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

Vaknar

Lot's of conversations about PvP, PvX, and PvE here! Some debate about what PvX is, or what it means to some people.

There is a wiki page on this, with quotes from Steven on the subject! Might be interesting to some

Diamaht

CROW3 wrote: »

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

It used to be pvp, STV, Badlands etc were a lot of fun (but also a gank fest with no scaling). Now, no, its not a pvp game.

Fiddlez

Vaknar wrote: »

Lot's of conversations about PvP, PvX, and PvE here! Some debate about what PvX is, or what it means to some people.

There is a wiki page on this, with quotes from Steven on the subject! Might be interesting to some

Love you Vaknar.

Caww

no developer insights please - strictly speculation and personal opinion for purposes of forum threads...

Noaani

Caww wrote: »

no developer insights please - strictly speculation and personal opinion for purposes of forum threads...

I mean, when we are talking about communication between players, yeah, this is actually true.

Developers will use marketing terms regard of anything else. Marketing terms are - by design - supposed to make a game appeal to more people. As such, they are inherently going to be less clear than players talking to players.

Dygz

Diamaht wrote: »

It used to be pvp, STV, Badlands etc were a lot of fun (but also a gank fest with no scaling). Now, no, its not a pvp game.

Not PvP if playing on a PvE-Only server.

Fiddlez

Noaani wrote: »

Caww wrote: »

no developer insights please - strictly speculation and personal opinion for purposes of forum threads...

I mean, when we are talking about communication between players, yeah, this is actually true.

Developers will use marketing terms regard of anything else. Marketing terms are - by design - supposed to make a game appeal to more people. As such, they are inherently going to be less clear than players talking to players.

While I can agree that marketing plays a factor. I certainly don't think that every time one of them talks that it's marketing and should not be taken seriously.

They are also held accountable for what they do say so they are more careful in their wording and how they describe things. With accuracy being a paramount part of it.

Players on the other hand tend to gravitate towards their own biases. So it can definitely also be both. They should be involved in all discussions if you want to dismiss their comments that should be a personal choice

Dygz

In this case - Steven is the one doing most of the talking.
But, also... for the past two years, he has been acting as Lead Game Designer.
And, he's also lost several other key Leads who were EQ devs.

And.. keep in mind that Steven is a gamer who is still learning to think like a game dev and learning to think like Marketing. So... all of his gamer biases and playstyle biases are still paramount in his decisions.

Gonzzza

Fiddlez wrote: »

When i say Modern MMO's/RPGs feel empty it barely seems to even scratch the surface.
...
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.

"People want an MMO that’s like a sports car of the past – the ones that they grew up playing. What people want isn’t so much the nostalgia, what they want is a modern take on what they liked in the past. And as soon as somebody manages to come out with an MMO that’s good and it has all the old features so that it actually feels like an MMO instead of feeling like Facebook, well then, yes, that will, that will take off. So that’s what I would – I’d expect a reboot rather than somebody coming along trying to make a WoW that’s better than WoW, although there are some in Korea that look like they’re doing quite well, if only they didn’t have that dreadful free-to-play model that’s going to put off anybody who wants any kind of immersion, so."
(c) professor Richard Bartle, the author of the book "Designing Virtual Worlds"

MMORPG is such a drug, the buzz from the first dose of which you are looking for the rest of your life. So we all expect Steven's team to succeed. We believe in them. Personally, I would have bought Voyager plus pack a long time ago, but there is no money.

Raven016

Gonzzza wrote: »

Fiddlez wrote: »

When i say Modern MMO's/RPGs feel empty it barely seems to even scratch the surface.
...
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.

"People want an MMO that’s like a sports car of the past – the ones that they grew up playing. What people want isn’t so much the nostalgia, what they want is a modern take on what they liked in the past. And as soon as somebody manages to come out with an MMO that’s good and it has all the old features so that it actually feels like an MMO instead of feeling like Facebook, well then, yes, that will, that will take off. So that’s what I would – I’d expect a reboot rather than somebody coming along trying to make a WoW that’s better than WoW, although there are some in Korea that look like they’re doing quite well, if only they didn’t have that dreadful free-to-play model that’s going to put off anybody who wants any kind of immersion, so."
(c) professor Richard Bartle, the author of the book "Designing Virtual Worlds"

MMORPG is such a drug, the buzz from the first dose of which you are looking for the rest of your life. So we all expect Steven's team to succeed. We believe in them. Personally, I would have bought Voyager plus pack a long time ago, but there is no money.

While the first experience leaves memories, you can still experience things you have never experienced before and become new references when it comes to define what kind of experience you expect to find in the next game.

Gonzzza

Raven016 wrote:

While the first experience leaves memories, you can still experience things you have never experienced before and become new references when it comes to define what kind of experience you expect to find in the next game.

Let's hope so.

Azraya

I wish AoC would just let players choose at level 15 if they want to flag for PVP or not but make it permanent. You can only attack other players that are 5 levels above or below you. Killing a player starts a timer that prevents you from attacking that same player for a set period of time. I'm sure they are smart enough to flesh out the details.

Songcaller

Azraya wrote: »

I wish AoC would just let players choose at level 15 if they want to flag for PVP or not but make it permanent. You can only attack other players that are 5 levels above or below you. Killing a player starts a timer that prevents you from attacking that same player for a set period of time. I'm sure they are smart enough to flesh out the details.

No thanks. Pvp on rails sucks.

Fiddlez

I don't think you can get the meaningful conflict from PVE like you can PVP. It adds that competitive nature like cheering for your sports team as well an actual personal investment to

What I really hope for is these PVEers open themselves up to the idea that despite having PvP in this game it can still be VERY much something they will enjoy. They will most likely not be pigeon holed in to even partaking in it but they it will create a much better PVE environment.

Fiddlez

Azraya wrote: »

I wish AoC would just let players choose at level 15 if they want to flag for PVP or not but make it permanent. You can only attack other players that are 5 levels above or below you. Killing a player starts a timer that prevents you from attacking that same player for a set period of time. I'm sure they are smart enough to flesh out the details.

That's counter to the entire design and would undermine mostly everything. It's more focused on social/conflict. You are going to be in a dangerous world! I'll explain...

It won't be like WoW PVP/Warmode where other players will just be able to attack you with no real penalties and infact rewarded for doing it. They will be heavily penalized to the concern that it might be too harsh(alpha 2 will tell us). This system is very rare and most players are not familiar with it and have a hard time seeing how it plays out.

What you want would be more for a PVP focused game and this is not that. They don't want players necessarily killing anyone that don't want to engage. However you can't just be a massive asshole and expect for a player not to kill you. That simply existing in the world will change how players engage with each other.

Let's say a bunch of people are in an area farming or gathering. Someone sees a corrupted player and those players don't want PVP. That becomes an choice to be made, risk sticking around? I probably would, he most likely isn't after you but it still creates an atmosphere of danger.

That player knows he can't just kill anyone with out bigger penalties but also other players that are looking for that PVP will most likely come out and clear the person out. Turns out this was an ambush set up and while you don't engage with it, you are at risk and can actually choose to engage.
It becomes a sort of experience if real world conflict with out actually engaging. Maybe the people that come join are part of your guild/Node.

This entire social conflict world only exists if everyone partakes of it.

RazThemun

Intrepid will launch as a game with pvp influence. Now will it be heavily pvp focused? Probably.... What I am curious about though is how much will AOC change 9 months after launch. Player counts, health of servers etc, all play a big part of why game studios make the changes they do with their game design. This could even be something as simple as intrepid deciding that sieges happen more often, or more dungeons populate when a node upgrades. etc.

Fiddlez

RazThemun wrote: »

Intrepid will launch as a game with pvp influence. Now will it be heavily pvp focused? Probably.... What I am curious about though is how much will AOC change 9 months after launch. Player counts, health of servers etc, all play a big part of why game studios make the changes they do with their game design. This could even be something as simple as intrepid deciding that sieges happen more often, or more dungeons populate when a node upgrades. etc.

Well I think we need to get in to Alpha 2 first. I think because of the open development that most big changes will happen here rather then post Launch.

SirChancelot

This whole thread seems to be differences in semantics...
Wasn't the old label for PvX called PvPvE?

Saying it's PvX therefore it's not PvP is just silly.

Noaani

Fiddlez wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Caww wrote: »

no developer insights please - strictly speculation and personal opinion for purposes of forum threads...

I mean, when we are talking about communication between players, yeah, this is actually true.

Developers will use marketing terms regard of anything else. Marketing terms are - by design - supposed to make a game appeal to more people. As such, they are inherently going to be less clear than players talking to players.

While I can agree that marketing plays a factor. I certainly don't think that every time one of them talks that it's marketing and should not be taken seriously.

They are also held accountable for what they do say so they are more careful in their wording and how they describe things. With accuracy being a paramount part of it.

Players on the other hand tend to gravitate towards their own biases. So it can definitely also be both. They should be involved in all discussions if you want to dismiss their comments that should be a personal choice

While I agree with you in part, keep in mind that the term "PvX" doesn't tell players at all what to expect.

As I said earlier in this thread, I have a game in mind that can be considered PvX, using just that, attempt to describe as much of the gameplay as possible.

The amount of accurate detail of game play you can derive from the term "PvX" is significantly lower than the amount of gameplay detail you can derive from the terms PvP or PvE.

PvX just means not totally PvE, and not totally PvP. That doesn't tell players anything in regards to an MMORPG other than that the game isn't PvE.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Child Item