA vs MMO.
Personally, I would believe a "less rules, less restrictions" approach would benefit the game. This kinda touch on a slightly related topic; Do you create a game for everyone that noone likes, or a game for a few that they will love?
My confidence in this project has been tied to Stevens statements about avoiding to appeal to everyone.
However, building a niche passion project for the minority group, also means passing up on (seemingly) greater profit. A trap many MMO developer (or publisher) studios have fallen victim of.
0
Options
FantmxMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
It occurs only when it needs to and has clear reasoning behind it to make it feel meaningful.
As for PvP experiences. My most memorable PvP moments were
1. Back in vanilla WoW, starting fights 1v1 or 1v2 in Hillsbrad foothills, and over the course of an hour or 2 it would escalate into an all out war pushing back and forth between Southshore and Tarren Mill. It's by far one of my favorite WoW memories, and it happened very often on my server naturally.
2. Guild Wars 2 WvW, back when they had their original buffs before they made stability stacking. It was near perfect large scale PvP. I was in a guild where we ran in a 15 to 30 player deep group, usually around 20, and we would hunt down massive zero groups of 50+ and outplay them. It was so much fun having so much cohesiveness with my guild, allowing us to take down groups far larger than ourselves. And I'll never forget using death from above on my warrior (you deal damage and knockback in an AOE when you land from a high enough jump) onto a cliff edge on top of a group I saw flanking us, and knocked half of them to their deaths because it was before they nerfed it.
3. Twinking in WoW. While it was mainly fun to play in battlegrounds, it was also fun to run out to hillsbrad or STV as a 19 rogue and fight level 29s. I made a bit of a name for myself, and I even added a bit of RP, challenging enemy faction players, allowing then to decline the duel if they wished.
4. And of course, I loved revenge killing enemy players who interrupted my gathering runs. Fighting for resources made it far more interesting they running in a circle efficiently.
And in regard to curated conditions. Technically Ashesbif Creation is curating many conditions to incentivize world PvP. Just because it isn't a capture the flag battle ground doesn't mean it isn't curated by the systems in place to promote conflict between nodes and players in the open world.
And in regard to curated conditions. Technically Ashesbif Creation is curating many conditions to incentivize world PvP. Just because it isn't a capture the flag battle ground doesn't mean it isn't curated by the systems in place to promote conflict between nodes and players in the open world.
I guess a clarification of "arranged" and "curated" is in order, thank you for pointing that out.
When I speak of arranged and curated PvP, I was mainly thinking of 1v1 duels, or arena/battleground type of instanced combat between two groups of equal numbers, like capture the flag type battles.
A caravan is forcing players trying to move goods into a pvp-active enviroment, with incentive for both attackers and defenders to engage in pvp and win. Higly curated, but not neccessarily arranged.
A castle siege, while not arranged, is certainly planned. I guess AoC is looking to cover all bases.
Comments
I can say that I would never want Ashes PvP to be primarily about 'military operations'.
So to go back. I began by talking about the way MOBAs are 'effectively really sped up versions of PvX MMORPG servers' and suggested that some efforts to be at least at the MOBA levels of retention would be good because the MOBAs have the retention advantage here through methods that aren't available in MMORPGs.
But I realize now that I have made an assumption in my arrogance, so I'll pinpoint where.
The flow we started that led to that criticism was 'Noaani and I noting that you have to avoid the player retention problem in some way', and this came about because of MOBA stuff.
But here's the thing about that, MOBA Ranked queues often don't even let you queue with a full group. All coordination is on the fly, and both sides are at natural 'peak potential flow'. Similarly, it's often considerably better for a 'full stack' to train to fight together without any direct coordination at all.
And the issue is that this is exactly why dominant guilds remain dominant in PvP MMOs. We're talking people that don't have to discuss anything to be super effective. They just 'know' from experience with each other. They make mistakes, certainly, but not at the level that the 'ragtag alliance' normally can do anything about. This whole thing was my thought process going into it, so your response seemed weird to me.
MOBAs also do whatever they can to protect 'random group of 5 players queued together' from 'full stack of 5 who know each other's tactics perfectly', because the result from the Randoms is generally not 'hey guys let's be friends and work out our strategy to beat those guys'.
Your thoughts on this post were about 'scheduled PvP' and how it's not necessary, but I wasn't talking about any of that really. Because at '1/100th speed' a MOBA match doesn't have any scheduled PvP. But it does have enough structure to keep things somewhat fair to keep you from just getting beat on, or to let you know that if you are getting beat on, there's an upside somewhere else.
This is where PvP MMOs fall short, and where they have to work to get up to where MOBAs are.
You were still perfectly in your right to comment without taking scheduling/protection measures into account at all: The thread's title was definitely open to any ideas about what good PvP is comprised of in general. But that was why I interpreted your remarks to be related to that topic. I probably Occam's-razored too indiscriminately there, sorry. (Which is my copium-infused way of saying that I may have jumped to stereotypes.)
I took your comparison to the 1/100th speed MOBA in a complex theoretical/ideological sense. In my vision, the level 4 Ryze was a group of PvE players doing their thing, and the roaming level 18 Darius at minute 5 was a bunch of zergers stealing their castle in the night, purely by merit of bad game balancing.
And the way in which the balance of predictability, self-accountability for overextending, and general merit-rewarding nature of the MOBA would be introduced to that scene in your proposed game design change, was through scheduled sieges and Corruption.
But now I think you meant it a bit more practically than that.
In a more practical example, I really like the idea of directly managing this ambition of establishing the MOBA balance of "Correct play versus incorrect play = Advantage":
If not pre-scheduled, this could be achieved through tasks that naturally need to happen at certain times in the game, so people would organically run into each other at certain natural hotspot times, in naturally balanced numbers (perhaps only a certain number of players can benefit from being at a certain location, or perhaps you do control how many people may go through a portal, or you increase the resource cost for every person who steps through), with advantages restricted by their success in the game up to that point.
If this were to happen in the game without always requiring the formal "We'll attack your castle at 6pm in two days, be prepared" announcements, every time for every size of territory-related PvP objectives (Again, not saying the game has to have specifically forts and castles; it's just what I know that works better than just loot opportunities) then I would absolutely love it.
Like literally sending a predictable number of players down "lanes" when the minions spawn, just at a larger scale and with a longer game clock.
It's my initial interpretation of your suggestion as "do whatever it takes to make it a 5v5 or a 20v20, with a pre-announced event timer" that I took issue with.
EDIT because I didn't address this: Yeah. I think MMOs should aspire to far less protection in the pure skill department. Some matchmaking ranking for an arena would be fine, but in general, I think it's the nature of the beast that at the very least a pure skill&coordination difference should lead to the expected advantage for the tryhard guild/group. That's definitely an aspect of MMO design where I think you have to leave it up to the players to learn to pick their battles, and I'd argue 99% of players are aware of that and accept that when they do something like join a guild.
Then I'm glad, it seems that we got through all that and I can confirm we're on the same page in that regard. It is what I'm hoping for and expecting from Ashes. I have some other perspectives that I may share in another thread sometime relative to this (it's an Elite Dangerous thing, though, so it has too much preamble).
The tl;dr for if this thread is of any use to Intrepid is:
By implementing NPCs and 'Security Levels' and whatnot on 'both sides', Elite manages some 'True PvX' situations in its Conflict Zones without adding too many restrictions. I don't have to build 'the #1 PvP battleship' because the Conflict Zone will already contain some number of those on my 'side', I just have to figure out how to help them. At the same time, there's not going to be a lot I can do if a bunch of true enemy ace pilots show up to take them all out. I just won't need to think about 'how far I am from being able to 1v1 a Federal Corvette'.
I understand why scheduled PvP is a thing, I understand why 'no warning' PvP is a thing, and the current design seems to be 'building up toward benefits for the former' and 'discouraging the latter if not consensual'. I'm looking forward to Caravans and Dungeon clashes the most because those are the perfect 'inbetween' for me.
For example, if you wanted to make sure you discourage non-consensual "no warning" sieging: Why not make non-consensual outpost sieging opt-in, and confer a certain non-trivial, but still dispensable benefit to those (mayors/guilds/node citizens) who allow the risk (because they feel confident they can muster up the defences in time)?
Seconding everything else you've outlined.
Just wanted to comment on your first dot point.
Skill definetly needs to matter however the skill ceiling cant be to high either else you get darkfall effect when players were unkillable if they knew what they were doing and could escape or massacre less skilled players everytime :P cause thats causes people to quit its fine balance in making skill matter so i t feels impactful but not an impossible mountain for less skilled players to overcome at times.
I think the major difference between "encounters" and "arranged fights" (arena, battlegrounds etc.) is the former usually feels like a "live-or-death fight", while the later feels like a "sports game". The emotions you invest into them are just different.
That being said, satisfying "encounters" are usually hard to come by -- given that in an open world environment, the attacker usually starts with multiple advantages and the fights are rarely fair:
- attackers start with element of surprise
- attackers generally pick targets that they perceive to be weaker / "beatable"
- attackers are usually far more prepared (attacking using "pvp builds", in games where such thing exists)
And so you often end up with one sided wins, or the other party just runs or evades you (if they can), or you're forced to yolo yourself into an unwinnable fight out of pure boredom. (Basically sums up my Eve Online pvp experience)
That's where arranged fights come in imo. It won't give you the most satisfying experience (coz you're not as invested in it), but can reliably provide you with moderately satisfying experiences (coz fairness is usually enforced to a certain degree).
1) good reason
Good reason in the first place, be that political rivalry, defensive or offensive strategy, monetary gain..
2) suitable challenge
no fun in inequitable pvp,;be that too easy or too difficult. If suitably difficult.. now difficult may be seen as the individual fight itself or the larger issue of the ongoing battle or larger again the war..
When at war, it is less relevant if an individual fight was easy or hard and more the bigger agenda.
3) reward
What is the end goal; territory, bosses, resources..
I don't want to play a game where I have a 100% comfort blanket on. I don't want to have to "Flag" like new world, if you enter a area where you can be killed then trust no one. If someone comes up to you and says "Hey you like my new spear"? And as you reply it's inserted in your face.
Wednesday's at 7:00 PM Cst
https://www.youtube.com/@TheHiddenDaggerInn/featured
PvP feels good & rewarding when there are good PvE and PvP reasons & rewards for doing so. In AoC the PvE and PvP reasons, risks and rewards all revolve around node control, and hence synergistic PvX gameplay should emerge! In other words, everything from gathering to wars revolves around node control, and this will give us that oft-quoted but illusive 'meaningful' gameplay that we have been promised by every MMO since EQ.
Adrenaline
PvP feels good when there are unpredictable moments, unbalanced encounters and unscheduled events building excitement, danger and unpredictability. I a note sure what random and unexpected PvP moments will arise in AoC, apart from a spot of bother from the occasional corrupted.
Completely agree!
Good analysis!
This is my experience as well, and is usually rampant during the early days of a new game/server, when people are leveling up. Some leverage the level difference as much as they can. Over time, most players reach the level cap, and "only" skill, gear and numbers seperate players.
During the early days of World of Warcraft, the jungle was a common gank spot. We used to hide a few friends behind tree's, and park a low level bait in the middle of the path. What made it hillarious, was the oh so predictable outcome.
I find your discussion interesting.
My first thought going through the early posts was how MOBA vs MMO in some ways are comparable to Planetside vs Counterstrike.
Counterstrike is a fixed number of players fighting for control in a limited area with (mostly) predictable movement patterns and conflict zones, whereas Planetside is more chaotic in nature.
In my initial analysis of your discussion, I thought the same would apply for MOBA vs MMO.
Personally, I would believe a "less rules, less restrictions" approach would benefit the game. This kinda touch on a slightly related topic; Do you create a game for everyone that noone likes, or a game for a few that they will love?
My confidence in this project has been tied to Stevens statements about avoiding to appeal to everyone.
However, building a niche passion project for the minority group, also means passing up on (seemingly) greater profit. A trap many MMO developer (or publisher) studios have fallen victim of.
As for PvP experiences. My most memorable PvP moments were
1. Back in vanilla WoW, starting fights 1v1 or 1v2 in Hillsbrad foothills, and over the course of an hour or 2 it would escalate into an all out war pushing back and forth between Southshore and Tarren Mill. It's by far one of my favorite WoW memories, and it happened very often on my server naturally.
2. Guild Wars 2 WvW, back when they had their original buffs before they made stability stacking. It was near perfect large scale PvP. I was in a guild where we ran in a 15 to 30 player deep group, usually around 20, and we would hunt down massive zero groups of 50+ and outplay them. It was so much fun having so much cohesiveness with my guild, allowing us to take down groups far larger than ourselves. And I'll never forget using death from above on my warrior (you deal damage and knockback in an AOE when you land from a high enough jump) onto a cliff edge on top of a group I saw flanking us, and knocked half of them to their deaths because it was before they nerfed it.
3. Twinking in WoW. While it was mainly fun to play in battlegrounds, it was also fun to run out to hillsbrad or STV as a 19 rogue and fight level 29s. I made a bit of a name for myself, and I even added a bit of RP, challenging enemy faction players, allowing then to decline the duel if they wished.
4. And of course, I loved revenge killing enemy players who interrupted my gathering runs. Fighting for resources made it far more interesting they running in a circle efficiently.
And in regard to curated conditions. Technically Ashesbif Creation is curating many conditions to incentivize world PvP. Just because it isn't a capture the flag battle ground doesn't mean it isn't curated by the systems in place to promote conflict between nodes and players in the open world.
I guess a clarification of "arranged" and "curated" is in order, thank you for pointing that out.
When I speak of arranged and curated PvP, I was mainly thinking of 1v1 duels, or arena/battleground type of instanced combat between two groups of equal numbers, like capture the flag type battles.
A caravan is forcing players trying to move goods into a pvp-active enviroment, with incentive for both attackers and defenders to engage in pvp and win. Higly curated, but not neccessarily arranged.
A castle siege, while not arranged, is certainly planned. I guess AoC is looking to cover all bases.
Something so satisfying about an environmental kill 😈