My PvX != Your PvX

Basis: I prefer PvE over PvP so, in my mind, I'd like to see more balance between the systems.

Is this a fantasy, yes. I know logically that PvX for Ashes consists of a blend, a mixture if you will, of both elements. Therefore, I think that when some of us say "Ashes isn't really PvX", what we mean is that it isn't what we would think PvX would be (Equal measure of both in my opinion).

Do I want PvE only servers? No. I enjoy the risks that come with the PvP Systems in mind. Will I need a group of friends to play with because (even though I'm complimented for living in the Caravan stream) I'm a big scaredy cat when it comes to PvP? Absolutely!

All in all, I'm just trying to say that I think PvX can be considered more of a spectrum where some of us like the (in my opinion) PvP heavy version of PvX and I'm sure there are some that prefer a more PvE heavy version of PvX.

I plan to play Ashes all the same, but I had seen this topic floating around and wanted to discuss it, or share my thoughts.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Vargos

When analyzing successful mechanics in other MMORPGs, it seems to me that the ideal PvX system for Ashes of Creation might follow these guidelines:

1. No Forced PvP: PvE players should be able to engage in grinding and encounter PvP situations very rarely. The corruption system addresses this well, discouraging players from engaging in unwarranted player-killing, which I believe will be a rare occurrence. This allows PvE enthusiasts to explore and progress without the constant threat of PvP, preserving the integrity of their gameplay experience.
That is, players should have the opportunity to not participate in PvP - even if with some loss of rewards.

2. No Forced PvE: Conversely, PvP players should be able to achieve similar progression as PvE players, with comparable effort. This ensures that players who prefer the thrill of combat against real opponents can progress without being forced into extensive PvE content. Such balance would respect the preferences of both player bases, promoting a more inclusive environment.
That is, players should have the opportunity to not participate in PvE, even if with some loss of rewards.

3. PvX Areas with High Risk and Reward (for both, PvP and PvE players): areas where PvP is always enabled, with higher drop rates and death risks, could offer an exciting dynamic between risk and reward.
However, these areas must be designed to discourage large player congregations, such as guilds or zergs, from dominating. These locations should not be favorable or efficient for large groups, preventing them from monopolizing the area and stifling solo or small group activities.
A common issue with such zones is the presence of large player groups that obliterate everything in their path, depriving smaller groups and solo players of content. So we need to consider how to avoid this, for example, make these areas unusable and disadvantageous for large groups of players and also add a location specifically for them.

4. PvX Hard Guilds Areas with High Risk and Reward (for both, PvP and PvE Guilds):
Zone, similar to the previous one, but is designed for a greater concentration of players where guilds can show themselves and participate in PvX content. It can be a zone with elite mobs that require significant coordination and manpower to defeat, which can only be handled by a group of players and will have a corresponding reward. This will free the previous zone from zerg and large groups of players who kill everything in their path, as they will not be profitable to be in the first zone.

As a result, PvE players can focus on PvE content, while PvP players can concentrate on PvP activities. Additionally, they can come together in PvX content.
So the best way - its a system where everyone can thrive in their chosen path, without the need to engage in content that doesn't align with their preferences.
This is the ideal formula that can satisfy everyone. While this is just a concept and there could be many such zones, this approach may indeed offer the best option.

Ludullu

Vargos wrote: »

This is the ideal formula that can satisfy everyone. While this is just a concept and there could be many such zones, this approach may indeed offer the best option.

You've described 3 separate games. In other words - WoW. Completely separate playstyles that lead to completely separate balancing designs and a gymnastics routine of economy designs, where none of those games clash (except afaik WoW failed at that multiple times).

Ashes is simply not that kind of game.

Otr

Vargos wrote: »

When analyzing successful mechanics in other MMORPGs, it seems to me that the ideal PvX system for Ashes of Creation might follow these guidelines:

1. No Forced PvP
2. No Forced PvE
3. PvX Areas with High Risk and Reward
4. PvX Hard Guilds Areas with High Risk and Reward

This is the ideal formula that can satisfy everyone.

I don't like a hard separation of player base in different zones.
What I can see working is to have nodes favor these categories:
For 1) divine nodes with more guards protecting only the divine citizens
For 2) military nodes where they could get rewarded when attacking non-allied caravans
For 3) economic nodes, where players would miss the divine benefits and would be preferred targets
For 4) there are the monthly castle siege events with related events every weekend. These are not node related because guild are everywhere.

Vargos

NiKr wrote: »

Vargos wrote: »

This is the ideal formula that can satisfy everyone. While this is just a concept and there could be many such zones, this approach may indeed offer the best option.

You've described 3 separate games. In other words - WoW. Completely separate playstyles that lead to completely separate balancing designs and a gymnastics routine of economy designs, where none of those games clash (except afaik WoW failed at that multiple times).

Ashes is simply not that kind of game.

Isn't freedom of choice what mmorpgs are supposed to be about? And about content for all players.
You answered in a general way, and I don't see the constructive disadvantages of ideas in my post. And what does that have to do with WoW?
If a game has sieges and dungeons are they also 2 different games?

Why Ashes not that kind of game? There will be locations where corruption will work and locations where there won't be corruption, the developers already said about that.

Azherae

Vargos wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

Vargos wrote: »

This is the ideal formula that can satisfy everyone. While this is just a concept and there could be many such zones, this approach may indeed offer the best option.

You've described 3 separate games. In other words - WoW. Completely separate playstyles that lead to completely separate balancing designs and a gymnastics routine of economy designs, where none of those games clash (except afaik WoW failed at that multiple times).

Ashes is simply not that kind of game.

Isn't freedom of choice what mmorpgs are supposed to be about?

No?

Or rather, as is often said in a specific public discourse lately...

Freedom of choice does not mean freedom from consequences.

And Ashes is a game that relies heavily on its consequences-based gameplay.

Ludullu

Vargos wrote: »

Why Ashes not that kind of game? There will be locations where corruption will work and locations where there won't be corruption, the developers already said about that.

You can't get gear that you'll need in sieges w/o pve. You can't pve for good gear w/o pvp. You can't limit open world encounters, because they're open world.

All of those things lead to guilds being nearly forced onto people, so what game Ashes is is your 4th point. All things are interconnected and, as Azherae said, the game will reap consequences for that kind of design.

There is a gradation of that interconnectedness (the seas, the sieges, etc), but ultimately there's no way for you to participate in the game while completely avoiding pve or pvp.

And I already pointed out constructive disadvantages. The biggest one is economy, because instanced content requires a ton of adjustments (and separate pve/pvp requires instancing). Second one would be balance of content and gear, because you separation of content always leads to separate requirements (which is why I mentioned WoW). And all of that usually leads to separation of the playerbase (again, just as WoW has had).

All of those things is not something Intrepid wants to have in their game.

Vargos

NiKr wrote: »

Vargos wrote: »

Why Ashes not that kind of game? There will be locations where corruption will work and locations where there won't be corruption, the developers already said about that.

All of those things is not something Intrepid wants to have in their game.

What do they want? For everyone to grind all day and then all go together to PvP?

I think that allowing players to devote more time to what they enjoy, whether it be PvE or PvP, will give a positive impulse in the long term.
For instance, PvE players at least have protection against PK through a corruption system, but PvP players might get tired of the tiresome grind if it's constantly imposed on them. So PvE players have protection from PvP, but PvP players have no protection from PvE at all. Is that fair?

Nerror

Vargos wrote: »

So PvE players have protection from PvP, but PvP players have no protection from PvE at all. Is that fair?

Which is why it can argued that this game is not PvP dominant, but PvE dominant

Azherae

Vargos wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

Vargos wrote: »

Why Ashes not that kind of game? There will be locations where corruption will work and locations where there won't be corruption, the developers already said about that.

All of those things is not something Intrepid wants to have in their game.

What do they want? For everyone to grind all day and then all go together to PvP?

Yes. This is almost exactly what they want.

Probably with lots more mixing of the two.

Otr

Nerror wrote: »

Vargos wrote: »

So PvE players have protection from PvP, but PvP players have no protection from PvE at all. Is that fair?

Which is why it can argued that this game is not PvP dominant, but PvE dominant

The correct terminology is "PvE centric"...

Ludullu

Vargos wrote: »

For instance, PvE players at least have protection against PK through a corruption system

Again, majority of even semi-valuable pve will be done by guilds. Guilds means guild wars and/or just flagging up against attackers because that's easier to address than avoiding attacks.

Solo pvers will be protected by the corruption system (though still only to an extent), but they will also still exist in the open world, where there's competition even among the solos.

So yes, Steven wants people to grind mobs while pvping for them. That's his inspirations and aspirations. He did say there'd be no grinding, but I'm yet to see how that's gonna be realized in the game.

And yes, pvpers will have to pve, which is why this game is both not for the pure pvers nor the pure pvpers. It makes the game more niche than the current mmo schlock and Steven seems to be fine with that.

Nerror

Otr wrote: »

Nerror wrote: »

Vargos wrote: »

So PvE players have protection from PvP, but PvP players have no protection from PvE at all. Is that fair?

Which is why it can argued that this game is not PvP dominant, but PvE dominant

The correct terminology is "PvE centric"...

True.

Otr

Vargos wrote: »

Isn't freedom of choice what mmorpgs are supposed to be about? And about content for all players.

They are like real life jobs.
...
(I think I'll never be a mayor)

Noaani

Nerror wrote: »

Vargos wrote: »

So PvE players have protection from PvP, but PvP players have no protection from PvE at all. Is that fair?

Which is why it can argued that this game is not PvP dominant, but PvE dominant

If your guild and my guild both want to run a piece of high value content, who will run it - the guild that is best at that content, or the guild that is best at PvP?

Until I can use my PvE skill to defeat your PvP skill, Ashes isn't simply a PvP dominant game, it is just an outright PvP game.

Vargos

Noaani wrote: »

Ashes isn't simply a PvP dominant game, it is just an outright PvP game.

Yeah, a PvP game where you can't do anything without PvE, local events that are triggered through PvE, etc. There's a mismatch.

Vargos

NiKr wrote: »

Vargos wrote: »

For instance, PvE players at least have protection against PK through a corruption system

He did say there'd be no grinding, but I'm yet to see how that's gonna be realized in the game.

I'm not against PVE, but I really hope that it will be possible to avoid grinding for those who dislike it. I hope Steven will handle this.

It seems to me that era where MMOs required players to spend 80%+ of their in-game time grinding seems outdated.

Yes, let there be an option for PVE enthusiasts, but it's essential that players not feel like logging into the game after a long day at work only means clocking into another job at AoC for hours of grinding instead of engaging with compelling content.
Here's hoping for a balance that allows all players to find enjoyment in the way that suits them best.

Dygz

Vargos wrote: »

PvP players have no protection from PvE at all. Is that fair?

RPGs, foundationally, are cooperative PvE; not competitive PvP.
So, yes, fair.
And less "fair" to try to cram PvP and e-sports into the genre.

Which is why PvP-centric MMORPGs tend to be niche.
And also why the L2, ArcheAge and EvE devs have less focus on PvP in the current MMORPGs they are developing.

Noaani

Vargos wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Ashes isn't simply a PvP dominant game, it is just an outright PvP game.

Yeah, a PvP game where you can't do anything without PvE, local events that are triggered through PvE, etc. There's a mismatch.

Ashes is an MMORPG. Those actions are inherent to the genre.

Remove them, and the game is no longer an MMORPG, it is something else.

Fact is, in Ashes, the person that wins at PvP, wins at PvE as well. This makes Ashes a PvP game.

Come back to this conversation when there is a way for people competing for a fishing spot to determin who gets it based on who is better at fishing rather than who is better at PvP.

Then - and ONLY then - you have an argument to make that Ashes may not be a PvP game.

Otr

Dygz wrote: »

Vargos wrote: »

PvP players have no protection from PvE at all. Is that fair?

RPGs, foundationally, are cooperative PvE; not competitive PvP.
So, yes, fair.
And less "fair" to try to cram PvP and e-sports into the genre.

Which is why PvP-centric MMORPGs tend to be niche.
And also why the L2, ArcheAge and EvE devs have less focus on PvP in the current MMORPGs they are developing.

I agree with e-sports and I would agree with PvP too if you would give a good example where risk can be implemented without PvP and feel as good or even better.

Songcaller

I think the game is too pvp. All the mobs I see in the showcases are tank and spank. Most of the bosses I've seen are tank and spank. In fact, I haven't seen the need for dodges or hard blocks in pve at all yet. It's debatable if dodges and hard blocks are even needed in pvp too.

Child Item