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

Ull

Raven016 wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

I'll join an RP guild on an RP server ^^
I might end up their top PvPer as I have no RP skills in RL. But I like to watch them doing their stuff.

As soon as there's a community chosen RP server, there's gonna be at least one guild of people who'll be willing to fuck everyone over. At which point Steven would have to set some fairly particular rules as to what constitutes griefing in the game, cause I'm sure those PKers will find a way to justify their killings within the game's design.

How many players / servers do you think AoC should have, 6-12 months after release? What number should Steven aim to get?

I think Steverino is aiming to have 10-20 players per server, given that is the limit for tier 3 mounts which essentially require either a low server population or for a handful of individuals to turn the rest of the players into their wageless slaves so the handful can reap the benefits, i assume stevies goal is to have 1000 servers each with 10-20 players, since forcing wageless slavery on your players so a handful might benefit is anti-human/evil

Ludullu

Raven016 wrote: »

How many players / servers do you think AoC should have, 6-12 months after release? What number should Steven aim to get?

The number that will give them enough money to keep making the game.

Raven016

NiKr wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

How many players / servers do you think AoC should have, 6-12 months after release? What number should Steven aim to get?

The number that will give them enough money to keep making the game.

I give up.
I didn't expected this answer.
You can take half of my loot.

Noaani

Raven016 wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

I'll join an RP guild on an RP server ^^
I might end up their top PvPer as I have no RP skills in RL. But I like to watch them doing their stuff.

As soon as there's a community chosen RP server, there's gonna be at least one guild of people who'll be willing to fuck everyone over. At which point Steven would have to set some fairly particular rules as to what constitutes griefing in the game, cause I'm sure those PKers will find a way to justify their killings within the game's design.

How many players / servers do you think AoC should have, 6-12 months after release? What number should Steven aim to get?

12 months after release (maybe 18), my assumption is 4 NA, 4 EU, an AUS server that has been merged with at least one other region (probably SEA), and is likely to be merged with another at some point, a BR server and that is about it.

So, 10 servers is kind of the cap I see the game being at that point.

Thus, 200k players.

If they achieve this, I'd consider the game to be successful.

I doubt there are many other people out there that would put their neck out and give an actual number as to what they think.

Fiddlez

Raven016 wrote: »

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.

I don't think that's true at all. It's a spectrum most likely. Not only one or the other. If AoC provides a better PVE experience then who's to say what they will do?

I think this type of game is closer to a Conflict or Social MMORPG game. It might take a bit longer but I would almost guarantee that PVE players will have more fun in this then a game primarily designed around PVE. Sorry but Steven is 1000% right. Risk simply creates a better experience. You can have no risk but just like anything else, there's a cost to it.

I think players will enjoy being part of a world rather then what's being offered now. Where the players and zones bring an actual value to your playing experience.

Fiddlez

Noaani wrote: »

Fiddlez wrote: »

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.

Calling Ashes a PvP game would do a better job of describing it than calling it a PvE game, and calling it a PvX game means nothing.

This is perhaps the key point to me. PvX is meaningless - it is a marketing term designed to not turn people away from the game. It doesn't actually describe anything.

PvE describes a game where you can expect to not be attacked by other players, at least not unexpectedly.

PvP describes a game where you can expect to be attacked by other players.

Sure, calling Ashes PvP doesn't describe the game in detail, but it is the start of that description. None of the other terms can be considered the start of such a description.

It's definitely not a PVP game though. It's primarily PVE. Just like WoW most of your PVP experience will be in an organized opt in system. Otherwise be prepared for long hauls of PVE. I doubt Arenas or Caravans will create enough experience to really offer consistent enough progression. Most likely not seeing very much PVP in the world. The PVP players will be coming for the Sieges,Naval,Caravan. Because of the Combatant phase there should be open world too but that's almost entirely opt in. You might as well under those parameters describe Any game with PVP as a PVP game but clearly you would be doing a disservice.

Why do you think when describing it you are restricted to terms that people understand or are familiar with? I used to have to explain what an MMO was. If I need to explain what PVX is or a Conflict MMORPG is then that seems pretty simple.

If someone was familiar with Skyrim would you tell them that Diablo 4 is also a RPG and reccomend it? Just like those two you will be required to go in to further depth to describe what exactly it is. Isometric action RPG with a focus on gear progression meaning primarily combat based progression "....I could just say RPG by your logic as a start but that would do absolutely nothing for the other person and would be closer to misleading.

Raven016

Fiddlez wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

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.

I don't think that's true at all. It's a spectrum most likely. Not only one or the other. If AoC provides a better PVE experience then who's to say what they will do?

I think this type of game is closer to a Conflict or Social MMORPG game. It might take a bit longer but I would almost guarantee that PVE players will have more fun in this then a game primarily designed around PVE. Sorry but Steven is 1000% right. Risk simply creates a better experience. You can have no risk but just like anything else, there's a cost to it.

I think players will enjoy being part of a world rather then what's being offered now. Where the players and zones bring an actual value to your playing experience.

I think you are right. The social aspect is the main goal of the game, what Steven tries to achieve.
That would happen in any game where you have a siege mechanic. Someone with initiative will contact attackers and tell them 'Hey, don't siege us, let's talk about it and make an alliance and attack together that other city.'
Developing a node will be much harder without corruption or with a lenient one because citizens of a node will fight eachother and only large guilds would be able to be free of inner conflicts.

Maybe thanks to this social aspect, some nodes will have enough inner peaceful regions closer to PvE while at borders there will be a PvP war area.

Noaani

Fiddlez wrote: »

It's definitely not a PVP game though.

It is definately a PvP MMORPG.

As I said, in the wide context of "games", Ashes isn't overly PvP. One need look at CS:GO for a more PvP game.

In the context of MMORPG's, however, Ashes is very PvP oriented.

If you like, feel free to go around correcting everyone that calls Ashes a PvP game by saying it is a PvP MMORPG.

Depraved

Noaani wrote: »

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.

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.

people cant even say what an rpg is in this forum xDDDDDDD, but i agree, they should know. but reality is they dont.

Noaani

Depraved wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

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.

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.

people cant even say what an rpg is in this forum

People, or person?

My understanding on this debate - that I have mostly kept out of - is that one person is basically getting character RPG mixed up with the more general term RPG.

Solvryn

Dygz wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

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.

Prior to 2022, when Steven was not acting as Lead Game Designer, Steven and the former EQ/EQ who were Ashes Lead devs pitched a game that was more conducive to PvE players who like PvP sometimes.
About a year ago, it became clearer that Steven is mostly catering to Lineage II players.
I think Lineage II players would say that Lineage II has a lot of PvE players.
I also think Lineage II PvPers consider themselves to be "true PvPers".

Meanwhile the rest of us don’t consider L2 them true PvP.

Dygz

Raven016 wrote: »

How many players / servers do you think AoC should have, 6-12 months after release? What number should Steven aim to get?

Steven is probably hoping for at least EvE Online numbers, but...
Really just depends on the funds he can generate to keep the servers up.

Depraved

Solvryn wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

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.

Prior to 2022, when Steven was not acting as Lead Game Designer, Steven and the former EQ/EQ who were Ashes Lead devs pitched a game that was more conducive to PvE players who like PvP sometimes.
About a year ago, it became clearer that Steven is mostly catering to Lineage II players.
I think Lineage II players would say that Lineage II has a lot of PvE players.
I also think Lineage II PvPers consider themselves to be "true PvPers".

Meanwhile the rest of us don’t consider L2 them true PvP.

still more true pvp than gw

Dygz

Solvryn wrote: »

Meanwhile the rest of us don’t consider L2 them true PvP.

I don't know who "us" is exactly, but...
Since, Steven is an L2 PvPer creating a game primarily for L2 PvPers, what you think "true PvPer" entails is moot.

Solvryn

Depraved wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

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.

Prior to 2022, when Steven was not acting as Lead Game Designer, Steven and the former EQ/EQ who were Ashes Lead devs pitched a game that was more conducive to PvE players who like PvP sometimes.
About a year ago, it became clearer that Steven is mostly catering to Lineage II players.
I think Lineage II players would say that Lineage II has a lot of PvE players.
I also think Lineage II PvPers consider themselves to be "true PvPers".

Meanwhile the rest of us don’t consider L2 them true PvP.

still more true pvp than gw

Open World full loot PvP bout as truest as it gets.

Solvryn

Dygz wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

Meanwhile the rest of us don’t consider L2 them true PvP.

I don't know who "us" is exactly, but...
Since, Steven is an L2 PvPer creating a game primarily for L2 PvPers, what you think "true PvPer" entails is moot.

Wasn’t he the leader of a very very large guild? Zerg even.

Dygz

Leader of a large guild. Yes.
Zerg guild? I have not paid that much attention.

Depraved

Solvryn wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

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.

Prior to 2022, when Steven was not acting as Lead Game Designer, Steven and the former EQ/EQ who were Ashes Lead devs pitched a game that was more conducive to PvE players who like PvP sometimes.
About a year ago, it became clearer that Steven is mostly catering to Lineage II players.
I think Lineage II players would say that Lineage II has a lot of PvE players.
I also think Lineage II PvPers consider themselves to be "true PvPers".

Meanwhile the rest of us don’t consider L2 them true PvP.

still more true pvp than gw

Open World full loot PvP bout as truest as it gets.

you mean do 2000 hours of pve, so that you can have 50 weapons in your storage, then you die and you just grab another one, making dying basically pointless. then when you are low on weapons, you just pve for another 10 hours so that you can do 1 hour of dying? sounds more like a pve game to me xD

do you realize when l2 started you could die and lose everything? and getting gear was really really really hard. you didnt even have money to buy something on the store. getting drops was an utopian dream and every time you killed a mob you lost money? you basically had to make alts to do money quests and stop your progression on your main, or you needed alt dwarfs to make money. on top of that, it would take months to get to max or do anything (a year or more if you were a solo casual). you couldnt really go out of town without a party or that was suicide. and you had to do all that while pvping?

every where you went, there was pvp (unless you played in korea hahahaha). dying a couple of times and going back to town means you lost a week of exp. you had to walk everywhere, so you risk getting ganked at any time at any point.

full foot means nothing when its easily replaceable xD

Dygz

You could lose levels from xp debt in L2?

Depraved

Dygz wrote: »

You could lose levels from xp debt in L2?

oh yeah that too. you could be max level and go back to level 1 from dying enough times. also, you have death penalty which lowers your stats and the only way to remove it is to buy a (somewhat expensive for new players) scroll from the npc shops.

i have deleveled characters from 74 to 40 on purpose for a specific strategy, took a couple of hours. but yeah its possible, unlikely that you go down that manyleveles, but its possible. dying in pvp and losing days worth of exp is worse than dropping your weapon in albion and then going to your storage and pick another one from the 50 you have there.

also, in l2, through pvp, people could literally block you from progressing. they could close an area and you are just not coming in, period. there was loot and quests that you would simply not get until they decided to leave, or if you could buy them from someone willing to sell (the loot, you were still fked for the quests).

Child Item