PvE Players tell me why you follow Ashes of Creation

Doesn't matter if the first time you saw Ashes was in kickstarter, or just learned of the project 2 weeks ago.

As a PvE first player, what makes you look forward to PvE in AoC or what was the defining feature that you're looking forward to?

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Ayeveegaming1

Dygz wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

I already know this is going to open a big steaming pile of semantics but risk is to incur the CHANCE of unfortunate consequences by engaging in (an action). It's not meant to always be consistent. Sometimes you can get away with it, sometimes you can't. Predictability is the staple of NPCs, while players tend to be much harder to predict.

Every time Steven talks about Risk it always seems to just mean more PvP encounters.

What risk would you like him to talk about?

Dygz

Risk from mobs and NPCs are good enough for me.

But, instead of obsessing over Risk v Reward - I wish Steven had kept the original pillar: Meaningful Conflict.

Depraved

there are different levels of risks and different levels of rewards. not all the risks and rewards are equal uwu

Ayeveegaming1

Dygz wrote: »

Risk from mobs and NPCs are good enough for me.

But, instead of obsessing over Risk v Reward - I wish Steven had kept the original pillar: Meaningful Conflict.

what do you want as meaningful combat?

Dygz

And, still, when Steven mentions Risk v Reward he pretty much means more PvP and commensurate rewards to justify why there should be more PvP.

Dolyem

Dygz wrote: »

Risk from mobs and NPCs are good enough for me.

But, actually, instead of obsessing over Risk v Reward - I wish Steven had kept the original pillar: Meaningful Conflict.

Wouldn't this purely be encounter mechanics and mob difficulties? I could see maybe talking about how to identify risks in difficulty of mobs through things like normal NPCs, Rare NPCs, Elites, and bosses. But PvE risk assessment tends to USUALLY be more straightforward in terms of risking death. Maybe start another discussion with new PVE risk suggestions?

Abarat

Noaani wrote: »

or can make it so the encounter is literally impossible to kill (EQ2 PvP servers - hardest PvP content of any game, literally unkillable).

Which encounter are you referring to? or are you just saying being contested while fighting mobs made the mobs unkillable.

Abarat

Dygz wrote: »

Risk from mobs and NPCs are good enough for me.

But, instead of obsessing over Risk v Reward - I wish Steven had kept the original pillar: Meaningful Conflict.

if I bet $5 at the blackjack table it is ok.

At some point, as you increase the bet, it becomes "meaningful". Losing will feel bad. Winning will feel great.

All 'meaningful conflict' means to me is high stakes outcomes, which is almost literally how i understand risk vs. reward.

Raven016

Abarat wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Risk from mobs and NPCs are good enough for me.

But, instead of obsessing over Risk v Reward - I wish Steven had kept the original pillar: Meaningful Conflict.

if I bet $5 at the blackjack table it is ok.

At some point, as you increase the bet, it becomes "meaningful". Losing will feel bad. Winning will feel great.

All 'meaningful conflict' means to me is high stakes outcomes, which is almost literally how i understand risk vs. reward.

If I such a thing would happen in a dream and the one who plays is Steven and those 5$ are taken from the game budget, that dream will be a nightmare. Especially if he will say 5$ is not meaningful enough.

Dhaiwon

Abarat wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Risk from mobs and NPCs are good enough for me.

But, instead of obsessing over Risk v Reward - I wish Steven had kept the original pillar: Meaningful Conflict.

if I bet $5 at the blackjack table it is ok.

At some point, as you increase the bet, it becomes "meaningful". Losing will feel bad. Winning will feel great.

All 'meaningful conflict' means to me is high stakes outcomes, which is almost literally how i understand risk vs. reward.

That is an interesting way to view "meaningful". Even more so since that is quite far from how I would have explained the words "meaningful conflict". I would have focused on there being some good and compelling reason for fighting instead. Such as the caravans, the different sieges. Or the loot that other drop.
It is possible to describe some of those things they way you did, and the potential for great benefits is one potential reason to fight, but you can also have good reasons even without lucrative rewards involved. Such a simple being driven by storyline, to name one.

So while your way of describing it is at least partially technically true, it also comes with a very different focus than what I read into the words. It just goes to show how much our own assumptions and wants go into understanding the words we read and the difficulties involved in communication.

Abarat

Dhaiwon wrote: »

I would have focused on there being some good and compelling reason for fighting instead.

I think we are not as far off as you think in our thinking.

Meaningful just means you are motivated to win and losing will cause some difficulty/hardship/cost/disappointment.

I dont think Steven wants meaningful to mean you can get a prize/reward/benefit without the risk of some penalty/cost.

Abarat

Raven016 wrote: »

Abarat wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Risk from mobs and NPCs are good enough for me.

But, instead of obsessing over Risk v Reward - I wish Steven had kept the original pillar: Meaningful Conflict.

if I bet $5 at the blackjack table it is ok.

At some point, as you increase the bet, it becomes "meaningful". Losing will feel bad. Winning will feel great.

All 'meaningful conflict' means to me is high stakes outcomes, which is almost literally how i understand risk vs. reward.

If I such a thing would happen in a dream and the one who plays is Steven and those 5$ are taken from the game budget, that dream will be a nightmare. Especially if he will say 5$ is not meaningful enough.

not sure i understand what you mean?

is this a haiku?

Raven016

Abarat wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

Abarat wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Risk from mobs and NPCs are good enough for me.

But, instead of obsessing over Risk v Reward - I wish Steven had kept the original pillar: Meaningful Conflict.

if I bet $5 at the blackjack table it is ok.

At some point, as you increase the bet, it becomes "meaningful". Losing will feel bad. Winning will feel great.

All 'meaningful conflict' means to me is high stakes outcomes, which is almost literally how i understand risk vs. reward.

If I such a thing would happen in a dream and the one who plays is Steven and those 5$ are taken from the game budget, that dream will be a nightmare. Especially if he will say 5$ is not meaningful enough.

not sure i understand what you mean?

is this a haiku?

yes

Dolyem

Raven016 wrote: »

Abarat wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

Abarat wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Risk from mobs and NPCs are good enough for me.

But, instead of obsessing over Risk v Reward - I wish Steven had kept the original pillar: Meaningful Conflict.

if I bet $5 at the blackjack table it is ok.

At some point, as you increase the bet, it becomes "meaningful". Losing will feel bad. Winning will feel great.

All 'meaningful conflict' means to me is high stakes outcomes, which is almost literally how i understand risk vs. reward.

If I such a thing would happen in a dream and the one who plays is Steven and those 5$ are taken from the game budget, that dream will be a nightmare. Especially if he will say 5$ is not meaningful enough.

not sure i understand what you mean?

is this a haiku?

yes

-repetitive finger snaps-

Noaani

Dolyem wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Vyril wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

What PVE am I looking forward to the most? I think world bosses will be fun. But it's hard to say anything will be strictly PVE in this game, since it's focus is PvX. I am mostly looking forward to seeing how well PvP will be incorporated into PvE content and vice versa across all aspects of the game to achieve the best PvX experience.

Would you say as somebody looking forward to PvX you enjoy having PvE with risk vs reward?
Is the current implementation of risk vs reward appealing to you?

I find it funny when people call PvP "risk vs reward".

I find it funny that you still dont realize that the risk is "losing a pvp encounter, gaining xp debt, dropping raw mats, spawning back to the nearest village far away, lose morale, lose the raid and perhaps hear the guild complains" and the reward is "you won the pvp encounter, you get the raid, you get to keep leveling grinding getting closer to lv cap/better gear, you become a guild/server legend" over and over again in the owpvp mmo.

I find it funny that you think any of this is true.

If the risk component of risk vs reward comes from PvP in the most part, then that risk is at best inconsistent - yet the rewards will be the same.

In my experience, that PvP presence can range from literally no one attacking you the entire pull (had this on Kraken and Red Dragon in Archeage, both for different reasons), or can make it so the encounter is literally impossible to kill (EQ2 PvP servers - hardest PvP content of any game, literally unkillable). Clearly, there are many points in between these two points - but the real point is the inconsistent nature of the "risk" while the rewards remain the same.

I already know this is going to open a big steaming pile of semantics but risk is to incur the CHANCE of unfortunate consequences by engaging in (an action). It's not meant to always be consistent. Sometimes you can get away with it, sometimes you can't. Predictability is the staple of NPCs, while players tend to be much harder to predict.

So, it isnt risk vs reward (the idea of being able to increase or decrease the risk you face, while there being an increase or decrease in reward), but rather is a roll of the dice.

I'm not saying PvP isnt sometimes going to end up with a loss (50% of the time it will), I'm saying it doesnt fit the core concept of risk vs reward. It can be a risk, for sure, and it can also be rewarding. The problem is, those two aspects are not linked up in any direct way.

Noaani

Abarat wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

or can make it so the encounter is literally impossible to kill (EQ2 PvP servers - hardest PvP content of any game, literally unkillable).

Which encounter are you referring to? or are you just saying being contested while fighting mobs made the mobs unkillable.

I've talked about this a few times on these forums.

EQ2 is designed as a PvE game. Always was, always will be. Part of that PvE is some open world contested raid bosses. These are some of the hardest encounters in the game (a game that is already based on challenging PvE) due to punishing mechanics and being tuned to where a single mistake usually causes a wipe.

But then EQ2 has a few PvP servers.

The developers made it clear they weren't altering content for PvP servers because it isnt important enough.

As such, these encounters were never killed on the PvP servers, despite those servers being in the top few to clear instanced raid content (ie, the players were good enough and geared enough). They were attempted - often for hours on end, day after day. Stil no kill.

The only way it would be possible is by agreement (or ambivalence) of every player on the server.

Dygz

Dolyem wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Risk from mobs and NPCs are good enough for me.

But, actually, instead of obsessing over Risk v Reward - I wish Steven had kept the original pillar: Meaningful Conflict.

Wouldn't this purely be encounter mechanics and mob difficulties? I could see maybe talking about how to identify risks in difficulty of mobs through things like normal NPCs, Rare NPCs, Elites, and bosses. But PvE risk assessment tends to USUALLY be more straightforward in terms of risking death. Maybe start another discussion with new PVE risk suggestions?

No. By Meaningful Conflict I'm still talking about incentives to PvP.
For example - if I want to complete my Racial progression, but to do so my Race has to to be the dominant Race of a Metro. Where, in this case, the motivator is more meaningful than material greed for uber treasure and resources that other player are carrying in their bags.

I'm planning to talk about the difference between Meaningful Conflict and Risk v Reward on The Ashen Forge this Sunday.

Dygz

Abarat wrote: »

I think we are not as far off as you think in our thinking.

Meaningful just means you are motivated to win and losing will cause some difficulty/hardship/cost/disappointment.

I dont think Steven wants meaningful to mean you can get a prize/reward/benefit without the risk of some penalty/cost.

Typically, when Steven is talking about Risk v Reward - he uses inventory loot as the primary motivator.
I find that to be pretty meaningless. But, again, I'll go into more detail about the differences on The Ashen Forge Sunday.

Dhaiwon

Abarat wrote: »

Dhaiwon wrote: »

I would have focused on there being some good and compelling reason for fighting instead.

I think we are not as far off as you think in our thinking.

Meaningful just means you are motivated to win and losing will cause some difficulty/hardship/cost/disappointment.

I dont think Steven wants meaningful to mean you can get a prize/reward/benefit without the risk of some penalty/cost.

You are still somewhat focusing on, or at least describing, meaningful in terms of direct gains/losses. Whereas i'm more thinking in the general term for there to be "a good reason" to fight. As in, not fighting for fighting sake.
And yes, as previously stated, direct gains or risk of loss are definitely example of a good reason, but I still think that the difference in focus between that and the more general notion of a good reason could lead to very different games.

That said, you may well be right about what Steven actually wanted to convey with those words, but that would be based on other information provided, not those words

Abarat

Dhaiwon wrote: »

You are still somewhat focusing on, or at least describing, meaningful in terms of direct gains/losses. Whereas i'm more thinking in the general term for there to be "a good reason" to fight. As in, not fighting for fighting sake.

Can you try to give some examples of what you mean? where there is a "good reason" to fight, but no direct gains/losses?

Child Item