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

Noaani

Niem Lumel wrote: »

Ashes of Creation is not a PvP game. It is a PvE-focused game with open-world PvP.

In terms of MMORPG's, Ashes is probably the most PvP focused non-Korean high fantasy MMO ever developed.

It is looking set to bear out Korean MMORPG's, due to there being player conflict built in to literally every aspect of the game that we are given details on - and if it can beat out EVE for PvP focus (I personally think it will), that high fantasy qualifier can also be dropped.

The only games that are unquestioningly more PvP focused than Ashes are all non-MMORPG games.

Sweatycup

Any amount of available PvE in a mmo with active PvP would be considered PvX. Could be 5% pve could be 80% pve content, it still is considered PvX. The label people get stuck on, how the game developer chooses to allow it to function can turn it from a community where PvE players can still enjoy with active PvP to a game to a funhouse slaughter fests. We have social dynamics, corruption, and bounty hunting. It's not pvp it's not pve. It's PvX. If you want to run around killing everyone, you can, with diminishing stats and head hunters after you. If you never want to attack someone you can. I can go outside and fight someone right now, or i could just go about like a normal civilian.

You might guess why the latter is a better choice. However this is what large scale testing is for.

Barab

Speaking for myself, and perhaps many other core mmorpg players, we are tired of the carrot on the stick / focused on personal gain centric mmos that have static boring unfulfilling game play on an endless loop. We want a world we can shape, in-game player politics we can influence, dynamic AI within said game world, and something worth fighting and/or defending verses other players for with risk vs reward that has meaning over losing a few pixels.

On a side note I keep reading and hearing that Steven's AoC vision has changed to 24/7 "adrenaline rush" forced pvp everywhere. I dont recall him saying something like this repeatedly every time he speaks or posts something. AS in any game some actions, even pve, can create a rush for the player.

Noaani

Sweatycup wrote: »

Any amount of available PvE in a mmo with active PvP would be considered PvX.

Which would then mean any MMORPG with any PvP at all is actually PvX - meaning the entire term is meaningless.

That is my point - when saying Ashes is a PvP MMORPG, it is FAR more descriptive than just saying it is a PvX MMORPG - because almost every MMORPG has some form of PvP and some form pf PvE.

Keep in mind, people on these forums have talked about world exploration as being a form of PvE (a form of PvE that should attract PvE players, no less), and people have also talked about buying and selling on the marketplace as being a form of PvP.

Thus, by the above definition, any game with both a world to move around in and the ability to buy and sell items from other players is a PvX game.

So, as a term in relation to MMORPG's, it is meaningless.

Percimes

Barab wrote: »

Speaking for myself, and perhaps many other core mmorpg players, we are tired of the carrot on the stick / focused on personal gain centric mmos that have static boring unfulfilling game play on an endless loop. We want a world we can shape, in-game player politics we can influence, dynamic AI within said game world, and something worth fighting and/or defending verses other players for with risk vs reward that has meaning over losing a few pixels.

Hell yeah. No more static world with mobs waiting to get killed. As for personal rewards... I started a thread long ago about more global rewards. (I'm not spec'd in necromancy, so anyone one interested it here.)

Sweatycup

@Noaani Perhaps i should rephrase a bit.. In the eyes of AoC and steven it is PvX because there are repercussions to pvp as i stated like corruption, bounty hunting and node player dynamics. A game that is PvP would forgo punishing any player for such PvP actions. Having the content of PvE and making the PvP players be punished for action is why it is PvX not PvE. This is a PvX game not a PvP game. Call of Duty at one point was considered and may still be considered a MMO game for marketing purposes since the servers were/are hooked up a certain way. Some games choose soft labels to attract certain or a wider variety of players. This as well is nothing new.

Gonzzza

Barab wrote: »

Speaking for myself, and perhaps many other core mmorpg players, we are tired of the carrot on the stick / focused on personal gain centric mmos that have static boring unfulfilling game play on an endless loop. We want a world we can shape, in-game player politics we can influence, dynamic AI within said game world, and something worth fighting and/or defending verses other players for with risk vs reward that has meaning over losing a few pixels.

Oh, yes. That's what I also said on the previous page

Ayeveegaming1

does the game have pvp = yes
does the game have pve = yes
does this make a crossover of pvx = Yes
this game is pvp, pve and pvx.

Liniker

this conversation would make sense if everyone agreed that our personal definitions are irrelevant, what matters is understanding each game's design and in AoC's case, understanding what Steven thinks PvX mean, that's about it.

Raven016

Players identify the features they like the most and try to get as much satisfaction out of them as possible.
Most PvE players might not like AoC if they do not get the equivalent feeling as in other mmorpgs. Just because there are NPCs to kill which we call PvE does not mean they will like the game. Even if you try to lure then saying it is not PvP but is PvX, they will still not like it.
Remains to be seen if PvPers will like it. For them Steven added the deep ocean, to ensure they get their slice of cake. But I think it will not be enough for them.
I am curious how Steven will balance things (corruption, resource scarcity...)

Noaani

Sweatycup wrote: »

Noaani Perhaps i should rephrase a bit.. In the eyes of AoC and steven it is PvX.

I don't necessarily doubt that at all.

That doesn't mean it is an accurate way to discuss the game with players.

Noaani

Ravicus wrote: »

does the game have pvp = yes
does the game have pve = yes
does this make a crossover of pvx = Yes
this game is pvp, pve and pvx.

Think of the gameplay that Ashes will have.

If you were talking to an MMORPG player, and you said this game was a PvE MMO, how accurate do you think their assumption of the games gameplay would be? People would likely compare it to EQ, EQ2 or WoW (or a WoW clone) - all PvE server variants.

If you said the game was a PvX MMORPG, how accurate do you think their assumption of the games gameplay would be? Keep in mind with this point, literally every MMORPG ever can in some way be considered PvX, as they all have some means of competing with other players (even if only via the games economy), and they all have some form of PvE (even if only exploration). Rather than attempting to compare Ashes to other games, people would likely just stare at you blankly, suggesting the need for more information.

Then, imagine telling that same experienced MMORPG player that Ashes is a PvP MMORPG - they would then have a fairly accurate understanding of the gameplay of this game. People would likely compare it to Archeage, L2, EVE and BDO.

Thus, to call the game anything other than a PvP MMORPG when talking to experienced MMORPG players is simply an attempt to mislead - at least from Intrepids position.

Fiddlez

[

Noaani wrote: »

Ravicus wrote: »

does the game have pvp = yes
does the game have pve = yes
does this make a crossover of pvx = Yes
this game is pvp, pve and pvx.

Think of the gameplay that Ashes will have.

If you were talking to an MMORPG player, and you said this game was a PvE MMO, how accurate do you think their assumption of the games gameplay would be? People would likely compare it to EQ, EQ2 or WoW (or a WoW clone) - all PvE server variants.

If you said the game was a PvX MMORPG, how accurate do you think their assumption of the games gameplay would be? Keep in mind with this point, literally every MMORPG ever can in some way be considered PvX, as they all have some means of competing with other players (even if only via the games economy), and they all have some form of PvE (even if only exploration). Rather than attempting to compare Ashes to other games, people would likely just stare at you blankly, suggesting the need for more information.

Then, imagine telling that same experienced MMORPG player that Ashes is a PvP MMORPG - they would then have a fairly accurate understanding of the gameplay of this game. People would likely compare it to Archeage, L2, EVE and BDO.

Thus, to call the game anything other than a PvP MMORPG when talking to experienced MMORPG players is simply an attempt to mislead - at least from Intrepids position.

Sorry but I find your arguments completely out to lunch.

In EVERY question they would have questions. Sure I could say to them Tarkov is a PVP shooter, I could also say COD and Overwatch are PVP shooters.

We have multiple other genres in genres with plenty of games but you are locked on to MMORPG players as binary. None of those shooters are similar at all but you would have people describe them the same for simplicity or not to confuse them? If you want to confuse someone tell them they are the same.

You even made my point for me, they would think that this game is similar to BDO? BDO and this game are completely different it might as well be a shooter. Being specific is less confusing then being vague, obviously. AOC is trying to be different.

Tarkov is an Extraction Shooter
Overwatch - Team Based Shooter

Can you imagine the Tarkov devs trying to describe their game to someone and the interviewer just asking if it's a PVP shooter because their readers won't know what an extraction shooter is? Or if your friend loves COD and wants another one like it so you tell them to play The Cycle?

I need to stress that I have been a PVP player most of my life. This is not a PVP MMO and describing it as one will only confuse people. Infact it is my belief that this game will be far more interesting to PVE players. PVX is simply a distinction that allows a more specific description of what this game is to more accurately describe to players what to expect. Yes you are correct that some people might not be familiar with the acronym, that's the only thing I agree with here. It's also ok, I had to explain to people what an MMORPG was and clearly it wasn't just ( can be both) a marketing term.

By saying this is not a PVP MMORPG I am looking to clarify and convince other people to clarify what AOC is. PvE players who played WOW on PVE servers still have a high chance of enjoying this game and you are going to confuse and chase away players by describing it as a PVP MMO. While you seem to fill in the blanks as to what people will expect, I can tell you that you don't know what their perspective will be. Explaining a game you are excited about is the fun part though, especially when it's new and different.

Raven016

Mixing PvP with PvE can be described with this analogy:

If you have a barrel of fine wine, and you add a teaspoon of sewage, now you have a barrel of sewage. On the other hand, if you have a barrel of sewage, and you add a teaspoon of wine, you do not have a barrel of wine.
You still have a barrel of sewage!

PvX players might prefer this analogy:

If you add a teaspoon of stew to your wine, the wine is ruined.
But adding wine to stew just makes it better.

Fiddlez

Raven016 wrote: »

Players identify the features they like the most and try to get as much satisfaction out of them as possible.
Most PvE players might not like AoC if they do not get the equivalent feeling as in other mmorpgs. Just because there are NPCs to kill which we call PvE does not mean they will like the game. Even if you try to lure then saying it is not PvP but is PvX, they will still not like it.
Remains to be seen if PvPers will like it. For them Steven added the deep ocean, to ensure they get their slice of cake. But I think it will not be enough for them.
I am curious how Steven will balance things (corruption, resource scarcity...)

I think for this reason. That players in general will have their own expectations or experiences with MMOs and that as a community we need to do a better job of expressing what this game is.

You are essentially rolling the dice when we call it a PVP MMO despite the fact that most of the PVP combat will be no different then WoW PvE servers. Caravans/Arenas/Sieges/Guild Wars are all Opt in PVP modes. Which makes it similar to what WoW on a PVE server offers.

The big difference is the open world PVP on ground and sea. Caravans will be for making money, so if you want faster cash then you opt in to higher risk. On ground the penalties are more severe then any other game that has a criminal system. Which really makes it hard to see why anyone would PK minus Roleplay reasons. I am sure it will happen but I am concerned that in general no one will do it and make the system irrelevant. We will see how Alpha 2 plays. Which I believe the plan is wait and see anyways.

Remember currently:
1) 4x Death penalty
2) No storage, Including your own freehold.
3)Loss of Stats
4)Drop full items and materials
5)Bounty Hunters
6)Plenty of Options

In order to work around this ;

1) "deal with it" the 4x penalties,
2)give another player things to store for you(I am thinking guild support too) They could take this away.
3)Loss of Stats - Don't kill other players so much
4) Drop full items - don't take best items out always keep a PVP set.
5)Bounty Hunter - Probably an incentive to actually PVP but does add the risk factor to getting jumped.
6) Ignore optional content.

So while there are sort of work around it would be a lot of work and very risky. Also PVP players will most likely join PVP guilds/Caravans/Naval/ Arenas to get their fill. There's other content to keep them busy which also works as a open world PVP deterrent.

The other side is Naval and that's the thing that seems to be PVP focused. However if you are aware that Naval is Mad Max rules then you can choose to opt out of it I believe.

My main point is that there is a lot of work going to attract PVE players and PVP players, to work together . The game will require players that love to PVE and telling them this is a PVP game seems insane and detrimental to what Intrepid/Steven are trying to build. Especially when you mix in different experiences and perspectives.

Noaani

Fiddlez wrote: »

[

Noaani wrote: »

Ravicus wrote: »

does the game have pvp = yes
does the game have pve = yes
does this make a crossover of pvx = Yes
this game is pvp, pve and pvx.

Think of the gameplay that Ashes will have.

If you were talking to an MMORPG player, and you said this game was a PvE MMO, how accurate do you think their assumption of the games gameplay would be? People would likely compare it to EQ, EQ2 or WoW (or a WoW clone) - all PvE server variants.

If you said the game was a PvX MMORPG, how accurate do you think their assumption of the games gameplay would be? Keep in mind with this point, literally every MMORPG ever can in some way be considered PvX, as they all have some means of competing with other players (even if only via the games economy), and they all have some form of PvE (even if only exploration). Rather than attempting to compare Ashes to other games, people would likely just stare at you blankly, suggesting the need for more information.

Then, imagine telling that same experienced MMORPG player that Ashes is a PvP MMORPG - they would then have a fairly accurate understanding of the gameplay of this game. People would likely compare it to Archeage, L2, EVE and BDO.

Thus, to call the game anything other than a PvP MMORPG when talking to experienced MMORPG players is simply an attempt to mislead - at least from Intrepids position.

Sorry but I find your arguments completely out to lunch.

In EVERY question they would have questions.

Yes they would.

The key to communication is to get people to an understanding as quickly as possible.

If you have a game that is similar to Archeage, L2, EVE and BDO, then simply saying the game is a PvP MMORPG gets you most of the way. Not all the way, but as a start, it is VERY good.

If you say it is a PvX game, it does nothing.

If you say it is a PvE game, it gets you going the wrong direction.

You could well make an argument that we shouldn't use any, as that doesn't do a complete job of describing the game. Feel free to have that discussion with someone else - I am simply pointing out that of those three tags, only one is actually applicable to use when talking about Ashes to other MMORPG players.

You want to say that Ashes isn't a PvP MMORPG - and you seem to be qualifying this by stating that you have been a PvP player all your life.

Cool, so point to a significantly more PvP oriented MMORPG.

Dolyem

How I differentiate the 3 categories

PvE: your progression depends on PvE content, while PvP is non-existent, separate, and/or optional.

PvP: your progression depends on PvP content, while PvE is non-existent, separate, and/or optional.

PvX: your progression depends on both PvE and PvP content in relatively equal amounts, not being able to fully progress without one or the other, and they co-exist in the game as a single content format as opposed to separate game modes. PvE affects PvP and vice versa.

Noaani

Dolyem wrote: »

How I differentiate the 3 categories

PvE: your progression depends on PvE content, while PvP is non-existent, separate, and/or optional.

PvP: your progression depends on PvP content, while PvE is non-existent, separate, and/or optional.

PvX: your progression depends on both PvE and PvP content in relatively equal amounts, not being able to fully progress without one or the other, and they co-exist in the game as a single content format as opposed to separate game modes. PvE affects PvP and vice versa.

Are you talking about games in general, or MMORPG's specifically?

If MMORPG's, which MMORPG specifically do you consider to be a PvP MMORPG?

Dolyem

Noaani wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

How I differentiate the 3 categories

PvE: your progression depends on PvE content, while PvP is non-existent, separate, and/or optional.

PvP: your progression depends on PvP content, while PvE is non-existent, separate, and/or optional.

PvX: your progression depends on both PvE and PvP content in relatively equal amounts, not being able to fully progress without one or the other, and they co-exist in the game as a single content format as opposed to separate game modes. PvE affects PvP and vice versa.

Are you talking about games in general, or MMORPG's specifically?

If MMORPG's, which MMORPG specifically do you consider to be a PvP MMORPG?

Either really.
I think we already had this discussion before where many MMORPGs considered as PvP have actually been PvX. I can't really think of any purely PvP MMORPGs except maybe Mortal Online 2? That one was only described to me though, I've never played it.
I guess you could also categorize PvX as heavy or light when regarding its PvP aspect. But in my eyes it would still need to maintain a relevancy-balance when talking about progression in the game for both PvE and PvP. Once one is irrelevant to progress, it defaults to the relevant one as the game type.

Raven016

Fiddlez wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

Players identify the features they like the most and try to get as much satisfaction out of them as possible.
Most PvE players might not like AoC if they do not get the equivalent feeling as in other mmorpgs. Just because there are NPCs to kill which we call PvE does not mean they will like the game. Even if you try to lure then saying it is not PvP but is PvX, they will still not like it.
Remains to be seen if PvPers will like it. For them Steven added the deep ocean, to ensure they get their slice of cake. But I think it will not be enough for them.
I am curious how Steven will balance things (corruption, resource scarcity...)

I think for this reason. That players in general will have their own expectations or experiences with MMOs and that as a community we need to do a better job of expressing what this game is.

You are essentially rolling the dice when we call it a PVP MMO despite the fact that most of the PVP combat will be no different then WoW PvE servers. Caravans/Arenas/Sieges/Guild Wars are all Opt in PVP modes. Which makes it similar to what WoW on a PVE server offers.

The big difference is the open world PVP on ground and sea. Caravans will be for making money, so if you want faster cash then you opt in to higher risk. On ground the penalties are more severe then any other game that has a criminal system. Which really makes it hard to see why anyone would PK minus Roleplay reasons. I am sure it will happen but I am concerned that in general no one will do it and make the system irrelevant. We will see how Alpha 2 plays. Which I believe the plan is wait and see anyways.

Remember currently:
1) 4x Death penalty
2) No storage, Including your own freehold.
3)Loss of Stats
4)Drop full items and materials
5)Bounty Hunters
6)Plenty of Options

In order to work around this ;

1) "deal with it" the 4x penalties,
2)give another player things to store for you(I am thinking guild support too) They could take this away.
3)Loss of Stats - Don't kill other players so much
4) Drop full items - don't take best items out always keep a PVP set.
5)Bounty Hunter - Probably an incentive to actually PVP but does add the risk factor to getting jumped.
6) Ignore optional content.

So while there are sort of work around it would be a lot of work and very risky. Also PVP players will most likely join PVP guilds/Caravans/Naval/ Arenas to get their fill. There's other content to keep them busy which also works as a open world PVP deterrent.

The other side is Naval and that's the thing that seems to be PVP focused. However if you are aware that Naval is Mad Max rules then you can choose to opt out of it I believe.

My main point is that there is a lot of work going to attract PVE players and PVP players, to work together . The game will require players that love to PVE and telling them this is a PVP game seems insane and detrimental to what Intrepid/Steven are trying to build. Especially when you mix in different experiences and perspectives.

Regarding your last statement, about insanity...

Hunting grounds are open-world PvP corruption-enabled areas that encompass most of the map.[129]

If PvP players would asks me where the best place to PvP is, I will send them to the deep sea, because there is no corruption.
I do not really know what to advertise to PvE players at this moment.
They probably are not very interested either.
I would rather say the game is made for 3 kind of PvP-ers:
1) those who do not like the corruption and will go often into the ocean (if they find it boring, they stop playing)
2) those who like opt-in PvP events: caravans, sieges, arenas
3) those who are ready to PvP if needed but would rather avoid it, with help from corruption

Child Item