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

CROW3 wrote: »

Ah, so you’re narrowing the definition of conflict to only be player on player?

Got it. I disagree, but see what you’re saying now.

I'm just saying that conflict outside of PvP is inferior.

CROW3

Fiddlez wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

Ah, so you’re narrowing the definition of conflict to only be player on player?

Got it. I disagree, but see what you’re saying now.

I'm just saying that conflict outside of PvP is inferior.

Ok.

Noaani

Fiddlez wrote: »

To be fair I don't think I've really seen any conflict outside of PVP that matters. Maybe I am told the conflict by a story but socially generated conflict always seems to be better. Not sure what sort meaningful content you are referring to.

I have two points to make to this effect.

The first is that conflict among players is not something that needs to exist in a game. It obviously does need to exist in a PvP game, but it is not an inherent requirement for multiplayer games. It is not even necessarily a good thing - as the original point of conflict in multiplayer games was to make it more enjoyable when cooperation worked out.

Thus, conflict exists to heighten enjoyment from cooperation, rather than being the goal in and of itself.

That said, the second point I want to make is that BY FAR the game with the most intense player conflict I have ever played was EQ2. Honestly, games like EVE, Archeage, BDO, and Albion don't even come close.

PvP is not needed for conflict.

Fiddlez

Noaani wrote: »

Fiddlez wrote: »

To be fair I don't think I've really seen any conflict outside of PVP that matters. Maybe I am told the conflict by a story but socially generated conflict always seems to be better. Not sure what sort meaningful content you are referring to.

I have two points to make to this effect.

The first is that conflict among players is not something that needs to exist in a game. It obviously does need to exist in a PvP game, but it is not an inherent requirement for multiplayer games. It is not even necessarily a good thing - as the original point of conflict in multiplayer games was to make it more enjoyable when cooperation worked out.

Thus, conflict exists to heighten enjoyment from cooperation, rather than being the goal in and of itself.

That said, the second point I want to make is that BY FAR the game with the most intense player conflict I have ever played was EQ2. Honestly, games like EVE, Archeage, BDO, and Albion don't even come close.

PvP is not needed for conflict.

Yeah you would have to explain that. I've never come across PvE conflict that was memorable.

Dygz

Dolyem wrote: »

First thing under Risk vs Reward on the wiki is World PvP when defining meaningful conflicts.
Even Corruption seems to be considered meaningful

Yes. The wiki changes to reflect the most recent updates.

Dygz

Two of my most memorable PvE conflicts were in WoW va Goblins.

1: I had to mow down 200 Goblins with a tractor. It felt horrific to do so while they were screaming and fleeing in terror.
A few times I had to back over some several times to ensure they were completely squished.

2: I had to fire bomb 200 Goblins who were gathered on a cliff. They also ran around screaming in terror. Sometimes in so much pain, they threw themselves off the cliff.

PvP in MMORPGs is mostly forgettable - except for the assholes who tipped me over the edge with non-consensual PvP to rage-quit PvP servers and move to PvE-Only servers.

I expect Sieges, Caravans, Node Wars and Guild Wars to be memorable in Ashes because those actually cause significant changes to the world dynamics as cities rise and fall.

Noaani

Fiddlez wrote: »

Yeah you would have to explain that. I've never come across PvE conflict that was memorable.

That is probably because you have never played a game with PvE that was memorable.

Quite honestly, I don't even think you know what what tools players have at their disposal for conflict in a PvE game.

Fiddlez

Noaani wrote: »

Fiddlez wrote: »

Yeah you would have to explain that. I've never come across PvE conflict that was memorable.

That is probably because you have never played a game with PvE that was memorable.

Quite honestly, I don't even think you know what what tools players have at their disposal for conflict in a PvE game.

I've played them all. Feel free to enlighten me.

Nothing beats when the conflict affects you directly though. Not even sure how one could argue reading about someone else's conflicts would compare to your own direct ones.

To each their own though

Fiddlez

Dygz wrote: »

Two of my most memorable PvE conflicts were in WoW va Goblins.

1: I had to mow down 200 Goblins with a tractor. It felt horrific to do so while they were screaming and fleeing in terror.
A few times I had to back over some several times to ensure they were completely squished.

2: I had to fire bomb 200 Goblins who were gathered on a cliff. They also ran around screaming in terror. Sometimes in so much pain, they threw themselves off the cliff.

PvP in MMORPGs is mostly forgettable - except for the assholes who tipped me over the edge with non-consensual PvP to rage-quit PvP servers and move to PvE-Only servers.

I expect Sieges, Caravans, Node Wars and Guild Wars to be memorable in Ashes because those actually cause significant changes to the world dynamics as cities rise and fall.

Yeah I am in BG3 starting a new game. This time I am going to see how dark the game gets and see if I can't get past the good side and just be the evil guy. I never seem to make it all the way. I mean it's ok but...yeah....I've never had my adrenaline going from any of that.

Noaani

Fiddlez wrote: »

Not even sure how one could argue reading about someone else's conflicts would compare to your own direct ones.

Wait.

What?

Who said anything about "reading" about others conflict?

What are you even talking about here?

You very clearly have no idea at all what non-PvP player conflict even looks like.

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

You very clearly have no idea at all what non-PvP player conflict even looks like.

And I feel like that's why he asked for an example. I'm also curious cause I definitely haven't experienced a pve interplayer conflict before. I've mentioned clear time competition before, but iirc you said that's the super basic stuff and is not what you're talking about.

Raven016

Fiddlez wrote: »

.
My biggest thing is there are a massive amount of PVE things that you can focus on and your priorities will change. What about the players that want to focus on raiding and dungeons, exploration ? Will they run across PVP, probably but is that their main focus? Nope it's not and that's 10000% possible in AoC. There are plenty of people out there who don't mind PVP but would prefer to do more PVE. They won't do much GVG, they might do a caravan or BGs. Really they want to kill that dragon. So I definitely disagree that everything s designed to push people to PVP. The reason PVP is an option in all things is because that's the development vision, intertwined content.

I want to know if players who want to PvE in raids and dungeons, need also to be ready to PvP in the dungeon or when they get out with the loot.

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

And I feel like that's why he asked for an example. I'm also curious cause I definitely haven't experienced a pve interplayer conflict before. I've mentioned clear time competition before, but iirc you said that's the super basic stuff and is not what you're talking about.

The most common form of PvP conflict is in relation to limited content - open world bosses.

The most basic form this conflict takes place (in a game without PvP) is being both faster at assembling a force to take on the encounter when it spawns, and also better in being able to actually kill the encounter (keep in mind the discussions we have had in regards to how hard top end PvE actually is, and how many attempts can be expected before you get a kill - being first to assemble a force that has a shot does not mean you get the kill).

Once you understand these two points, there are then many things you can do to hamper your rivals - both in game and out of game. I have (more than a dozen times) seen guilds crash the server to prevent kills, yet crashing the game server isn't even the most extreme thing I have seen PvE based conflit result in - not by a fairly long shot (I am not going to talk about anything past that, as I do not condone it and expect at least some of these actions to be possible in Ashes).

Or, you know - you could read about it (wtf?).

Honestly, fighting is the most basic, bottom tier form of conflict expression in all scenarios.

Edit to add; PvP in an MMORPG is not implemented to deal with conflict - and in fact it functionally can not do so.

For example, lets imagine you have an issue with something I said in game, and you want me to take it back. I refuse, and thus conflict.

If you walk up to me in game, attack me and kill me, how is that a resolution to that conflict?

The answer, dear reader, is that it is not, in fact, a resolution to that conflict. I just respawn and carry on with my day. The only conflict a PvP system in a game can resolve is conflict in relation to the in game systems that PvP is designed to resolve (ie, we both want to harvest that rock).

curious_ontologist

Dygz wrote: »

Fiddlez wrote: »

I mentioned I don't think you can get meaningful conflict with out PVP. He is apparently trying to imply that there is? I am not sure yet.

I am not implying anything of the sort. You are misinferring. Perhaps because you think I hate PvP?
Meaningful Conflict - as defined by the Ashes devs - is Sieges, Caravans, Node Wars and Guild Wars:
Objective-based PvP.

Those are all certainly meaningful pieces of the puzzle yes, and may even set Ashes aside from other MMORPGs. However, those role-playing interactions throughout the world are what people want. Yes, the PVE and the game is probably going to be good. But it is the ability to use the imagination and do what you want in the game that will make it truly special. This is why animes like SAO and Log Horizon were popular. You want to feel like you are there and you direct to some degree the world around you. PVP out in the streets is what fills the game with life and energy. The tavern fights, the arguments in econ cities about land disputes. People talking about the most effective weapons and enchantments to craft. The "meaningful conflict" you are talking about is crafted in part by the devs and in part by the players, but its the side stuff that keep people coming back!

Fiddlez

Noaani wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

And I feel like that's why he asked for an example. I'm also curious cause I definitely haven't experienced a pve interplayer conflict before. I've mentioned clear time competition before, but iirc you said that's the super basic stuff and is not what you're talking about.

The most common form of PvP conflict is in relation to limited content - open world bosses.

The most basic form this conflict takes place (in a game without PvP) is being both faster at assembling a force to take on the encounter when it spawns, and also better in being able to actually kill the encounter (keep in mind the discussions we have had in regards to how hard top end PvE actually is, and how many attempts can be expected before you get a kill - being first to assemble a force that has a shot does not mean you get the kill).

Once you understand these two points, there are then many things you can do to hamper your rivals - both in game and out of game. I have (more than a dozen times) seen guilds crash the server to prevent kills, yet crashing the game server isn't even the most extreme thing I have seen PvE based conflit result in - not by a fairly long shot (I am not going to talk about anything past that, as I do not condone it and expect at least some of these actions to be possible in Ashes).

Or, you know - you could read about it (wtf?).

Honestly, fighting is the most basic, bottom tier form of conflict expression in all scenarios.

Edit to add; PvP in an MMORPG is not implemented to deal with conflict - and in fact it functionally can not do so.

For example, lets imagine you have an issue with something I said in game, and you want me to take it back. I refuse, and thus conflict.

If you walk up to me in game, attack me and kill me, how is that a resolution to that conflict?

The answer, dear reader, is that it is not, in fact, a resolution to that conflict. I just respawn and carry on with my day. The only conflict a PvP system in a game can resolve is conflict in relation to the in game systems that PvP is designed to resolve (ie, we both want to harvest that rock).

Well just for reference, it's not the rock. It's that castle, it's that node, it's that treasure. PVP doesn't solve conflict it creates it. It can come to some sort of resolution but more often then not it just continues.

I've never had a rival that came about from PVE encounters. I've had friendly rivals with in a guild Group A and a Group B raid groups but I've never claimed you can't have conflict but it's never close to as interesting as PVP related conflicts. Ashes is actually upgrading this to Rival Nodes and guilds as well, besides just people and guilds. Might be some dungeon/open seas/world boss conflict too.

Yes at very competitive ends of the spectrum you will have conflict. I just don't find who killed the boss first nearly as interesting as a long time rival coming to your Castle and sieging it with a another group who you thought was going to side with you but instead turned and sieged you as well. Having to defend your Keep and in this case we were successful despite being out numbered 2-1. Then fallout afterwards lasted months.

A faction in the guild deciding they wanted to split off but they want to take their share of the spoils so they wait for an opportune time because secretly they dont like leadership and decide to take the raid boss loot and kill the people not in the secret faction.

Guilds and people will become KoS for groups. Sorry but there's just no chance that this group wants to kill the boss before you that just competes with PVP based conflict. All the conflict you can have with PVE you can have with PVP except I can kill you too and take your shit.

It's also why this game which you have mentioned yourself points every thing towards conflict, has alot of PvP in it, adding PvP to its PvE elements.

Fiddlez

Raven016 wrote: »

Fiddlez wrote: »

.
My biggest thing is there are a massive amount of PVE things that you can focus on and your priorities will change. What about the players that want to focus on raiding and dungeons, exploration ? Will they run across PVP, probably but is that their main focus? Nope it's not and that's 10000% possible in AoC. There are plenty of people out there who don't mind PVP but would prefer to do more PVE. They won't do much GVG, they might do a caravan or BGs. Really they want to kill that dragon. So I definitely disagree that everything s designed to push people to PVP. The reason PVP is an option in all things is because that's the development vision, intertwined content.

I want to know if players who want to PvE in raids and dungeons, need also to be ready to PvP in the dungeon or when they get out with the loot.

Yep and that's the beauty of it. It would also be a very large undertaking to assault a raid group. Scouting becomes a major thing. Organization will be key.

It's also where you play politics. Hey Big ass PVP guild, can you watch our backs while we do this raid boss? Alliances and politics are key. If you hate PVP in every fashion this game will not be for you the same way I don't expect Call of Duty players to love WoW.

If you want to avoid PVP and focus on PVE to a larger extent it's definitely possible in AoC though.

Raven016

Nice!

PherPhur

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.

No, I think they're just doing a little bit of trolling

Raven016

PherPhur 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.

No, I think they're just doing a little bit of trolling

no.
For me a PvX game is not one where you have to be ready to PvP every day you play. Sometime you want PvP sometime PvE only.
If you insist that PvX means that the game has both PvP and PvE and you must be ready for PvP anytime, because so wants Steven, then that is a PvP game. I don't care about your arguments that there are NPCs too which we fight. That is just a filler content.

Fiddlez

Noaani wrote: »

Fiddlez wrote: »

Not even sure how one could argue reading about someone else's conflicts would compare to your own direct ones.

Wait.

What?

Who said anything about "reading" about others conflict?

What are you even talking about here?

You very clearly have no idea at all what non-PvP player conflict even looks like.

I am saying conflict that impacts you directly is far more impactful then indirect. Which is the primary form in PvE. Like when Sylvanas burned Teldrassil and players reacted to the story or lore.

Your examples are PvE conflict I definitely wouldn't label as meaningful. Trying to give you something to bite on. You seem to be struggling to come up with something that you claim is so obvious. I don't see how racing for a first kill on a Raid boss has that much conflict. It's competition but competition doesn't mean conflict. Now when Montreal Plays Boston in the NHL then you will experience conflict because they are rivals. When Calgary plays Edmonton they are the first games to sell out because they are rivals. So just competing isn't conflict or if it is is very minor.

Crashing the server is definitely greifing and the farthest thing from meaningful conflict. I'm starting to wonder if you have been had meaningful conflict in a game before. You are talking about the only conflict coming from Open World PVP and I just gave you 3 personal experiences out of many that comes from PVP.

Put it this way in that race for the Raid Boss. Competing for the kill is competition. It's just a race. When you add PvP ALL of that still exists but now I can kill you before, during,after. I can take your stuff.

It's ok if you haven't experienced it. PvP focused games and players take up way less of the population then PVE focused. I am not saying your moments in PvE didn't matter but I personally have never had a thing compare to what is caused by PVP. Just to be clear resolution has nothing to do with it it's about creating it.

I think Ashes will be really good for you and I am excited for you. It's going to be a blast.

Child Item