AOC is NOT a PVP game.

AoC is a PVX game and that means something.

This started as a reply during another Forum post but It became long winded so I just made a post. As always any thoughts of your own are appreciated.

I think there is a general confusion on what AoC is trying to be and why some people incorrectly think that this game is being designed around Nostalgia or PVP. Its not.

I look at this game as closer to a Story to be read, or something you could write about and even if you didn't play there would be stories you would want to hear. You can have a version of meaningful conflict with out PVP for sure but the more you risk the bigger the conflict and the more interesting the story. Just look at Eve Online, I've barely touched that game but I've heard the stories and there's a chance you have to.

The idea isn't that you need to focus on your inventory when out collecting but that its a dangerous world full of conflict(terror). You need to address that, no one will likely disturb you but there is a chance and that chance pushes players in to Social content essentially. Players may provide protection services or people will group to collect to ensure safety or be aware of the other players and maybe be a little more friendly etc. Its simply not as simple as "other players want to kill me while I collect flowers and that's silly". Its that with out that you are sacrificing the core of the game and reducing the need for players to rely on each other.

Even the Nodes are designed to create conflict. So the goal is to create a world that feels in conflict. (Ideally they do add corruption effects to your character when you increase in corruption.) Where you are going out in to the world and your safety isn't guaranteed. When you see a player you ask yourself, who is that? what are they doing? what do they want? If they are corrupted, what do I do ? Did they kill someone that pissed them off or are they just out to cause trouble? You have just entered into conflict simply by being there.

People should be very clear that this is NOT a progression train that you hop on and off with no need to interact with other players and even when you do they might as well be AI for the value that it brings to the experience. I think In-fact you are most likely to prefer bots because the players tend to gravitate towards toxic behavior with a " if you slow me down you are hurting me and now I am pissed off" style of development. When i say Modern MMO's/RPGs feel empty it barely seems to even scratch the surface.

I played Wayfinder and that games feels so dam empty just like so many before it, for what it is its probably decent but I am not interested. There are a lot people that are upset that T&L has auto-play but because there is such a focus on just instant gratification that players and companies seem to just assume that anything outside that wont work, they design games that are one breath away from being AutoPlay. So clearly Autoplay was the next logical step.

Which is probably why it takes someone like Steven Shariff to change things. Remember WoW had 0 experience going in to making their MMO with only a vision and not enough money, before WoW they made RTS's and Action RPGs in a world where gaming itself was certainly not mainstream. If anyone remembers how silly their launch was and how little content the game had it would probably blow them away. It took them a full year or more to even get their servers in line. Either way they developed a game that everyone wanted to play for that time. Everyone projected a massive failure. They came out on top because their vision of WOW at that time hit the right chord.

Despite being the most popular MMORPG to date Blizzard are also oddly enough the last developer anyone should talk to before making their own MMORPG. They made what they made and that worked for them and that's it, even recently though it seems they don't understand why anyone keeps playing their own game.

Main Point is this, stop focusing on if this game is PVP or PVE, they operate together to achieve a larger goal from a Man who made a world as a Dungeon Master and wants to see that world live. Telling him to reduce the conflict points would be like telling GRR Martin to stop killing characters.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Fiddlez

Dygz wrote: »

Fiddlez wrote: »

Well I would disagree, some people agree and see what is being made but I watch a decent amount of content there is a lot that seem to really get hung up on why there are big Elements of Risk vs reward, PVP and lack of participation trophies.

I’m not aware of people getting hung up on “why” Ashes has an obsession with Risk v Reward or participation trophies or having PvP fused to every aspect of the game as much as possible.

Fiddlez wrote: »

In general I just think we as a community should change the conversations a bit towards what being a PVX means. We want stories and Social experiences, to be a part of a world where conflict exists and content is not purely based on a Railroad.

You could try that but…
I consider it a semantics issue with PvX trying to obfuscate that Ashes is really a PvP-centric MMORPG.
For me, once I understand that an MMORPG is PvP-centric, it can be called PvX. Doesn’t make a difference to me.
You could try to explain why you would not call Ashes a PvP-centric MMORPG if you wanted to but… I don’t think would make discussions much better.

List 2 “PvP MMORPGs” and 2 “PvX MMORPGs”?

Maybe we are just watching/reading different content. To be fair Theory forge is included in that, you 3 and your guests talk a lot about those 3 topics fairly frequently. Maybe I am watching you guys too much? Is that possible?

You yourself have made comments about it being ridiculous that someone would want to attack you while picking flowers for no reason or being forced to eat cake, why would you want to think about inventory and pvp before going out. I am saying comments like this are missing the point of why PVP is in the game and why they play off of each other.

What I am saying is it not PVP centric, the penalties are too severe to be PVP centric. They dont want me to kill you. Now if you fight back then that's an easy and fun experience to design also screw that guy when he wins. To me PVP Centric means PVP is the core design and everything promotes and encourages PVP. PVP Centric as far as I think would be Crowfall/Shadowbane, Mortal Online etc.

PVX would be Player vs X(anything). A world that supports all playstyles for a larger Goal. So arguably Vanilla WoW with PVP servers but otherwise the closest is Ultima Online,Eve Online, Lineage 2 and ArchAge. I am on probably more on the fence when it comes to Archeage/Lineage because they didn't seem to have much world building but either way it would probably be there. Maybe those two would be something in-between. The great part about AoC for me is that there is a much bigger focus on creating the social side/RPG of an MMORPG.

As a side Note I do not include games like retail WoW, BDO, New World etc., anything with the only focus on Player progression over anything else as a "MMORPG", they would be closer to Destiny and just be a MMO with some role play elements. It would be the equivalent of comparing Diablo 3 to Skyrim, neither of them belong together but we call them both RPGs. It seems like they are both "RPGs" because everyone lacks a better phrase/acronym.

Noaani

Fiddlez wrote: »

Main Point is this, stop focusing on if this game is PVP or PVE, they operate together to achieve a larger goal from a Man who made a world as a Dungeon Master and wants to see that world live.

The reason people focus on whether this game is PvP or PvE is because these are terms that many people have come to understand - and they have a fair idea how much they like each of them.

Designating a game as either PvP or PvE is a way for people to communicate the play type they can expect to get from the game.

As such, stating that a game is one or the other is perfectly valid.

Now, one could argue that every game that contains both PvP and PvE is in fact PvX. Thus, EQ2, WoW, Rift, L2, Archeage, Crowfall, BDO and Crowfall are all PvX. So is Ashes, by that standard.

However, with the above list of games, it seems fairly obvious that you could place them on a scale of more PvP all the way over to more PvE. As such, it is perfectly valid to place games on that scale and label those at the PvE end as being PvE games, and those at the PvP end as being PvP games.

Again, this is done to facilitate discussion between people as it is an easy means to express the gameplay someone in each of these games should expect.

If you just say the game is "PvX", literally no one on the planet can resolve that in to a valid expectation. If you say a game is a PvE MMO, most MMO players would have an understanding of what that means. If you say it is a PvP MMO, most MMO players would have an understanding of what that means.

So, when someone says that Ashes is a PvP MMO, just assume that is shorthand for "in a discussion with another MMO player, in trying to convey the expected gameplay of this game that has stated itself to fall somewhere on the PvX scale, it is more inclined towards the PvP side of said scale".

That is a conversion you should just do in your head, because no one should need to type that out.

Dygz

Fiddlez wrote: »

Maybe we are just watching/reading different content. To be fair Theory forge is included in that, you 3 and your guests talk a lot about those 3 topics fairly frequently. Maybe I am watching you guys too much? Is that possible?

All three were of our recent guests have been curious about why I suddenly switched to not being interested in playing Ashes.
Seems like people who have not been around since Kickstarter and our first interviews with Steven are oblivious to the recent changes in the game design and the recent focus on Risk v Reward and the value of adrenaline rush rather than talking about Meaningful Conflict.
So…they ask… and we explain how things have changed.

That is different than us asking why the game now has The Open Seas or why there is now an obsession with Risk v Reward.

Fiddlez wrote: »

You yourself have made comments about it being ridiculous that someone would want to attack you while picking flowers for no reason or being forced to eat cake, why would you want to think about inventory and pvp before going out. I am saying comments like this are missing the point of why PVP is in the game and why they play off of each other.

It’s not missing the point at all.
PvP has always been part of the game.
I have always been looking forward to the PvP associated with Meaningful Conflict in the Kickstarter. And I was fine with the compromise of Corruption being active in all zones.

PvP and PvE playing off of each other sounds different than the too being fused as much as possible.
Playing off of each other I would probably have to test to know if it’s too “PvP-centric” for me.
Fused to the degree it now seems Steven wants it to be - I don’t need to test to feel it’s too “PvP-centric” for me.

That’s not me asking why that is.
I understand why that is great for Steven’s target audience.
Just makes it clearer that my playstyle is not part of Steven’s target audience.

Fiddlez wrote: »

What I am saying is it not PVP centric, the penalties are too severe to be PVP centric. They dont want me to kill you. Now if you fight back then that's an easy and fun experience to design also screw that guy when he wins. To me PVP Centric means PVP is the core design and everything promotes and encourages PVP. PVP Centric as far as I think would be Crowfall/Shadowbane, Mortal Online etc.

OK. Although, I would probably place Shadowbane: Play To Crush firmly in the murderbox category. Yet, in 2018, when I asked Steven to name some murderbox MMORPGs, he did not name Shadowbane.
Instead, he said Lineage II could be a murderbox sometimes, but he feels that Corruption is harsher than Karma and will reduce that significantly.

So…at that point… Ashes seems less PvP-centric than those games.
I think we agree.

Fiddlez wrote: »

PVX would be Player vs X(anything). A world that supports all playstyles for a larger Goal. So arguably Vanilla WoW with PVP servers but otherwise the closest is Ultima Online,Eve Online, Lineage 2 and ArchAge.

Yep. Those games are too PvP-centric for me.
I told Steven that I’m our first interview with him so I could get a clearer idea of Steven’s goals for PvP.
I specifically asked him if his goals for Ashes PvP is similar to EvE Online and ArcheAge.
Steven said his goals were different than those two games because Ashes did not have permanent zones with (Corruption-free) FFA PvP content.
He said that Ashes would have Corruption active across the entire map.
That fit within my comfort zone with the caveat that I would need to test Corruption to be sure.

If he had said that he intends for Ashes to be in the same PvX category as EvE Online, ArcheAge and UO or WoW PvP servers, it would have been clear in 2018 that I was not in the target audience.
But, he danced away from confirming that.

Again, that is not a question about “why” Ashes now has The Open Seas or “why” Steven increasingly pushes Risk v Reward and adrenaline rush.

Fiddlez wrote: »

I am on probably more on the fence when it comes to Archeage/Lineage because they didn't seem to have much world building but either way it would probably be there. Maybe those two would be something in-between. The great part about AoC for me is that there is a much bigger focus on creating the social side/RPG of an MMORPG.

OK.
UO has always been too “PvP-centric” for me and Shadowbane at the far extreme.
I have never heard of UO being called a PvX MMORPG. But if that’s what you think UO is and Ashes is in the same category, sure…
That is clear that I am not in the Ashes target audience.
Which is totally fine. I’d have preferred if Steven had indicated that back in 2018.

Fiddlez wrote: »

As a side Note I do not include games like retail WoW, BDO, New World etc., anything with the only focus on Player progression over anything else as a "MMORPG", they would be closer to Destiny and just be a MMO with some role play elements. It would be the equivalent of comparing Diablo 3 to Skyrim, neither of them belong together but we call them both RPGs. It seems like they are both "RPGs" because everyone lacks a better phrase/acronym.

Retail WOW is an MMORPG.
BDO and New World are not. We agree.

Depraved

is wow a pvp or a pve game?

Solvryn

Fiddlez wrote: »

AoC is a PVX game and that means something.

Main Point is this, stop focusing on if this game is PVP or PVE, they operate together to achieve a larger goal from a Man who made a world as a Dungeon Master and wants to see that world live. Telling him to reduce the conflict points would be like telling GRR Martin to stop killing characters.

PvE, PvP, PvX it doesn't matter.

As long as the aliens understand, Verra Belongs To The Tulnar.

Sybil_Lanel

Fantmx wrote: »

AOC is game with PVP. I think everyone agrees on that.

Main Point is this, stop focusing on if this game is PVP or PVE

It's hard to not focus on one or the other when all of the systems are tied to one or the other or both. I would argue that focusing on making sure there is a balance between PvP and PvE in a way that this is a true PvX is one of the most important things we can do to help ensure it's success.

FFXIV is a game that has PvP but I don't think anyone would call it a PvP game. There is a big difference honestly. I hope everyone understands that this game is supposed to be somewhere in between though.

Noaani

Depraved wrote: »

is wow a pvp or a pve game?

If I were explaining WoW to someone that had played MMO's before but didn't know anything about WoW, I would say that the PvP servers act as a PvP game, but the PvE servers play as if it is a PvE game.

While one could get in to semantic arguments with that, a person with some MMORPG experience would have a basic understanding of what gameplay to expect.

Obviously there is deeper discussion that could be undertaken, but the base terms of "PvE" and "PvP" are a starting point for that discussion, if it were to happen.

Depraved

is wow a pvp or a pve game?

Noaani wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

is wow a pvp or a pve game?

If I were explaining WoW to someone that had played MMO's before but didn't know anything about WoW, I would say that the PvP servers act as a PvP game, but the PvE servers play as if it is a PvE game.

While one could get in to semantic arguments with that, a person with some MMORPG experience would have a basic understanding of what gameplay to expect.

Obviously there is deeper discussion that could be undertaken, but the base terms of "PvE" and "PvP" are a starting point for that discussion, if it were to happen.

nope. wow is 2 games in one. wow is basically like playing checkers or chess with the same board. or volleyball, soccer and basketball with the same ball.

for comparison, when you log in to league of legends, you can either play a 5v5 moba or tft, which is an auto chess type of game and has nothing to do with the moba. you access them both using the same client, but you have 2 different games.

wow is the same. you can just do battlegrounds and arena and ignore pve completely, or do dungeons and raids and ignore pvp completely. and of course, you can do both. but wow is basically 2 different games accessed using the same client and interface.

Noaani

Depraved wrote: »

wow is the same. you can just do battlegrounds and arena and ignore pve completely, or do dungeons and raids and ignore pvp completely. and of course, you can do both. but wow is basically 2 different games accessed using the same client and interface.

If I were talking to you about MMORPG's, and I said a new game coming out was a PvP game, you would not expect WoW battlegrounds and arena as the entire game.

On the other hand, if I said to you that WoW PvE servers played as a PvE MMORPG, you would get exactly what you expect.

Same with saying WoW PvP servers play as a PvP game - you would get exactly what you would expect.

The point isn't about trick questions, or semantics, it is about clear, easy communication of fundamentals of a game.

CROW3

WoW is a PVE game with some opt-in PvP.

Depraved

Noaani wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

wow is the same. you can just do battlegrounds and arena and ignore pve completely, or do dungeons and raids and ignore pvp completely. and of course, you can do both. but wow is basically 2 different games accessed using the same client and interface.

The point isn't about trick questions, or semantics, it is about clear, easy communication of fundamentals of a game.

agree, except the "game designers" in this forum cant even define the same things they are talking about unless they provide a subjective definition, which isnt the actual definition.

Veeshan

CROW3 wrote: »

WoW is a PVE game with some opt-in PvP.

This is how i see what a game is it depends on what the developer focus on when making the game

WoW is indeed a PvE game because majority of what they work on is PvE with a smidge of PvP as an after thought
PvP would be they focus more on development for PvP side of thing like seiges and battle grounds and so on with limited PvE development time
PvX is kinda doing both at once equally interwining the 2 system make the PvX game better which seems to be what AopC doing

Veeshan

Depraved wrote: »

is wow a pvp or a pve game?

PvE cause majority of development is on the PvE side probaly 95% PvE to 5% PvP development

Raven016

NiKr wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

ok. If those are instances which do not allow PvP then is a PvX game.
Can a corrupt player clean his corruption fighting NPCs there? Would make no sense to be possible (as game mechanic, not lore) but I am curious.

As Dolyem pointed out, your definition of pvx is not the same as Steven's. But no, I doubt red players will be able to enter instances, because those would probably require npc interactions and reds can't do that.

Steven is not the reference in everything. He cannot create new meaning to commonly used words by people on the planet. Thanks for pointing out Dolyem post. We posted at same time and I would have missed it.

Dolyem wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

Fiddlez wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

is PvX only if I can do Monday, Wednesday and Friday only PvE, without any risk of PvP.
Fighting NPCs having to look constantly around if anyone comes to take my resources makes it a PvP game.

I'm not entirely sure you even read what I wrote.

The title of your thread is "AOC is NOT a PVP game"
I checked your post and it does not contain the conditions to make it a PvX game.
I skipped the part where you said "I played Wayfinder ..."
Which part specifically explains that is PvX and not PvP?
I told you what I expect: to be able to have PvP sessions and PvE sessions.
Will the player be able to have PvE without any risk of being interrupted by PvP somewhere?

PvX requires you to participate in both PvP and PvE to progress. Not one or the other, both. So naturally, when fighting mobs in the wild, you will be required to look over your shoulder and be weary of other players.
There was a discussion not long ago talking about how practically all "PvP" MMORPGs are really just PvX, where PvP would have either no PvE or not require PvE at all.

That is what I call a PvP game or a PvP game experience. But not a good one considering the corruption and loot mechanics. Steven tries to attract PvE players to his game but he will be surprised to see that his trick will not work. Players who like PvE will stay with PvE games even if they want PvP sometime. And players who want PvE sometime will find themselves doing it by force if they become corrupt or will be forced to do objective PvP only when playing on land. True PvP-ers will be forced to go into the ocean where they have no nodes.

Noaani

Depraved wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

wow is the same. you can just do battlegrounds and arena and ignore pve completely, or do dungeons and raids and ignore pvp completely. and of course, you can do both. but wow is basically 2 different games accessed using the same client and interface.

The point isn't about trick questions, or semantics, it is about clear, easy communication of fundamentals of a game.

agree, except the "game designers" in this forum cant even define the same things they are talking about unless they provide a subjective definition, which isnt the actual definition.

Sometimes, logic needs to prevail.

In this case, if people are talking about a PvP MMORPG as a general term, then literally everyone on these forums should understand that any MMORPG in which it is possible to attack another player in the open world fits in to this definition.

Those people that define things are only compelled to do so because people refuse to let that basic logic prevail. Thus, if we want to point to people and say "stop that thing you are doing", it shouldn't be those that feel compelled to define what they are talking about, it should be those refusing to apply basic logic and thus compelling others to make those definitions.

Fiddlez

Noaani wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

is wow a pvp or a pve game?

If I were explaining WoW to someone that had played MMO's before but didn't know anything about WoW, I would say that the PvP servers act as a PvP game, but the PvE servers play as if it is a PvE game.

While one could get in to semantic arguments with that, a person with some MMORPG experience would have a basic understanding of what gameplay to expect.

Obviously there is deeper discussion that could be undertaken, but the base terms of "PvE" and "PvP" are a starting point for that discussion, if it were to happen.

I would only describe WoW as a PVP game during the beginning when there was actually open world PVP. There is Warmode now but honestly, if they knew WoW Warmode and you compared that to AoC, they would probably have a bad taste in their mouth and not want to play. Just killing and camping. I like PVP but open World WoW has never appealed to me minus the first few years.

Obviously you are very much allowed to disagree with me but I think if you explain this game to someone and you label it as a PVP game then you are doing it a disservice.

Noaani

Fiddlez wrote: »

Obviously you are very much allowed to disagree with me but I think if you explain this game to someone and you label it as a PVP game then you are doing it a disservice.

If you are talking to a general gamer and called Ashes a PvP game, sure.

If you are talking within the confines of an MMORPG, then not so much.

Fiddlez

Noaani wrote: »

Fiddlez wrote: »

Main Point is this, stop focusing on if this game is PVP or PVE, they operate together to achieve a larger goal from a Man who made a world as a Dungeon Master and wants to see that world live.

Designating a game as either PvP or PvE is a way for people to communicate the play type they can expect to get from the game.

As such, stating that a game is one or the other is perfectly valid.

Now, one could argue that every game that contains both PvP and PvE is in fact PvX. Thus, EQ2, WoW, Rift, L2, Archeage, Crowfall, BDO and Crowfall are all PvX. So is Ashes, by that standard.

However, with the above list of games, it seems fairly obvious that you could place them on a scale of more PvP all the way over to more PvE. As such, it is perfectly valid to place games on that scale and label those at the PvE end as being PvE games, and those at the PvP end as being PvP games.

If you just say the game is "PvX", literally no one on the planet can resolve that in to a valid expectation. If you say a game is a PvE MMO, most MMO players would have an understanding of what that means. If you say it is a PvP MMO, most MMO players would have an understanding of what that means.[/i]

If you are describing specific elements sure. If you said Ashes was a PVP game then that wouldn't really explain anything at all. This is not a binary thing.

I don't think you could argue and have many agree that having any PVE and PVP would make it a PVX game. I am certainly not saying you can't label those games. Minus Ashes,Lineage,Arche Age and UO. The experience you have in Ashes will be far different then anything else you've played unless you've played those games.

The only reason people wouldn't understand what PvX is would be if they were unfamiliar with the term, a brief explanation would cover that. If you told someone that Ashes was a PVP game you would be wrong, just as much as if you told someone WOW was a PVP game because it had Arenas and BGs. The penalty is MASSIVE for corruption. Everything will be OPT in outside of it.

Raven016

Fiddlez wrote: »

The penalty is MASSIVE for corruption. Everything will be OPT in outside of it.

So there will be no open world PvP?

Ull

i heard this is a pvp game

that sounds like a dong swinging contest with a lot of work

ill stick to pve, i dont feel the need to prove my dong is bigger than anyone elses because i already know it is, etc etc

haha

pve good

anyways hopefully i can place bets on which dong swingers will win fights somehow, i would like to turn the pvpers into animalian behavers that create entertainment for the masses via a colosseum, sort of like modern day football players or people trapped inside a human sized aquarium for alien entertainment…maybe the pvpers could make teams and then we pvers could have “fantasy pvp” in game where we all choose our favorite pvpers and decide who will win while the pvpers act uncivilized and go animal-kingdom on eachother

Child Item