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

mcstackerson

Noaani wrote: »

Fiddlez wrote: »

What?! I mean...yeah kind of? I mean if they don't develop anything you aren't playing anything.

PVP isn't as good for conflict because only eve has stable numbers?

I have never played a game with good PVE but you still haven't given anyone a good example besides meaningless conflict with server crashes.

Just seems like we entered the mental gymnastics team.

I think you missed the point.

Conflict in PvE games is not created by developers.

Conflict that can be solved via PvP is created by developers - that isn't real conflict.

You got this backwards.

PvE is 100% created by the devs. For pvp, the only part the devs have in it is creating the rules players use to play against each other.

Please tell me an example of conflict in pve?

Raven016

Barab wrote: »

I really wish we could move past these labels.... Players are more than just PVE or PVPers only.

My guess is the majority of MMO players are a mix of both styles.

Anyway this thread's getting crazy. Everyday I log in I expect this threaded to slowly fade away.

Only if you agree that AoC is a PvP mmorpg.

Mag7spy

Noaani

Fiddlez wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Fiddlez wrote: »

What?! I mean...yeah kind of? I mean if they don't develop anything you aren't playing anything.

PVP isn't as good for conflict because only eve has stable numbers?

I have never played a game with good PVE but you still haven't given anyone a good example besides meaningless conflict with server crashes.

Just seems like we entered the mental gymnastics team.

I think you missed the point.

Conflict in PvE games is not created by developers.

Conflict that can be solved via PvP is created by developers - that isn't real conflict.

There wasn't a point. I just reviewed the points you made. You keep making statements of how things are instead of giving examples to supplement. I gave plenty.

I gave some examples.

The problem is, because your baseline is so far off (honestly, reading about it?) you are kot likely to understand what is being talked about.

I could spend a whole lot of time explaining it to you, but since you don't actually seem interested in understanding something you've not experienced but rather insist that your experiences are the only ones possible, I really don't want to waste my time.

That is why the only description at all I gave was in reply to NiKr. He is interested in understanding other experiences, even if they aren't ones he particularly wants for himself.

Fiddlez

Noaani wrote: »

Fiddlez wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Fiddlez wrote: »

What?! I mean...yeah kind of? I mean if they don't develop anything you aren't playing anything.

PVP isn't as good for conflict because only eve has stable numbers?

I have never played a game with good PVE but you still haven't given anyone a good example besides meaningless conflict with server crashes.

Just seems like we entered the mental gymnastics team.

I think you missed the point.

Conflict in PvE games is not created by developers.

Conflict that can be solved via PvP is created by developers - that isn't real conflict.

There wasn't a point. I just reviewed the points you made. You keep making statements of how things are instead of giving examples to supplement. I gave plenty.

I gave some examples.

The problem is, because your baseline is so far off (honestly, reading about it?) you are kot likely to understand what is being talked about.

I could spend a whole lot of time explaining it to you, but since you don't actually seem interested in understanding something you've not experienced but rather insist that your experiences are the only ones possible, I really don't want to waste my time.

That is why the only description at all I gave was in reply to NiKr. He is interested in understanding other experiences, even if they aren't ones he particularly wants for himself.

This is literally just mental gymnastics.

Raven016

Mag7spy wrote: »

You was in vacation?

Noaani

mcstackerson wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Fiddlez wrote: »

What?! I mean...yeah kind of? I mean if they don't develop anything you aren't playing anything.

PVP isn't as good for conflict because only eve has stable numbers?

I have never played a game with good PVE but you still haven't given anyone a good example besides meaningless conflict with server crashes.

Just seems like we entered the mental gymnastics team.

I think you missed the point.

Conflict in PvE games is not created by developers.

Conflict that can be solved via PvP is created by developers - that isn't real conflict.

You got this backwards.

PvE is 100% created by the devs. For pvp, the only part the devs have in it is creating the rules players use to play against each other.

Please tell me an example of conflict in pve?

PvE is indeed 100% created by developers, but that isn't what I'm saying.

I am saying conflict in PvE games is entirely player made, not content.

Noaani

Fiddlez wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Fiddlez wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Fiddlez wrote: »

What?! I mean...yeah kind of? I mean if they don't develop anything you aren't playing anything.

PVP isn't as good for conflict because only eve has stable numbers?

I have never played a game with good PVE but you still haven't given anyone a good example besides meaningless conflict with server crashes.

Just seems like we entered the mental gymnastics team.

I think you missed the point.

Conflict in PvE games is not created by developers.

Conflict that can be solved via PvP is created by developers - that isn't real conflict.

There wasn't a point. I just reviewed the points you made. You keep making statements of how things are instead of giving examples to supplement. I gave plenty.

I gave some examples.

The problem is, because your baseline is so far off (honestly, reading about it?) you are kot likely to understand what is being talked about.

I could spend a whole lot of time explaining it to you, but since you don't actually seem interested in understanding something you've not experienced but rather insist that your experiences are the only ones possible, I really don't want to waste my time.

That is why the only description at all I gave was in reply to NiKr. He is interested in understanding other experiences, even if they aren't ones he particularly wants for himself.

This is literally just mental gymnastics.

Nah, the mental gymnastics here is thinking that someone talking about player conflict in a PvE MMO must be them reading about it.

I keep mentioning that because of how absolutely crazy it is that someone would ever think that is what is being talked about. It is so far off base that I can't even imagine a means in which someone could make the assumption.

Fiddlez

Noaani wrote: »

Fiddlez wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Fiddlez wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Fiddlez wrote: »

What?! I mean...yeah kind of? I mean if they don't develop anything you aren't playing anything.

PVP isn't as good for conflict because only eve has stable numbers?

I have never played a game with good PVE but you still haven't given anyone a good example besides meaningless conflict with server crashes.

Just seems like we entered the mental gymnastics team.

I think you missed the point.

Conflict in PvE games is not created by developers.

Conflict that can be solved via PvP is created by developers - that isn't real conflict.

There wasn't a point. I just reviewed the points you made. You keep making statements of how things are instead of giving examples to supplement. I gave plenty.

I gave some examples.

The problem is, because your baseline is so far off (honestly, reading about it?) you are kot likely to understand what is being talked about.

I could spend a whole lot of time explaining it to you, but since you don't actually seem interested in understanding something you've not experienced but rather insist that your experiences are the only ones possible, I really don't want to waste my time.

That is why the only description at all I gave was in reply to NiKr. He is interested in understanding other experiences, even if they aren't ones he particularly wants for himself.

This is literally just mental gymnastics.

Nah, the mental gymnastics here is thinking that someone talking about player conflict in a PvE MMO must be them reading about it.

I keep mentioning that because of how absolutely crazy it is that someone would ever think that is what is being talked about. It is so far off base that I can't even imagine a means in which someone could make the assumption.

Dygz came up with a better answer then you.

I also gave an example of how story or "reading" can cause conflict. I will repeat it. When Sylvanus burned the World Tree, it creates conflict because of how the story developed. All it involved was reading

I also don't think you understand the word conflict. The only example you gave was fighting for a boss kill, doing in game and out of game tactics to slow them down to win. Again, I am not sure you want to qualify that as conflict. If the team cheats and gets the kill, well now you have conflict. Not meaningful but it's there . Competition is the word you are looking for.

So again, anytime you want to provide an example of what good PVE conflict is feel free to write it down. You can keep strawmanning and attempting to degrade me as your strategy but if you can't provide an example I won't reply to this matter again, at least towards you

The crazy part is Dygz's example seemed pretty docile but he really enjoyed it? So you aren't required to have some epic moment, just a personal experience. Other people are reading this too go ahead and enlighten us.

Isth3reno1else

mcstackerson wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Fiddlez wrote: »

What?! I mean...yeah kind of? I mean if they don't develop anything you aren't playing anything.

PVP isn't as good for conflict because only eve has stable numbers?

I have never played a game with good PVE but you still haven't given anyone a good example besides meaningless conflict with server crashes.

Just seems like we entered the mental gymnastics team.

I think you missed the point.

Conflict in PvE games is not created by developers.

Conflict that can be solved via PvP is created by developers - that isn't real conflict.

You got this backwards.

PvE is 100% created by the devs. For pvp, the only part the devs have in it is creating the rules players use to play against each other.

Please tell me an example of conflict in pve?

Yeah I agree with this. I can agree that tensions and drama runs equally as high in pve as it does in pvp, the only difference is that in pvp you have an outlet in order to take care of these things.

In pve, the lack of systems often create annoying situations that always rise up without a resolution. for instance, grinding exp at a mob area and people pulling the mobs right in front of you. It's not like you can stop them, it's a public area.

Dygz

Fiddlez wrote: »

The crazy part is Dygz's example seemed pretty docile but he really enjoyed it? So you aren't required to have some epic moment, just a personal experience. Other people are reading this too go ahead and enlighten us.

Casual Challenge but memorable conflict - especially for a Carebear.
What's memorable is likely going to depend on playstyle.

Isth3reno1else

Dygz wrote: »

Isth3reno1else wrote: »

At the 5:08 mark you semi quote Steven saying you 'wont be able to enjoy the game without a lot of risk.'
What's the difference between those quotes then and what's happening now? To me it sounds the same.

It could be that Jeffrey Bard would mostly talk about Meaningful Conflict and Steven would mostly talk about Risk v Reward.
And then, after Jeffrey left, we stopped hearing about Meaningful Conflict.

I watched the podcast and it was very interesting.

I've always interpreted risk vs reward in ashes as a game with systems in place to do just about anything you can do in the real world, but with the ability for the other party to retaliate. Sure, you can pk someone, but at what price? Is it worth potentially losing gear over?

You can fight another guild at a world boss and wipe them out, but at what cost? What if they're 10x bigger than you and lock you out of any content from then on?

You can go and buy all of the wood in the area and artificially raise the price of it 10x its original value...but what's the risk of doing that?

You can decide to not trade your area specific isolated resource to a node because you don't like them, but what's the risk when they don't get what they want peacefully?

That's why I wanted to know what your definition was, because to me this seems to have always been the case. I see where you're coming from now though so thank you.

Fiddlez

Isth3reno1else wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Fiddlez wrote: »

What?! I mean...yeah kind of? I mean if they don't develop anything you aren't playing anything.

PVP isn't as good for conflict because only eve has stable numbers?

I have never played a game with good PVE but you still haven't given anyone a good example besides meaningless conflict with server crashes.

Just seems like we entered the mental gymnastics team.

I think you missed the point.

Conflict in PvE games is not created by developers.

Conflict that can be solved via PvP is created by developers - that isn't real conflict.

You got this backwards.

PvE is 100% created by the devs. For pvp, the only part the devs have in it is creating the rules players use to play against each other.

Please tell me an example of conflict in pve?

Yeah I agree with this. I can agree that tensions and drama runs equally as high in pve as it does in pvp, the only difference is that in pvp you have an outlet in order to take care of these things.

In pve, the lack of systems often create annoying situations that always rise up without a resolution. for instance, grinding exp at a mob area and people pulling the mobs right in front of you. It's not like you can stop them, it's a public area.

I just really don't see it. I know it exists for sure. I've been in high end PvE guilds from EQ1 to now. Some DKP arguments, one guy thinks he needs to be main tank or the other tank isn't good enough. Maybe he quits the guild so he can be a main tank. So I've seen it but it's never that meaningful.

In PVP I've enjoyed the conflict. A group of players betray you, kill you and your team and take your stuff that strikes a month long(or longer) guild war. They join one of your other enemies and makes that worse. It's when you really get the worth of politics. There's just more to lose typically.

In Open world with only PvE enabled you can go take a mob someone wants. In PVP I can kill you and take.your stuff. I just don't think you can compete with that level of conflict creation.

Ludullu

Fiddlez wrote: »

Some DKP arguments, one guy thinks he needs to be main tank or the other tank isn't good enough. Maybe he quits the guild so he can be a main tank. So I've seen it but it's never that meaningful.

This happens in pvp games too, even w/o dkp-like systems. One of the loot arguments between a friend of mine and another guildmate was solved through diceroll and not through pvp. Mainly because that other guildmate would've completely lost the pvp cause he was way weaker

Fiddlez

NiKr wrote: »

Fiddlez wrote: »

Some DKP arguments, one guy thinks he needs to be main tank or the other tank isn't good enough. Maybe he quits the guild so he can be a main tank. So I've seen it but it's never that meaningful.

This happens in pvp games too, even w/o dkp-like systems. One of the loot arguments between a friend of mine and another guildmate was solved through diceroll and not through pvp. Mainly because that other guildmate would've completely lost the pvp cause he was way weaker

Yeah, PVP just adds the "I can also kill you and take it if I want to" to every conflict lol

Fiddlez

Dygz wrote: »

Fiddlez wrote: »

The crazy part is Dygz's example seemed pretty docile but he really enjoyed it? So you aren't required to have some epic moment, just a personal experience. Other people are reading this too go ahead and enlighten us.

Casual Challenge but memorable conflict - especially for a Carebear.
What's memorable is likely going to depend on playstyle.

Yeah for sure

Noaani

Fiddlez wrote: »

Dygz came up with a better answer then you.

Dygz came up with a different answer than me.

He talked about his experiences (conflict with PvE encounters), I talked about mine (conflict with players on PvE games).

As to you saying I am getting competition and conflict confused - I have to assume someone on the internet understands what internet conflict between people is - I shouldn't need to explain that, and so haven't, and won't.

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

As to you saying I am getting competition and conflict confused - I have to assume someone on the internet understands what internet conflict between people is - I shouldn't need to explain that, and so haven't, and won't.

Could you explain to me? I still want that example. You can DM it to me if you don't want to write it here.

Mag7spy

Raven016 wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

You was in vacation?

Unlike some people I actually play games, there will be times where I'm not active since I'm playing other games, enjoying and understanding them. Gives a broader view point on a lot of things lol.

But ill lurk during those times, hard to not do a meme comment when I see the same patterns though and people having the same complaints lol.

Ludullu

Mag7spy wrote: »

Unlike some people I actually play games, there will be times where I'm not active since I'm playing other games, enjoying and understanding them. Gives a broader view point on a lot of things lol.

But ill lurk during those times, hard to not do a meme comment when I see the same patterns though and people having the same complaints lol.

Pfft, weak. I not only spent 40+ hours exploring new Genshin location, but even streamed it and then played Armored core, all while playing Palia, Star Rail and Holocure. Still could spam useless comments in useless threads about useless topics

Do better

Child Item