What systems and features in mass PvP combat do you like and dislike?
I really love tug-of-war style gameplay. Straight resource races can get pretty dull IMO. If one side really starts pulling ahead, there usually aren't any mechanics built into the system to really allow others to catch up. Even during the PvP showcase, when we saw Steven's team pull ahead even though they'd been behind, we found out from playtesters that y'all had to actually make Margaret throw the match so that Steven's team could win. Not blaming you all for anything, it definitely made for a better showcase, but the point I'm making stands. If it hadn't been done for a recording, Margaret's team would've wiped the floor with Steven's. The fact that Steven's team could kill some casters to slow down the godspike channel as a catch-up mechanic likely wouldn't have mattered much.
I think that the more avenues there are for teams to pull ahead of each other by leaning on different strengths and taking opportunities to pursue avenues less traveled with good strategic timing, the better.
This is going to be a lot, but for the sake of an example, I hope you can stick with me. Let's say you're fighting in Generic Enchanted Forest #1. I'll use some random fantasy race concepts as filler 'variables'.
Even when the war isn't going on, the forest normally has a large area at its heart where a mutated sentient race of Saprobe-inspired fungi sorcerers have been infecting the forest's Treants with spores that compel them to destroy life and reanimate them with spores in order for the Saprobians to multiply, which threaten to contaminate the entire forest. Protecting the greater forest from the spread of this disease is a neutral race of Dryads. There are normally other quests, events, and an occasional story arc that involve this lore.
During the war event, your goal is to be the first team that destroys the Saprobian threat, breathing new life into the forest, gaining control over the territory's EXP, and opening up a temporary dungeon, with other benefits discussed later.
The first stage to making these event systems more dynamic, I think, is to split them up into multiple phases.
1) Escorting a couple of caravan wagons from your node's caravansary all the way to the site of your base camp for the war event, and guarding the construction site while NPCs and players help to construct the camp.
This would allow for some PvE action from spawned enemies along the way, and potential PvP action as members of the enemy team could surprise your caravan and try to temporarily disable it in order to delay your arrival. It's a minor phase, but it makes the whole event feel more realistic, and gives people some extra time to show up before the main event starts.
2) Breaking through the outer Saprobian defenses of Sorcerers and corrupted Treants, destroying their node network of Saprobian spawners to gain ground, and eventually reaching the very heart of the forest where there lies a ruined fortress long abandoned and since inhabited by the Saprobians. This battle between the Saprobians and the Dryads has been going on for quite some time, and the Saprobians can see that war is coming. They're not going to be easy to defeat.
The heart of the forest lies, naturally, at the center of the battle, while the two base camps are on opposite outskirts, North and South. The Dryads have a shrine near the outskirts to the West, and a small outpost lies equally distant to the East - once abandoned many ages ago along with the forest's central fortress, and now occupied by a league of arcane scientists and researchers investigating the Saprobians and their origins.
In the central chamber of the castle within the Saprobian fortress, players will find a gaping pit in the stone floor, impossibly deep and dark, the walls of the shaft visibly lined with glowing mushrooms until light can no longer escape its depths. Players must deposit a certain quantity of Saprobian Caps into the hole as a threat to what lies below in order to summon the final boss to the surface to face justice, and defeat whatever form it may take.
There are several ways players can approach the task at hand. If players are confident enough in their own PvE skills, they can choose to assault the Saprobians start-to-finish head-on. This would require a majority of that node's citizens to be VERY highly geared and coordinated, equivalent to taking down a high level world boss in difficulty. This approach would be designed to fail the vast majority of the time. I imagine they're very strong both in offense and defense, and they all possess the ability to disperse spores which can hinder your team with CC effects.
3) More likely, players will choose to appease either (or both) of the neutral parties invested in the related events to gain their favor and aid.
The Dryads are protectors of the forest, and specialize both in magical combat against the Saprobians and their spore-infested allies - corrupted Treants and reanimated dead beasts of the wood. They have other problems of their own to deal with, however, and would ask for your aid before risking their lives in such a bold strike against the enemy. To boost their offensive and defensive magics, they require a supply of special herbs and barks from rare shrubs and trees in the wood. If you can supply them with a large offering of both, they will grant your node's army with a team of empowered Dryads. You'll get two healers capable of healing your team and the other Dryads, three sorcerers, and five physical fighters. All of them are resistant to the CC magic of the Saprobians due to their empowerment. The team of Dryads will have their own pathing that they follow, depending on which team claims them. They'll go systematically from Saprobian spawner to Saprobian spawner, working on all the outer ones, then going one degree inward at a time towards the fortress, etc.. It will be up to the players to follow them and take advantage of their support. When one of the Saprobian spawners is destroyed, one of the three sorcerers will stay behind to heal the land. When the land is healed, after (x) minutes of channeling, the sorcerer will spawn an allied Treant every (y) minutes to fight for your team along the same pathing pattern, cutting straight towards the next functioning spawner and attacking any enemies (NPC or Player) it finds along the way, up to a certain leash threshold.
The Scientists, however, have not been idle during their relatively brief time in the wood. More curious about the inner workings of the Saprobians than the Dryads, the Scientists have devised methods by which one can protect oneself from their spores and other magics. They require their own assistance before helping your team, of course, which will come from the same herbs being collected for the Dryads, as well as a separate resource, Saprobian Spores. Players can speak with any scientist in the outpost to get an empty vial, and whenever a Saprobian is killed, its spores can be harvested in addition to the Caps. At any time, players can deposit any amount of herbs and spores at the Scientists' laboratory, the same as the Dryad temple and their required resources. Once a large enough quantity has been gathered by the entire team, the Scientists will perform an alchemical spell which grants your entire team a temporary (but lengthy) boon. The boon will make your team resistant to the CC magics of the Saprobians, and give your attacks against them a 20% increase in overall damage dealt. To further investigate the inner sanctum of the Saprobians, which the scientists have not yet reached, they will also supply your army with a team of three flame-thrower operators, whose weapons are specially formulated to break down the tough fibers of the Saprobian fungal network. The flames are particularly strong against Saprobians, and also destroy Saprobian spawners much more quickly than any other method of attack, normally taking about three times as long to fully incapacitate. Much like the Dryad teams, the flame-thrower squads follow their own pathway working on the outer spawners first, and then further towards the inner spawners. Each flame-thrower operator only has enough juice to down one spawner, but they can all attack at once. Their resources are tracked separately, but once any of them run out, they make their way back to the Laboratory to await a new donation.
Giving players two asymmetrical avenues to pursue victory through is a great way to encourage each team to lean into their own strengths and preferred playstyles.
If you go with the Dryads, you can collect everything they need to help you without fighting any of the tricky Saprobians on their own, only other players fighting over the one shared resource. You can send less PvP-oriented players after the bark, and the others who more capable of PvPing after the herbs. For these efforts, you're rewarded with boons specifically focused on healing and combat support from outside forces.
If you go with the Scientists, you're required to fight Saprobians and against other players in order gain their boon and their flame-throwers, and in return, you're given a boon that empowers your head-on approach to victory.
To gain ground towards the fortress, I imagine there would be 9 spawners on each side of it, forming a three concentric rings split between the two armies down the middle. The outer half-ring on each team's side has 4, the middle half-ring has 3, and the inner half-ring has 2. So you would need to perform the Scientists' errand three times in a row to maximize the efficiency they can provide, and you would need to perform the Dryad ritual three times in order to get a sorcerer spawning treants on every recovered node. You could also alternate by starting with the Scientists to burn the spawners more quickly, then call in the Dryads afterwards to start spawning treants.
That being said, I'm not imagining any team would always need to go that far in order to be victorious. Perhaps players must also consider that while they can choose to pursue aid from both neutral parties, their forces will then be split to gain resources. Allowing for fractional support from either or both of the neutral groups allows for players to make strategic decisions about where, when, and to what extent they should extend themselves and their resources to get ahead of the enemy team. Players can also hunt each other in order to steal resources in the field.
4) Once the final Saprobian spawners have been destroyed, players can safely begin their assault on the fortress.
This will not be an easy feat, as the fortress is loaded with the strongest of the Saprobian forces, and their spawners cannot be destroyed, as they're underground and spawn larger, deadlier Saprobians from the bowels of Verra. If players can work their way through enough of the enemies to reach the keep, then they can begin offering Saprobian Caps to the gaping pit in the center of the castle. They will, in almost every case, not have gathered enough caps by the time they reach the castle to spawn the final boss immediately. They'll need to carry on fighting the higher level Saprobians throughout the fortress until they've done so, hopefully facing a bit of a challenge from the enemy team at some point, once they break into the fortress as well. Again, enemy players can be killed for Caps, and players may have to face off against each other and the Saprobians at the same time. If you have Dryad sorcerers still summoning treants, new Dryad teams, or Scientist flame-throwers, they'll venture into the fortress with you and help to heal your teammates (dryad healers) or fight Saprobians until their resources are depleted, or they fall in battle.
Once a team has gathered enough Caps to summon the boss from the depths of the caverns below the fortress, it will rise from the pit, enraged and lustful for vengeance. To keep players from escaping, it will immediately spawn vines that erupt from beneath the stone floors, blocking off all entrances/exits. Players on the opposing team can attempt to hack down the vines and gain entry to the fight - this can be aided by the Scientist flame-thrower crews. If it's your team that spawned the boss, your flame-thrower crews will not attack the vines, but instead, your Dryad sorcerers will attempt to maintain their strength to aid your victory. Either of these support NPCs can be killed by players outside the boss room, depending on what their best interests are. The respawn point is outside the fortress, so if one group is unsuccessful in defeating the boss, it will give the other team waiting outside a chance to try for themselves. The vines respawn periodically.
Once the boss is killed, the team that dealt the most damage to it is gifted a temporary offensive and defensive boon that persists through death until it expires. That being said, the Deformed Cap of the boss can be looted by anyone. The war event is not yet over.
5) In order to end the event, one team or the other must deliver the Deformed Cap to either the Dryad Temple or the Scientists' Laboratory.
It can be picked up and carried by any player, but is so large, that they cannot mount while carrying it. The Deformed Cap Carrier must be defended on their way to either deposit site. If the Deformed Cap Carrier is killed, the Deformed Cap will be dropped, and can be picked up by any other player. Further support cannot be called for from the Dryads or the Scientists at this point.
6) Once the Deformed Cap is delivered to either destination, the war event is over, and the team who completed the delivery is the winner.
At the heart of the forest, a new dungeon is unlocked which allows players to pursue the root of the Saprobian threat, which anyone can delve into. The rewards from defeating its bosses will vary, but will largely focus around armor, weaponry, rare crafting materials, and blueprints. All node exp farmed there, as well as the surface level of the forest, will go to the winning node for the duration of the winning node's territory control.
If the Deformed Cap was delivered to the Dryads, they will use it to perform a ritual that temporarily cleanses the entire forest of the shadow of the corruption. For (x) days afterward, rare gatherables will spawn at increased rates, including those in the subterranean dungeon, and all gatherables in the area will grant increased yield to the winning team for the duration of the winning node's territory control.
If the Deformed Cap was delivered to the Scientists, they will be able to perform an alchemical enchantment that gives the winning node a 20% defensive and offensive boon while exploring the dungeon, as well as open up shops in the outpost only to them that sell special blueprints for gear enchantments and alchemy recipes for the duration of the winning node's territory control.
Conclusion:
This event is large in scale, so it feels appropriately epic and region defining. It takes advantage of existing lore, races, organizations/factions, and storylines in the world, so it doesn't feel like an artificial battleground has been slapped over an existing POI like a generic game board. It has multiple stages, so players feel like they're steadily progressing through a complex series of strategic advances, which is what a major event in any war should be. It has multiple paths to support and victory, which allows node populations of varying strengths and interests to forge their own way. It has asymmetrical choices and outcomes, which lends a feeling of impact and meaning to player decision making. It offers ways for players to get the jump on each other and steal some progress from the enemy team when they aren't expecting it, so that leads aren't exponential. Finally, the outcome provides opportunities for all players, win or lose, to engage in interesting new content, while preserving the best benefits for the winning team.
This level of depth and complexity could easily be rewritten for any part of the world, with any number of objectives, and with any number of avenues to victory. There's a lot of potential here, I can't wait to see what the team cooks up.
"What would motivate you to declare a siege or war on others in-game?"
I think the instigating factors that the team mentioned during the livestream were all great ideas. Territory/EXP control, weakening the enemy's ability to compete economically, stealing rare artifacts that give boons to nodes (or at least re-introducing them to the game world). I would also say that repeated incursions on our trade caravans or resource gathering, despite repeated complaints, would encourage me to seek such methods of discouragement/justice.
"Are there any must-haves that you would like to see in sieges?"
I'm assuming you're referencing sieges specifically, as opposed to outdoor war events. I hope that we can have siege weaponry built up in anticipation of the event that needs to be constructed by players. I hope there will be multiple methods of entering the enemy's node (ramming down gate doors, destroying walls, infiltrating weak points, etc.) so that it's not just a head to head smackdown every single time. Obviously, defending players should be able to contribute resources to heighten defenses (constructing gates where there normally are none, reinforcing existing ones, crafting large bolts for ballistae, flammable tinctures for launching at the ground near entry points, etc.).
If you made it this far, thanks for reading. I won't go as far as to say my ideas are as good as what the team can put together on their own, but I hope there's some inspiration or at least perspective on what can be done to enhance the experience of Node Wars to be gleaned from my ramblings.
What systems and features in mass PvP combat do you like and dislike?
Liked:
Escape doors in castle walls that are only usable in one direction by defenders.
Why one-way? My experience with ESO sieging is that the outcome of an attack/rush at any given time is extremely binary, because there aren't enough tools for defenders of the intact castle to do anything interesting, proactive, and most importantly skill-expressive, to stop the enemy at the gate from trying to break it.The real battle only really begins when the walls are breached, and in too many cases that's also when the battle ends. Overall that's not enough happening to keep people's interest in the long run.
By contrast, in my favourite DaoC spin-off Regnum Online, castles and forts had two-way gates for defenders to pop out of and fight, and retreat. They later also had a second indestructible one-way trap door at the back of fortresses to allow for wrap-around backdoor counter-rushes as an alternate defence tactic. Those many tools for defenders to access the fight meant aggressors had to switch their focus between sieging the entrances, and fighting players, including melees.
That gave defenders some amount of an edge, but the defenders had the advantage of more open space available to them:
And frankly, a somewhat defender-favoured siege mechanic is more interesting anyway. Because every time the defender succeeds in pushing the aggressor back, there's an interesting dynamic in how the aggressor will adjust their strategy for their next strike, whereas when the aggressor succeeds, the siege ends.
Now, two-way doors for only one group at the site aren't a very realistic mechanic, so they require a clever implementation if you don't want them to look cheap. But just for the gameplay enjoyability aspect, I find them to be the clearly superior mechanic.
I think the Elder Scrolls method would only really be suitable for medival siege simulator games where realism is a high priority for players. In a fantasy MMO with anything being possible as long as the result is good gameplay, you should really aspire to give every class something to do that involves their class identity at all times. Not have melees twiddle their thumbs or automatically be appointed to siege weapon duty for an essential part of the siege. (And I never played melee myself, I just like the gameplay much more when melees are consistently a part of the strategy considerations.)
It was an option in the pre-alpha siege footage. I think versions with magical droppers sending you into the front of the gate from the wall, and then porting you back upon reactivation could be fine. A slight delay would be acceptable too; personally I think much of a delay would be overkill. If it needs more balancing, you can just give attackers other advantages, like more durable siege weapons to make up for it. That way, siege gear isn't a fragile liability, and players fighting players is what really decides who wins.
No one but yourself can validate you for all the posts you *didn't* write.
What systems and features in mass PvP combat do you like and dislike?
+ I like defending points of interest, especially with walls and gates.
+ I like the decisionmaking that occurs among groups when they have to determine if their supremacy in one location is safe enough to send part of the group to the next objective, or if the enemy forces are starting to overpower them at the current location.
- I dislike everything that gets in the way of those decisionmaking processes, like randomly spawning PvE encounters that distract the group or constantly forcing everyone to do the next obvious thing.
What would motivate you to declare a siege or war on others in-game?
+ Showing off my competence at strategy/PvP combat/rallying my allies.
+ Advantages for sieges or subsequent bigger node wars.
+ Debuffs on the enemy.
+ Territory access. (As described in the dev update when you mentioned additional rewards for PvE in the contested/won territory after the war.)
+ Mayor mandates.
+ Imposing restrictions on mayor leadership powers for the losing node. In particular, blocking specific upgrades for buildings.
+ Raiding/burning crops, or doing something that will affect the enemy economy beyond just a debuff. Tangible changes. Perhaps even to make them feel *less* painful to the losers, but still be fun to fight about. Something like half a day's worth of crops that won't actually sting hard, but still demonstrate authority of the winner, and encourage the enemy to strike back or resolve the hostilities through conquest or diplomacy.
+ And perhaps there should be some noticable influence on story arcs development for nodes that have been particularly effective or active in wars and sieges.
+ Overthrowing the powers that be, if certain groups have been grabbing a bigger slice of the cake than is rightfully theirs by snowballing power to the point where no one else has a chance to get anything done.
One thing that would be really important to me is that if a bunch of underdogs group together to successfully target one powerful group, it shouldn't just go without consequences. If eight strong guilds say enough is enough, and shut down an alliance that's been hogging all objectives, that should have perceptible consequences. That alliance should struggle to continue controlling other things in the world besides just their node territory. There should be clear avenues to deny them access to critical node resources, top-tier loot, and equipment resources. Assuming the underdogs amount to a stronger military force than the powerful alliance, of course.
The more direct the possibility to shut off growth opportunities for a dominating guild/node the better. And in turn make it difficult to win the fights required to enforce those restrictions/punishments. If it's too easy for tryhard guilds just to shrug off losses in the battlefield and maintain their power indefinitly simply because each individual player has too much individual wealth, people will stop caring about the ostensibly inconsequential PvP objectives.
I think the clearest sign of failure for the PvX system would be if the same set of players can suffer loss after loss when people have had enough, and be just as strong as they were before once the attacks stop.
And the beauty of a design that allows for punishing the top dog is that it can't be used against the minority groups, at least given sufficient restrictions for how many wars/sieges a single node/guild can launch in total. If the underdogs are spread out across 15 small guilds in 5 nodes while the powerhouse are like 4 massive guilds in a metropolis and its stage 6 vassal, the powerhouse can't suppress all those other guilds, because they simply can't dish out enough wars to put pressure on every one of those groups.
Are there any must-haves that you would like to see in sieges?
I can only think of the two-way doors mentioned in my reply to akabear above. That, or something equivalent to allow for constant back-and-forth where every class always gets to engage in active combat. Two-way doors for defenders seem like the most direct solution.
Generally having outposts would be extremely cool. Mid-sized fortresses that can be unlocked for contestation before sieges start through winning wars or other achievements. Not too many, so people don't get spread out and become too disconnected. In my ideal picture of sieges or some war types, there would be significance to maintaining control of those outposts during the siege, and both sides should be encouraged to clash into each other at those locations.
Related to the follow-up question for @NiKr , I have a general question for those here:
What are some key aspects of environmental design that enhance mass PvP combat to you?
One thing I was wondering about a lot while watching the Dev Update is the threat of being caught unprepared while clearing a PvE objective. To the point where the meta would devolve into never doing any objectives yourself, because it's much more free to let the opponents struggle with them, and rush them moments before they are done. When the players are at their weakest exposed to be killed, *and* the objective is almost free for the taking if the timing is lucky enough.
Part of this can be counteracted by giving rangers and simlar classes scouting abilities, but if enemies can come from every side, you can't scout every direction.
There doesn't have to be completely controlled environment for every PvP objective that exists in the game, but I'd say where you do add it, add it decisively, so it's at least near-impossible to bypass. If that means random 20 metre tall cliffs and gorges here and there, so be it. Because there's nothing more frustrating than when there's the illusion of strategic advantage everywhere, but no actual strategic advantage anywhere.
It's fine if there are a few locations where the opponent can surprise you by tanking 80% of their HP to come from an angle that was mistakenly deemed safe. But those should be exceptions among the controlled environment areas.
I would also appreciate if most objectives had safe spots to retreat into when enemies show up (but not close enough to the objective to fight it from within the safe spot originally), so you actually have a response when you successfully scout an approaching group that's about to gank you.
No one but yourself can validate you for all the posts you *didn't* write.
0
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
For castle sieges, urban fighting and/or landscape choke points, I would like to see three-dimensionality in the fighting vantage points to offer more dynamic fighting for ranged fighter.
Similarly for mele types provide cover, nooks, crannies and small out-of-main-view gathering spots for players to dash into to provide chance to hide to avoid or hide to time attacks/defence.
With perhaps the minor cover in castle sieges pre-purchasable by the defenders and placeable.
I remember how much fun it was to storm the other faction's capital in wow before flying mounts. World PVP was just a blast back then. Capturing this type of mass group content is hard these days, especially since it was not curated by an in-game system. It all depended on the initiative of the players and it had a hilarious element of surprise (seeing regular folks trying to buy stuff from vendors only to be destroyed by a raging mob in seconds).
When node wars start, there should always be a way to launch player-driven surprise attacks on strategic enemy locations. Make wars feel like they are continuously being fought, not just during special in-game events.
As for curated PVP content (as shown in the last showcase), avoid huge useless maps and non-rewarding content like Alterac Valley was in WOW.
1) Escorting a couple of caravan wagons from your node's caravansary all the way to the site of your base camp for the war event, and guarding the construction site while NPCs and players help to construct the camp.
This would allow for some PvE action from spawned enemies along the way, and potential PvP action as members of the enemy team could surprise your caravan and try to temporarily disable it in order to delay your arrival. It's a minor phase, but it makes the whole event feel more realistic, and gives people some extra time to show up before the main event starts.
Underrated idea. Not only does this make sense in-world and give dispersed players a chance to congregate, it also gives organized nodes the opportunity to have their entire standing player army march out alongside the caravans, which would look awesome.
I am not a big fan of 1v1 or small group PvP in MMOs for the most part. I do, however, enjoy large scale PvP which is why I am excited for Ashes.
That being said, two of the main experiences with PvP in MMOs that I did enjoy are from LOTRO playing the FREEPS (Free People aka the normal characters you level) and the CREEPS (the orcs, spiders, Uruks, etc. that are playable by players), as well as WvWvW from GW2 where three servers (Worlds) fight against each other on a massive battleground.
As someone who mainly PvE's, one aspect I really enjoy from these large scale PvP areas is the ability to capture outposts, forts, and castles which are filled with the NPCs of the current captor, which once captured, either offer bonuses to your side either for a specified amount of time, or as long as the building is held, or add points to your side to aid in determining the winner of the war.
While I do enjoy being part of a giant zerg of 30-50+, I also like the ability to be part of a small strategic group between 10-15, and a game that allows the small strike team to take on groups of much larger numbers if they have the coordination and shot calling to do so, and within reason, are very satisfying and it's not just a "throw more bodies at the problem" type of war.
While the two aforementioned games don't have any kind of role for crafters (though GW2 does have a caravan type system that brings supplies to different bases to allow for the building of siege weapons and repairing fortifications), having crafters play a role in gathering materials and building up the siege weapons and fortifications while PVPers can be on the front lines of the battle, and the PVEers can have opportunities to take on world boss spawns or capture strategic areas and buildings to aid in the war, would be great way to have everyone involved in such a big game system.
What motivates me to play in PvP are leaderboards and exclusive (cosmetic) rewards. Something to showoff your skills in a way that could motivate others to join PvP battles
What systems and features in mass PvP combat do you like and dislike?
A few things I dislike about mass PvP are when players can simply win any fight by bringing more numbers and zerging nodes. Skilled players are currently organizing zerg-level guilds easily, which ruins competition and servers in general. This often leads to less emphasis on strategy, reducing its potential impact.
Elements I like include having a mix of objectives during mass PvP that help split up fights, so it isn't just a giant ball vs. ball. These objectives can vary widely but should include defending certain points during the war. Creating a good flow of the fight is crucial, so people are more spread out, doing a variety of tasks that can help them win or provide other benefits.
With a well-designed flow, it won't all be about one big ball to win all content. This will allow smaller groups of players to feel more effective and choose objectives that fit their style. For example, in Planetside, multiple objectives spread players out across the map, providing various benefits and helping the overall war effort.
What would motivate you to declare a siege or war on others in-game?
Beyond the general desire to PvP and to clear certain areas for farming monsters or materials, it would have to be specific benefits that improve my node, providing a clear advantage for what I do there. In particular, sieges would be motivated by the need to eliminate threats and for the benefits they might bring, beyond just potential lootable materials.
Are there any must-haves that you would like to see in sieges?
1. Competitive Balance and Strategy:
Sieges should be competitive, focusing on the even number of players and ensuring strategy plays a key role. There should be reasons to destroy objectives, defend/hold multiple objectives throughout the siege, and effectively use siege or special items to gain an advantage or push back when losing. Victory shouldn't be about capturing one spot; each spot can be weighted differently, but multiple objectives should be required to build up a timer. Holding all objectives should lead to victory, avoiding the chaos of ball vs. ball in a small area.
2. Balanced Spawns:
Spawn mechanics are crucial and need to be balanced. Quick respawns can make sieges feel like team deathmatches, diminishing strategic elements. Players should consider the time it takes to get back into the fight, discouraging reckless behavior. Objectives around gaining multiple spawn points can help spread players out and create additional tactical elements.
3. Innovative Mechanics:
Personally, as a fan of Risk, board games and Magic the gathering, I think incorporating card-type effects would be interesting. Players could use powerful effects from certain artifacts or elsewhere, such as instantly rebuilding a gate with enhanced strength and special effects, disabling wall defenses temporarily, reducing respawn times, casting a powerful spell to damage the entire battlefield, summoning a giant corruption beast for a duration, etc. This could add a fun element to sieges, with politics around obtaining these items. Maybe there is even draw backs to having these as well in general cause could cause people to siege a node
Edit*
Another important thing is making sure things aren't over complicated when in terms of being able to declare war. I noticed a following post talking about talking about 0 draw backs if you lose and such and there should be additional elements if you lose, to make people second guess it. I feel this is more of a PvE mind set to reduce actual pvp in the game and add on more unnecessary elements. The fiction between nodes on wars happening often enough within reason is important. Any relation to new world having played the game competitively doesn't relate to anything to do with AoC. The closest really would be war siege burn out as sieges happened on a node every few days.
Guild Wars 2 had great systems with their sieges in WvW. Hopefully we will see an updated version of similar mechanics and systems.
- Destructible gates and walls.
- Defensive and offensive siege equipment.
- Capture point within the node/fortress/castle.
- Castle/node defensive upgades (i.e. fortified gate, fortified walls, defensive siege equipment).
- Supply system.
Hopefully regional nodes governing vassal nodes will be able to be weakended by capturing or damaging vassal nodes and other linked objectives to setup a siege. Ideally regional wars break out between metropolis nodes and during these wars there is a sense that you are capturing enemy terriory similar to the way that a WvW match plays out between servers in Guild Wars 2.
What systems and features in mass PvP combat do you like and dislike?
Communication systems at-a-glance would be important for me. Map or Mini-Map "pings" being available to leaders of a war/siege roster could help here.
(Defend Here//Move Here//Siege Here/Setup Here//Gather Forces) Perhaps an opinion that might not align with everyone.
These have been great assets in games like Hell Let Loose where a lot of VOIP is being utilized in tandem with these visual communications for mass coordination.
I really hope there is good "command/control" map functionality to help coordinate large groups of players outside of 3rd party communication tools like Discord
"Divinity is not just Love, Devotion or Purpose. Divinity is the hammer which we use to crush Corruption."
Not going to be a popular opinion, but maybe respawning should not be allowed during a siege or war battleground?
I share a similar belief in that when you are competing with another group death should be more impactful.
Obviously disregarding open world caravans and just normal day to day PvP. I think PvP in sieges and even node wars should be impactful so that small groups can have an effect and death has meaning.
For node wars, granted this was a showcase, respawning felt so fast that death had no real consequence. I think the more you die within a certain amount of time the longer it takes to respawn. This gives weight behind killing or being killed and allows for strategic play-styles to emerge.
For castle sieges and such the one life is an interesting but potentially valid idea. I think something like a castle siege really is importantly and losing has tons of ripple effects. Having one life makes it feel so important but also dying first makes it feel really boring and bad. So maybe instead of one life it’s multiple lives or like Battlefield you have an amount of tickets (respawns) so you have to treat every encounter very seriously and actually thought needs to go into things.
I dislike it when mass PvP combat revolves around different variations of capture-the-flag with some flair. I like when the wars and siege systems reflect the actual reasons why the war and siege are happening, instead of it being treated as a "glorified arena".
I think you should have a different win condition based on your status in the war (attacker or defender, type of war), and these win conditions should come with their own objectives attached to them. So the war wouldn't revolve around objectives that interest both parties directly. You can gather intel on the enemy's objectives and disrupt it, but it won't count as victory for you directly. Ofc some of these objectives will eventually intersect and you'll have some events that interest both, like an intersection that causes a big battle, but not all of them are strictly that. And most of these objectives don't need to be prime time locked. It could be long-term objectives that ppl would complete during the war and require effort from a lot of the citizens.
A territory control war should have objectives related to gaining ground and establishing a stronghold in the region. A trade war should have objectives involving disrupting trade routes, destroying warehouses, stealing resources from the other nodes' area, etc.
There should also be diplomacy options to resolve the conflict, make peace and stop the war before all the objectives are completed.
Wars should be diverse and in-depth tools for players to resolve their conflicts, a tool that supports and enriches the political aspect of the game, and not a "minigame" that people activate for rewards (not saying that there shouldn't be rewards).
Love the depth of War Declarations that were spoken about in the latest livestream.
My idea is that these announcements are public to all nodes, so that mayors could solicit or offer contributions as Alliance Declarations for a war effort, whether that be money or particular items or even mercenary players. If Wars happen all the time, then maybe these are not a big deal but if Wars are a more rare occurrence (maybe an average node will be at war 10-20% of the time, while contested territory will be at war up to 50% of the time)., then it gives nodes not at war a way to participate in affairs.
I think I would prefer Wars to be a more rare event, to allow for interaction between neighbor citizens and mayors.
What systems and features in mass PvP combat do you like and dislike?
Epic battles are fun as long as they are manageable and not a cluster fuk.
What would motivate you to declare a siege or war on others in-game?
if they smell or look funny or try to take my materials, mobs or snacks!
Are there any must-haves that you would like to see in sieges?
as a former guild leader of over 3k people and an alliance leader in Lineage 2...
The toughest thing for a guild leader to do is to keep track of people and objectives. One thing lineage 2 had was to the left side of each persons name was a small icon showing which guild they were in, it helped a lot. It would be even more helpful to have a raid # and group # designator following or preceding the icon in the name. (i know that's asking alot
In Lineage 2 you were able to invite / choose which guilds you wish to participate in the event for your side. An issue with this was the amount of people on the battlefield. Ideally, or a must...i would think it would be wise to limit the amount of people per side participating at one time. This could be fixed by if you die you have to wait in a queue. If a large guild of say 500 people go up against a small guild, the small guild should be able to choose what guilds can participate in helping them, again keeping with the limit of maximum people allowable on the play field at any given time.
One should also be allowed to leave the battlefield in order to let someone else in that is in the queue.
Raid leaders should be marked somehow as well within the raid, if he or she dies then it gets passed to someone else or you can pass it to someone else in the raid if you don't want it.
Raid leaders should be able to move people between groups by drag and drop to help manage classes / tasks, etc.
sieges should be only able to happen during certain prime time windows.
I'm loving the system where mayors activate edicts, players show support by delivering items, and the whole process gets posted on the bulletin board. It's brilliant that nodes receive war tokens, giving mayors options on how to use them.
Regarding warscore, I think it should reflect more than just the number of kills. A system where the level of the player killed impacts the score makes sense to me. Lower-level players teaming up against higher-level ones should earn more points. If we kill a player who is level 50 we should get 50 warscore, but if the guy in my party who lands the killing blow is a level 42 then we should get 50-42= 8 + 50 = 58 warscore. Same way for killing down, if I am at 50 and i kill a 42 then i should get 42-50 = -8+42 - 34 warscore only. The difference would be significant if you are punching down or up.
So, if a level 50 kills a level 25 we have 25(dead player)-50 (killer) = -25... then we go and do 25 (player) -25 (difference between players) and equals 0... zero warscore when a level 50 kills a level 25... but if people gang up and a level 25 delivers the final blow on a level 50 we get 50(victim)-25(killer) = +25 (bonus) then we go 50(victim)+25(bonus)=75 warscore
Formula: victim + (victim - killer)
Differentiating bulletin board cards with colors is a simple yet effective idea. It would make it easier to find what you're looking for at a glance. Green for harvesting stuff, black for wars, purple for bonuses, orage for special events and so on.
Having an encampment for gearing up during war is a genius idea. The encampment could use a couple vendors and a quartermaster would be essential for quick gear changes and restocking.
Thoe arrow shower effects arejust fantastic.
I'm impressed with the damage numbers and messages—they feel just right in terms of speed and appearance.
Name plates are a BIG NO right now, they are overwhelming. Shrinking the node emblems and utilizing less than half the space would be a big improvement, and health bars are too big, should be a third of that size or less.
The overall feel of the fights has me feeling optimistic about the game.
Special effects got better, but thunder sounds accompanying lightning strikes would take it to the next level. Speedy effects that come and go quickly are just what I like.
Uniform magic wall colors threw me off a bit. It would be nice to have any visual cue indicating ownership.
Including farm bonuses in war zones is a smart move.
The dragon divebomb move is nice, it could knock people to the ground tough.
It was surprising not to see target broadcasts during the war video. I was expecting them.
The sheer number of red name plates and big icons during big fights felt overwhelming.
I'm a fan of the map banners and circle feature, it's a great way to keep track of things.
Shutting down services from other nodes sounds like a fun idea to add some strategic depth to the game.
WAR IS IN A GOOD DIRECTION, KEEP GOING!
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
What systems and features in mass PvP combat do you like and dislike?
Enjoyable mass PVP content for me is most enjoyable when it revolves around clear objectives. When the majority of players are interacting in focused areas towards the same objective, that is when the best large scale PvP happens IMO. This can be expanded upon to be a Tug of War style objectives, where objectives once cleared move to another zone or an additional objective. Doing this allows for a progressive large scale PvP and can be moved around a large map. A large sticking point for this is that the map area of the big objective battles needs to be unique but fair. Both sides need flanking routes, there should be major chokepoints, there should be verticality.
Another large scale PvP feature that I like is having the option to do side objectives or capturing areas for buffs for your team. This can be both PvE or PvP focused for side objectives. Adding a PvE element allows players of all types to engage and have an impact in the overall large scale PvP objective. In regards directly to what was showcased in the recent Node Wars stream, I would like to see more/alternative PvE goals other than simply kill mobs for loot drops and return them. Alterac Valley in WoW had great side objectives. You could capture points for additional spawn areas, you could farm materials to buff NPCs that fought on your side (this can be expanded to allow gatherer/crafters to harvest/craft buff items for NPCs or players). Another idea for a side objective is to harvest meat from mobs to load onto a caravan, which can be delivered to an area in the enemy territory that can attract monsters to their side which could block them from accessing certain areas until they are dealt with.
Another large scale pvp feature I enjoy is when there is noticeable NPC interactions. If this is supposed to be a "War" why are only players fighting? Where are the guards? Where are the mercenaries? This is an area where MOBA type elements can be added where NPCs patrol or follow paths to fight towards objectives. In huge maps this makes the combat much more fleshed out and consistent. There is a balance element to this, as you don't want enemies everywhere constantly, there should be routes for stealth players to take to avoid NPC/Player paths and do their stealthy work.
What would motivate you to declare a siege or war on others in-game?
Personally I need a clear reason or concrete rewards to declare war on others. There should be some tangible reward to declaring war and winning. This can be a large amount of gold, top tier item drops, removing an obstacle that is hindering your progression, or better yet a combination of all that. I also believe there should be a consequence in declaring war and losing. If there's no consequence, why wouldn't you declare war? I think if you declare war and lose, you need a penalty like having to pay war reparations or something. If there's no penalty, then it becomes a predictable automatic game feature like it is in New World.
Are there any must-haves that you would like to see in sieges?
Must haves for me in a siege is the progressive stages. A siege should not be a 1 and done objective, it should be a series of progressive objectives that ends in a panicked flurry. This is where the last ditch efforts come in, players have built up on this progressive series of objectives and are mad dashing to cap a final point, or destroy the final flag. Defenders are throwing themselves into a chokepoint to stop the enemy from coming through the last gate. In large scale PvP the final objective is the most fun and should be built up to.
Another must have in sieges is destructible areas/ability to change the environment to create new paths. Make an area of a wall breakable, have an underground path be able to be built to tunnel in, have a siege ramp come up and be installed on a wall. These additional optional paths add a lot of modularity to siege warfare and players need to adapt to the changing environment to win.
Mass PvP brings lots of opportunities for AoE abilities. Whether on the DPS or the HPS side, this scratches an itch for people who love spamming their AoE rotation.
Bonuses throughout the war are awesome. Whether they empower a single player or a few players or the entire group, they're great.
Environmental design that allows for ambushes or escapes.
Features I don’t like in mass PVP content:
I don’t like it when melee players are cannon fodder in large-scale PVP. Melee players don’t necessarily get to use their fun abilities before getting nuked since they are the first line of defense against 30+ people.
Some large-scale pvp game modes require the attacking side to get kills to start their siege. Occasionally, this causes the defending side to run and hide, which isn’t the most fun gameplay. If there are ways to circumnavigate that so that killing players is ideal and beneficial for both sides, combat is guaranteed to occur.
What would motivate me:
If there were rare reagents, I would have access to them only during or after winning the war.
Gear improvements and permanent power increases would be great to see.
Retaliation. It could be because of something that happened to my node. It could be something that happened to an ally node.
If wars and sieges had some sort of benefit to the winners. An item they’d bring back to empower their node and its citizens. What would make things even more interesting is if that could be taken away during another war or the next war. I know node types haven’t been tested, but it would be cool to see one node stealing something important from another node upon winning or because a specific point of interest wasn’t defended during the war. For instance, if a divine node gets attacked, it could lose a sacred relic from its temple. This could benefit the node that stole it and give a detriment to the divine node that they must overcome. This could apply to all node types but be represented or achieved differently.
The enemies are toxic
Must-haves:
Summonable NPCs that aid your cause. Large NPCs who have a noticeable impact are awesome. Dragons, Giants, Treants, Elementals, Siege weapons, you name it. It would be awesome to be on a losing side, but you summon reinforcements to aid your cause and change the tide of battle.
A POI that gives strategic bonuses to the event themed around the area in which the node war takes place. If claiming certain POIs increases damage, healing, or survivability, and multiple of them exist, mini-battles could occur throughout the map, so armies must allocate forces to them if they don’t want to lose an advantage.
Major characters that can be killed as objectives. This could go a myriad of routes. Either NPCs that are strong but can be attacked by a group of players or PCs with a leadership role in the node or temporary leadership role given to them before/during the war.
I think you need to have the ability to respawn. You could have a limited number of lives, but I think you absolutely must be able to respawn.
An additional comment I have regarding Node Sieges is if Sieges are random pull from the citizenry into the mode event it may run into the same problem New World has in their OPR mode.
That being, combat balance is based in these games on having a 5 or 8 player size group with specific roles to make the group function well, typically the most critical being a healer. If Node Sieges random pull and the groups do not contain healers or the healers are all randomly placed in the same group it will be problematic and unfun.
I understand wanting to encourage more access to casual players in node sieges to avoid a New World war mode gatekeeping issue, but there still needs to be some form of roster management possible at least to shuffle the players around in a prep phase somehow to make sure groups are set up properly.
Or set no groups at all and let players form their own inside during a siege prep. Phase as they see fit. With the number of players proposed on each side though that could be quite chaotic trying to sort out quickly.
What systems and features in mass PvP combat do you like and dislike?
Like:
Raid/army leader pings visible to all members of the army, party pings visible to immediate party (up to 8 players) and a distinct ping visual for the party leader. Allows for chain of command control for the more ad-hoc scenarios. I understand most people will have an organised discord call but a universal ping system will promote coordination beyond pre-established groups.
Multiple concurrent objectives alongside the standard capture the flag (CTF) objectives to achieve victory.
Also the final victory condition should be a variety which are potentially not pre-determined before a siege. e.g.
a) CTF
b) Push the ram/relic to the site
c) Ignite 'X' location supplies (Fun concept here is to make each supply site volatile like a plant the bomb concept)
d) Regicide (Kill the leader whether AI or player)
e) Steal the item from the fortress and return to the siege camp (flip is to defend it for a period of time)
You could combine completed objectives with material impacts to the battlefield too such as the supplies being burnt limits consumables for that siege. Apply this to the wider region, an objective in the greater Node region impacts the strength of the static defence of the owner or limits the siege engine's available to the attackers.
Dislike:
Area of effect spells that are not coloured/tinted appropriately. If an AOE, crowd control or buff are not clearly red(enemy) or blue(friendly).
Low threat static defence or attacking engine - Siege engines should be force multipliers not an expensive ornament to either side.
Low threat AI
What would motivate you to declare a siege or war on others in-game?
- Content
- Rewards
- Politics
Are there any must-haves that you would like to see in sieges?
High damage siege for both sides - I don't want to see someone eat a ballista bolt and keep walking tank or not they dead.
Limited respawns or no respawns - Maybe only in some 'modes' but respawns drastically reduce the real impact of fortifications. This could also be achieved with balanced respawn timers.
Sapper and Sally concepts - Sneaky ways into the castle and sneaky (optional) ways out of the castle to attack. Not just a handful of gates that make the battle grind to a funnelled AOE stat check.
Meaningful PvE mechanics in the instance/event valid for both attack and defence:
- Gatherable resources inside the battlefield (for gathering folks)
- Repair engines and walls. (engineers?)
- Construct engines and additional fortifications (engineers?)
- Buff NPC and character armour/weapons (Blacksmith etc)
- Provide consumables unique and more impactful then items that can be brought in (chemist/cook)
This PvE content would ideally be funded by the resources found in the battle but both sides should be allowed to bring a limited amount in to begin with that promotes scarcity.
Environment impact
- Slowing of movement speed such as mud or dense brush
- Cover destructible with many variations
- Elevation % increase to projectiles
- Lava hot
- Dark % decrease to projectiles (as visibility will be adjusted by third party gamma settings it has to be a stat change too not just visual).
PROJECT ANVIL - Forge Your Legacy [OCE/Hardcore/PvX]
What systems and features in mass PvP combat do you like and dislike?
Long drawn out battles, at least an hour in my opinion, short wars are no fun as you rarely get to have multiple large engagements throughout the fight and with the introduction of PVE objectives in node wars for Ashes I believe its more essential to have longer wars to maximize the PVP experience.
What would motivate you to declare a siege or war on others in-game?
Resources/money that could be gathered for the guild/node and be distributed to members. Or just the idea of going against a powerful guild/alliance with your own.
Are there any must-haves that you would like to see in sieges?
Large zones for battle, not so much in the sense that there is a lot of open space, but just being able to fit so many people into one area without there being 400 players on screen at once, and having multiple things going on at once on a large scale.
Hoping to see the simple concept of 'High risk high reward' being implemented. A good example is the 'Wilderness' in the MMORGP RuneScape. It makes people think twice about getting their best gear/inventory as they might lose it during the battle on death.
The possibility for players (with a ++ to dwarves) to learn tunnelling skills so that they could open a passage under the walls and come up into the castle.
What systems and features in mass PvP combat do you like and dislike?
If a victory condition of a war (the war as a whole, not the war events or the sieges) is to kill a certain number of enemy players, I would like to see some options to contribute to that total using PvE (as opposed to separate PvE only victory conditions). Maybe the mayor could make these available using commissions to give their node a slight tactical advantage. For example, seek and destroy enemy scouts and bring their intel to your home node. It would be less efficient that straight PvP because you would need to return to your node to gain the points and if you get ganked on the way the points would be lost. Also, it gives an opportunity for players to see the effects of their investments (or their enemy's investments) into their node's guards.
Are there any must-haves that you would like to see in sieges?
An absolute must is a clear understanding of how the caravan system feeds the sieges.
My ideal scenario is that in the days leading up to the siege, the attackers must run caravans to the "front line". The number and type of packages delivered would determine the quantity and quality of the siege engines the attackers have to use in the siege. Since the number of siege engines is finite, this gives the defenders a reason to sally out beyond the walls to try to pick off some easy targets. If the defenders can destroy all of the siege engines before the gate/walls are destroyed, is could result in a defender's victory.
If you plan on having some sort of a respawn limit for players or NPC soldiers, it should be fed before the siege by the caravan system in a similar way.
In sieges, and maybe some war events, I would like to see the NPC guards/soldiers play a tactical roll. I want to see them in small to medium sized groups that slowly advance from the base camp toward an objective after the players have taken it. They can be the occupation force to prevent the enemy for recapturing the objective and can function as a relative safe spot for the players, giving them a rally point to retreat to. Also, I can see role players loving the moments of "Hold the line until the reinforcements arrive!"
I think it would be interesting if the mayor/general could designate a spot on the map for the guards to occupy, even if it isn't an objective. Parking a platoon on a hill or near a choke point can give the players the support they need to hold a valuable area.
I do think that NPC guards/soldiers should be a limited resource in sieges, though. The quantity and quality of these soldiers should be tied to a node's investments and success with the caravan system prior to the siege.
I would like to see destructible gates and walls. The walls should 2 to 3 times harder to destroy than the gates, though. This can open up unexpected, but not unpredictable, vectors of attack. Also, maybe consider the walls having a partial destruction state that will allow rouges to parkour their way in or semi-flying mounts to leap/glide over.
I would like to see potential CC icons on healthbars of enemies in PvP to allow for callouts/teamwork towards CC chaining healers, or knowing when a melee is disarmed to allow for more strategy behind the PvP sphere.
Would be a cool option to see thieves having the option to do some sneaky behind the scenes stuff, instead of actual battle. That would add some strategy of having guards at some points.
And that plays very well into the role play aspect of this class.
What I have in mind is Alterac Valley battle in WoW. If a team is not coordinated, an important resurrection point could be captured in your own base (talking about the graveyard inside the base).
Another cool thing would be to have some sort of a ritual spell that needs 10+ healers. They would channel some sort of huge battlefield-wide heal. But don't make it as a click and stare at the progress bar thing. Make some sort of a blob in the sky that needs to be healed actively and gets bigger and bigger, then bursts and heals the battlefield. As a fighter on the battlefield, seeing the bubble in the sky, would give me motivation to push my luck a bit more further. This also comes with some questionable strategies, like - both teams fill the massive heal until 99% and wait for their team to storm the gate and only leave 1 healer guy near it , so he could pop it at the required time. If needed, this could be mechanically made to require a number of heals per second.
Integrating PvE and PvP for a Dynamic PvX Experience
There's been a lot of discussion around the PvX element, with some feeling that PvE can detract from the excitement or seem like filler content. Often, PvE elements are perceived as mere trash mobs that offer little challenge and serve only to pad out the gameplay.
However, I believe that by viewing PvE from a different perspective, we can create engaging content where PvE isn't just filler but a vital part of the overall experience. By making PvE more intricate and impactful, we can enhance the battlefield dynamics, leveraging the player adjacency that Ashes of Creation aims to be known for.
Drawing inspiration from MOBAs (despite my love-hate relationship with them), I think we can borrow elements that integrate PvE into larger-scale wars seamlessly. In MOBAs, PvE components feel essential and contribute significantly to the gameplay.
Here's a rough outline of my idea, including key objectives and gameplay flow:
Map Layout and Objectives
Overall Objective:
Gather Demonic Energy Crystals: Each team must collect demonic energy crystals and bring them to their main base. The goal is to accumulate the most energy to survive an impending demonic energy wave threatening to annihilate everything.
Main Objective:
Control the Corrupt Crystal: Located at the center of the map, this crystal spawns powerful demons. Defeating these demons yields the highest amount of crystal energy, which players must transport back to their main base.
Control Objectives (Purple):
Smaller Control Points: Surrounding the main objective are smaller control points, initially guarded by powerful demons. Once defeated, players can claim these points, which then spawn NPCs to aid their team at the main objective. Controlling all points allows for more NPC spawns and fortifies the area, enhancing the team's ability to defend and gather crystals. Strategic Flow: These control points are crucial for map control, creating a dynamic strategy where teams must balance attacking and defending to gain leverage around the main objective. If one side controls majority it will be very difficulty for players to kill demons, if a team owns 0 purple control it be to the point any size zerg would end up losing (this could also come in the form of debuffs and such not just relying on NPCs and their effects)
Attack Objectives (Purple):
Defend and Attack Points: Each side of the map features two attack points. Holding these points spawns NPCs that attack the opposing team's side base. Protecting your side base is critical to prevent your crystal battery from being destroyed. Battery Mechanics: The crystal battery, which generates a protective barrier, can only be destroyed by NPCs from the attack points. These NPCs are also required to breach the heavily fortified gates leading to the side base. If the battery is destroyed, the team loses their crystals, and their control points revert to demon control, with these demons gaining a temporary buff. The crystal will restore itself after some time, requiring ongoing defense and strategy.
Breaching the Gate: Players alone cannot breach the side base gates; they must rely on the NPCs spawned from the attack points. Successfully holding both attack objectives for a significant duration allows the NPCs to break through the gates and reach the crystal battery.
General Mob Objectives:
Resource Gathering: Additional mobs spawn around the map, providing resources necessary for sustaining control objectives and spawning NPCs to support the main node. These mobs are essential for maintaining control points and bolstering your team’s strength.
Gameplay Logic
Balanced Dynamics: The game is designed to encourage a balanced approach, where PvE elements support and enhance PvP objectives. Teams must work together to control points, gather resources, and protect their base, creating a multifaceted and strategic gameplay experience.
Player Involvement: By integrating PvE in this way, every element feels purposeful and impactful, ensuring that players are always engaged and contributing to their team's success.
This approach ensures that PvE elements are not just filler but a critical part of the game, enriching the overall PvX experience and making each battle feel meaningful and intense.
What systems and features in mass PvP combat do you like and dislike?
Long drawn out battles, at least an hour in my opinion, short wars are no fun as you rarely get to have multiple large engagements throughout the fight and with the introduction of PVE objectives in node wars for Ashes I believe its more essential to have longer wars to maximize the PVP experience.
100.000% agree here.
I read that for Example "Node Sieges" last 2 Hours or so -> and this is absolutely right. The Fate if a Node prevails or falls to level down or Destruction,
this should be an epic Time-Window which shouldn't be decided beneath Two Hours, or at least even One Hour even if the Battle is very one-sided and either the Defenders or Attackers absolutely wipe the Floor with their Opponents.
A very long Time ago by now -> when in WoW Vanilla the first Battleground with Fourty Players versus Fourty,
" Alterac Valley " - was still very huge,
and Battles could last EASILY Seven Hours or above,
back then that WAS -> the absolute epic Peak of the Game for me. Especially before even the first Expansion dropped. When You could spawn NPC Extra-Troops, or huge gigantic Mobs, or summon a Meccha-like Power-Armor into the Battle in form of a "Goblin Shredder",
which could burn the Enemy Forces and take a good Amount of Damage before it got destroyed,
THAT WAS HUGE. That was the most amazing Experience Alliance versus Horde for me. The smaller Battlegrounds just couldn't compare to this Feeling of epic War and Battle.
That was "War" in World of Warcraft.
If my Senses didn't deceive me in the last 12 Months -> then i am 100% confident that Ashes of Creation is completely superior in Engine and what for a Burden in Graphics and Player-Numbers it can take.
Unreal Engine 5.4 or above is a very powerful Tool. One of the very Advantages of being such a young MMO in the VideoGame World which keeps improving it's Soft- and Hardware.
Technically - there is just no Chance that Ashes could fail to be more epic than World of Warcraft has ever been. Intrepid has everything on the Table to create Greatness for Decades to come.
- What would motivate you to declare a siege or war on others in-game?
Ambition.
The Hunger and Greed for more and more Power.
The Ambition to help my fellow Node Citizens that We can ALL rise to Power - by becoming a mighty Metropolis. The Ambition to rule like half to full our Biome as a small Node EMPIRE - and flaunt our Dominance and Superiority as one of the greatest Cities of all.
I am aware this is proooooooooooobably not necessary to like - "save the whole World of Verra" - but then again this is also not necessarily the Goal, right ? Aside from stopping/resisting the Corruption of the Ancients.
It is only a Means to an End. Let us become the most glorious City on the whole Server - with the most Freeholds, Guilds, Vassals and Soldiers.
" From Ashes to Empires. "
And i am taking that personally. ( and literally ^.^ )
- Are there any must-haves that you would like to see in sieges?
I would love to see, that Siege Engine's are possible.
- Huge Catapults to attack the City Walls of a Node with. Maybe even in Form of some "Monsters" in Case of a Monster Coin Siege-Attack : and not an Attack by "humanoid Citizens" of playable Races.
- Somewhat huge "Towers" People can run up inside - to try to board the defensive Guard's Walkway ontop of the Node's City-Walls with. Towers that can slowly approach by being pushed and pulled and being on thick, fat Wheels,
and when they are not destroyed in Time - it gives the Attacker-Troops one more Way into the City to attack it.
Just the cool Stuff that should be involved in a REALLY epic, huge Battle. I am not even against the Concept and Mechanic that such Siege Engines would need to get build during the Battle or before it, similar like a Caravan when being summoned,
or when a Caravan gets turned into a Raft or the other way around -> and when the Siege Engines are then attacked and damaged before they are finished -> then the "finished" Product of them would be damaged as well in an equal Amount of "HP/Health-Bar Loss" - and hence easier to get destroyed when it's finally operational.
0
Options
MissionCreepMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
you will likely be put into a non-insignificant disadvantage due to the travel time needed to reach the territory where the war is being fought
This is what I don't understand about wars and sieges, either. This is a slow-travel universe with very few exceptions...and potentially NO exceptions depending on how the nodes develop.
And on top of that, you can't even just ride to these places, you'll have to sail to reach half the world, potentially.
But the team believes that wars will be a huge basis for gameplay and resolving issues between factions.
I'm not so sure when everything will be so far away.
Also you have all these people wanting to do their caravans and what have you. Where is the time going to come from to walk/run/ride/sail to participate in all these wars, fight in them, return and still get your caravans, crafting harvesting, bosses, raids, etc done?
And that's just resolving the time conflict with your NODE. Add in whatever your Guild is getting you involved in and now you've doubled your time investment in things potentially far away.
Most players (and I mean that literally, 50%+) will only have so much time, but it seems like the game is being made only for hardcore players to fully enjoy.
That's dangerous. And it's also an assumption that the hardcore players and/or players with plenty of time on their hands will want to do all that.
So you end up excluding:
1) People who don't have the time
+
2) People who don't have the inclination
This feels like a "kitchen sink" game where only 20% of the players will end up fully enjoying 80% of the mechanics, and 80% will only enjoy about 20%.
(I don't know if it's actually that bad, but it's always good to stick to the 80/20 as your baseline.)
Comments
I really love tug-of-war style gameplay. Straight resource races can get pretty dull IMO. If one side really starts pulling ahead, there usually aren't any mechanics built into the system to really allow others to catch up. Even during the PvP showcase, when we saw Steven's team pull ahead even though they'd been behind, we found out from playtesters that y'all had to actually make Margaret throw the match so that Steven's team could win. Not blaming you all for anything, it definitely made for a better showcase, but the point I'm making stands. If it hadn't been done for a recording, Margaret's team would've wiped the floor with Steven's. The fact that Steven's team could kill some casters to slow down the godspike channel as a catch-up mechanic likely wouldn't have mattered much.
I think that the more avenues there are for teams to pull ahead of each other by leaning on different strengths and taking opportunities to pursue avenues less traveled with good strategic timing, the better.
This is going to be a lot, but for the sake of an example, I hope you can stick with me. Let's say you're fighting in Generic Enchanted Forest #1. I'll use some random fantasy race concepts as filler 'variables'.
Even when the war isn't going on, the forest normally has a large area at its heart where a mutated sentient race of Saprobe-inspired fungi sorcerers have been infecting the forest's Treants with spores that compel them to destroy life and reanimate them with spores in order for the Saprobians to multiply, which threaten to contaminate the entire forest. Protecting the greater forest from the spread of this disease is a neutral race of Dryads. There are normally other quests, events, and an occasional story arc that involve this lore.
During the war event, your goal is to be the first team that destroys the Saprobian threat, breathing new life into the forest, gaining control over the territory's EXP, and opening up a temporary dungeon, with other benefits discussed later.
The first stage to making these event systems more dynamic, I think, is to split them up into multiple phases.
1) Escorting a couple of caravan wagons from your node's caravansary all the way to the site of your base camp for the war event, and guarding the construction site while NPCs and players help to construct the camp.
This would allow for some PvE action from spawned enemies along the way, and potential PvP action as members of the enemy team could surprise your caravan and try to temporarily disable it in order to delay your arrival. It's a minor phase, but it makes the whole event feel more realistic, and gives people some extra time to show up before the main event starts.
2) Breaking through the outer Saprobian defenses of Sorcerers and corrupted Treants, destroying their node network of Saprobian spawners to gain ground, and eventually reaching the very heart of the forest where there lies a ruined fortress long abandoned and since inhabited by the Saprobians. This battle between the Saprobians and the Dryads has been going on for quite some time, and the Saprobians can see that war is coming. They're not going to be easy to defeat.
The heart of the forest lies, naturally, at the center of the battle, while the two base camps are on opposite outskirts, North and South. The Dryads have a shrine near the outskirts to the West, and a small outpost lies equally distant to the East - once abandoned many ages ago along with the forest's central fortress, and now occupied by a league of arcane scientists and researchers investigating the Saprobians and their origins.
In the central chamber of the castle within the Saprobian fortress, players will find a gaping pit in the stone floor, impossibly deep and dark, the walls of the shaft visibly lined with glowing mushrooms until light can no longer escape its depths. Players must deposit a certain quantity of Saprobian Caps into the hole as a threat to what lies below in order to summon the final boss to the surface to face justice, and defeat whatever form it may take.
There are several ways players can approach the task at hand. If players are confident enough in their own PvE skills, they can choose to assault the Saprobians start-to-finish head-on. This would require a majority of that node's citizens to be VERY highly geared and coordinated, equivalent to taking down a high level world boss in difficulty. This approach would be designed to fail the vast majority of the time. I imagine they're very strong both in offense and defense, and they all possess the ability to disperse spores which can hinder your team with CC effects.
3) More likely, players will choose to appease either (or both) of the neutral parties invested in the related events to gain their favor and aid.
The Dryads are protectors of the forest, and specialize both in magical combat against the Saprobians and their spore-infested allies - corrupted Treants and reanimated dead beasts of the wood. They have other problems of their own to deal with, however, and would ask for your aid before risking their lives in such a bold strike against the enemy. To boost their offensive and defensive magics, they require a supply of special herbs and barks from rare shrubs and trees in the wood. If you can supply them with a large offering of both, they will grant your node's army with a team of empowered Dryads. You'll get two healers capable of healing your team and the other Dryads, three sorcerers, and five physical fighters. All of them are resistant to the CC magic of the Saprobians due to their empowerment. The team of Dryads will have their own pathing that they follow, depending on which team claims them. They'll go systematically from Saprobian spawner to Saprobian spawner, working on all the outer ones, then going one degree inward at a time towards the fortress, etc.. It will be up to the players to follow them and take advantage of their support. When one of the Saprobian spawners is destroyed, one of the three sorcerers will stay behind to heal the land. When the land is healed, after (x) minutes of channeling, the sorcerer will spawn an allied Treant every (y) minutes to fight for your team along the same pathing pattern, cutting straight towards the next functioning spawner and attacking any enemies (NPC or Player) it finds along the way, up to a certain leash threshold.
The Scientists, however, have not been idle during their relatively brief time in the wood. More curious about the inner workings of the Saprobians than the Dryads, the Scientists have devised methods by which one can protect oneself from their spores and other magics. They require their own assistance before helping your team, of course, which will come from the same herbs being collected for the Dryads, as well as a separate resource, Saprobian Spores. Players can speak with any scientist in the outpost to get an empty vial, and whenever a Saprobian is killed, its spores can be harvested in addition to the Caps. At any time, players can deposit any amount of herbs and spores at the Scientists' laboratory, the same as the Dryad temple and their required resources. Once a large enough quantity has been gathered by the entire team, the Scientists will perform an alchemical spell which grants your entire team a temporary (but lengthy) boon. The boon will make your team resistant to the CC magics of the Saprobians, and give your attacks against them a 20% increase in overall damage dealt. To further investigate the inner sanctum of the Saprobians, which the scientists have not yet reached, they will also supply your army with a team of three flame-thrower operators, whose weapons are specially formulated to break down the tough fibers of the Saprobian fungal network. The flames are particularly strong against Saprobians, and also destroy Saprobian spawners much more quickly than any other method of attack, normally taking about three times as long to fully incapacitate. Much like the Dryad teams, the flame-thrower squads follow their own pathway working on the outer spawners first, and then further towards the inner spawners. Each flame-thrower operator only has enough juice to down one spawner, but they can all attack at once. Their resources are tracked separately, but once any of them run out, they make their way back to the Laboratory to await a new donation.
Giving players two asymmetrical avenues to pursue victory through is a great way to encourage each team to lean into their own strengths and preferred playstyles.
If you go with the Dryads, you can collect everything they need to help you without fighting any of the tricky Saprobians on their own, only other players fighting over the one shared resource. You can send less PvP-oriented players after the bark, and the others who more capable of PvPing after the herbs. For these efforts, you're rewarded with boons specifically focused on healing and combat support from outside forces.
If you go with the Scientists, you're required to fight Saprobians and against other players in order gain their boon and their flame-throwers, and in return, you're given a boon that empowers your head-on approach to victory.
To gain ground towards the fortress, I imagine there would be 9 spawners on each side of it, forming a three concentric rings split between the two armies down the middle. The outer half-ring on each team's side has 4, the middle half-ring has 3, and the inner half-ring has 2. So you would need to perform the Scientists' errand three times in a row to maximize the efficiency they can provide, and you would need to perform the Dryad ritual three times in order to get a sorcerer spawning treants on every recovered node. You could also alternate by starting with the Scientists to burn the spawners more quickly, then call in the Dryads afterwards to start spawning treants.
That being said, I'm not imagining any team would always need to go that far in order to be victorious. Perhaps players must also consider that while they can choose to pursue aid from both neutral parties, their forces will then be split to gain resources. Allowing for fractional support from either or both of the neutral groups allows for players to make strategic decisions about where, when, and to what extent they should extend themselves and their resources to get ahead of the enemy team. Players can also hunt each other in order to steal resources in the field.
4) Once the final Saprobian spawners have been destroyed, players can safely begin their assault on the fortress.
This will not be an easy feat, as the fortress is loaded with the strongest of the Saprobian forces, and their spawners cannot be destroyed, as they're underground and spawn larger, deadlier Saprobians from the bowels of Verra. If players can work their way through enough of the enemies to reach the keep, then they can begin offering Saprobian Caps to the gaping pit in the center of the castle. They will, in almost every case, not have gathered enough caps by the time they reach the castle to spawn the final boss immediately. They'll need to carry on fighting the higher level Saprobians throughout the fortress until they've done so, hopefully facing a bit of a challenge from the enemy team at some point, once they break into the fortress as well. Again, enemy players can be killed for Caps, and players may have to face off against each other and the Saprobians at the same time. If you have Dryad sorcerers still summoning treants, new Dryad teams, or Scientist flame-throwers, they'll venture into the fortress with you and help to heal your teammates (dryad healers) or fight Saprobians until their resources are depleted, or they fall in battle.
Once a team has gathered enough Caps to summon the boss from the depths of the caverns below the fortress, it will rise from the pit, enraged and lustful for vengeance. To keep players from escaping, it will immediately spawn vines that erupt from beneath the stone floors, blocking off all entrances/exits. Players on the opposing team can attempt to hack down the vines and gain entry to the fight - this can be aided by the Scientist flame-thrower crews. If it's your team that spawned the boss, your flame-thrower crews will not attack the vines, but instead, your Dryad sorcerers will attempt to maintain their strength to aid your victory. Either of these support NPCs can be killed by players outside the boss room, depending on what their best interests are. The respawn point is outside the fortress, so if one group is unsuccessful in defeating the boss, it will give the other team waiting outside a chance to try for themselves. The vines respawn periodically.
Once the boss is killed, the team that dealt the most damage to it is gifted a temporary offensive and defensive boon that persists through death until it expires. That being said, the Deformed Cap of the boss can be looted by anyone. The war event is not yet over.
5) In order to end the event, one team or the other must deliver the Deformed Cap to either the Dryad Temple or the Scientists' Laboratory.
It can be picked up and carried by any player, but is so large, that they cannot mount while carrying it. The Deformed Cap Carrier must be defended on their way to either deposit site. If the Deformed Cap Carrier is killed, the Deformed Cap will be dropped, and can be picked up by any other player. Further support cannot be called for from the Dryads or the Scientists at this point.
6) Once the Deformed Cap is delivered to either destination, the war event is over, and the team who completed the delivery is the winner.
At the heart of the forest, a new dungeon is unlocked which allows players to pursue the root of the Saprobian threat, which anyone can delve into. The rewards from defeating its bosses will vary, but will largely focus around armor, weaponry, rare crafting materials, and blueprints. All node exp farmed there, as well as the surface level of the forest, will go to the winning node for the duration of the winning node's territory control.
If the Deformed Cap was delivered to the Dryads, they will use it to perform a ritual that temporarily cleanses the entire forest of the shadow of the corruption. For (x) days afterward, rare gatherables will spawn at increased rates, including those in the subterranean dungeon, and all gatherables in the area will grant increased yield to the winning team for the duration of the winning node's territory control.
If the Deformed Cap was delivered to the Scientists, they will be able to perform an alchemical enchantment that gives the winning node a 20% defensive and offensive boon while exploring the dungeon, as well as open up shops in the outpost only to them that sell special blueprints for gear enchantments and alchemy recipes for the duration of the winning node's territory control.
Conclusion:
This event is large in scale, so it feels appropriately epic and region defining. It takes advantage of existing lore, races, organizations/factions, and storylines in the world, so it doesn't feel like an artificial battleground has been slapped over an existing POI like a generic game board. It has multiple stages, so players feel like they're steadily progressing through a complex series of strategic advances, which is what a major event in any war should be. It has multiple paths to support and victory, which allows node populations of varying strengths and interests to forge their own way. It has asymmetrical choices and outcomes, which lends a feeling of impact and meaning to player decision making. It offers ways for players to get the jump on each other and steal some progress from the enemy team when they aren't expecting it, so that leads aren't exponential. Finally, the outcome provides opportunities for all players, win or lose, to engage in interesting new content, while preserving the best benefits for the winning team.
This level of depth and complexity could easily be rewritten for any part of the world, with any number of objectives, and with any number of avenues to victory. There's a lot of potential here, I can't wait to see what the team cooks up.
"What would motivate you to declare a siege or war on others in-game?"
I think the instigating factors that the team mentioned during the livestream were all great ideas. Territory/EXP control, weakening the enemy's ability to compete economically, stealing rare artifacts that give boons to nodes (or at least re-introducing them to the game world). I would also say that repeated incursions on our trade caravans or resource gathering, despite repeated complaints, would encourage me to seek such methods of discouragement/justice.
"Are there any must-haves that you would like to see in sieges?"
I'm assuming you're referencing sieges specifically, as opposed to outdoor war events. I hope that we can have siege weaponry built up in anticipation of the event that needs to be constructed by players. I hope there will be multiple methods of entering the enemy's node (ramming down gate doors, destroying walls, infiltrating weak points, etc.) so that it's not just a head to head smackdown every single time. Obviously, defending players should be able to contribute resources to heighten defenses (constructing gates where there normally are none, reinforcing existing ones, crafting large bolts for ballistae, flammable tinctures for launching at the ground near entry points, etc.).
If you made it this far, thanks for reading. I won't go as far as to say my ideas are as good as what the team can put together on their own, but I hope there's some inspiration or at least perspective on what can be done to enhance the experience of Node Wars to be gleaned from my ramblings.
Why one-way? My experience with ESO sieging is that the outcome of an attack/rush at any given time is extremely binary, because there aren't enough tools for defenders of the intact castle to do anything interesting, proactive, and most importantly skill-expressive, to stop the enemy at the gate from trying to break it. The real battle only really begins when the walls are breached, and in too many cases that's also when the battle ends. Overall that's not enough happening to keep people's interest in the long run.
By contrast, in my favourite DaoC spin-off Regnum Online, castles and forts had two-way gates for defenders to pop out of and fight, and retreat. They later also had a second indestructible one-way trap door at the back of fortresses to allow for wrap-around backdoor counter-rushes as an alternate defence tactic. Those many tools for defenders to access the fight meant aggressors had to switch their focus between sieging the entrances, and fighting players, including melees.
That gave defenders some amount of an edge, but the defenders had the advantage of more open space available to them:
And frankly, a somewhat defender-favoured siege mechanic is more interesting anyway. Because every time the defender succeeds in pushing the aggressor back, there's an interesting dynamic in how the aggressor will adjust their strategy for their next strike, whereas when the aggressor succeeds, the siege ends.
Now, two-way doors for only one group at the site aren't a very realistic mechanic, so they require a clever implementation if you don't want them to look cheap. But just for the gameplay enjoyability aspect, I find them to be the clearly superior mechanic.
I think the Elder Scrolls method would only really be suitable for medival siege simulator games where realism is a high priority for players. In a fantasy MMO with anything being possible as long as the result is good gameplay, you should really aspire to give every class something to do that involves their class identity at all times. Not have melees twiddle their thumbs or automatically be appointed to siege weapon duty for an essential part of the siege. (And I never played melee myself, I just like the gameplay much more when melees are consistently a part of the strategy considerations.)
It was an option in the pre-alpha siege footage. I think versions with magical droppers sending you into the front of the gate from the wall, and then porting you back upon reactivation could be fine. A slight delay would be acceptable too; personally I think much of a delay would be overkill. If it needs more balancing, you can just give attackers other advantages, like more durable siege weapons to make up for it. That way, siege gear isn't a fragile liability, and players fighting players is what really decides who wins.
+ I like defending points of interest, especially with walls and gates.
+ I like the decisionmaking that occurs among groups when they have to determine if their supremacy in one location is safe enough to send part of the group to the next objective, or if the enemy forces are starting to overpower them at the current location.
- I dislike everything that gets in the way of those decisionmaking processes, like randomly spawning PvE encounters that distract the group or constantly forcing everyone to do the next obvious thing.
What would motivate you to declare a siege or war on others in-game?
+ Showing off my competence at strategy/PvP combat/rallying my allies.
+ Realm pride.
+ Rewards as listed in my Dev Update feedback thread comment:
+ Debuffs on the enemy.
+ Territory access. (As described in the dev update when you mentioned additional rewards for PvE in the contested/won territory after the war.)
+ Mayor mandates.
+ Imposing restrictions on mayor leadership powers for the losing node. In particular, blocking specific upgrades for buildings.
+ Raiding/burning crops, or doing something that will affect the enemy economy beyond just a debuff. Tangible changes. Perhaps even to make them feel *less* painful to the losers, but still be fun to fight about. Something like half a day's worth of crops that won't actually sting hard, but still demonstrate authority of the winner, and encourage the enemy to strike back or resolve the hostilities through conquest or diplomacy.
+ And perhaps there should be some noticable influence on story arcs development for nodes that have been particularly effective or active in wars and sieges.
+ Overthrowing the powers that be, if certain groups have been grabbing a bigger slice of the cake than is rightfully theirs by snowballing power to the point where no one else has a chance to get anything done.
One thing that would be really important to me is that if a bunch of underdogs group together to successfully target one powerful group, it shouldn't just go without consequences. If eight strong guilds say enough is enough, and shut down an alliance that's been hogging all objectives, that should have perceptible consequences. That alliance should struggle to continue controlling other things in the world besides just their node territory. There should be clear avenues to deny them access to critical node resources, top-tier loot, and equipment resources. Assuming the underdogs amount to a stronger military force than the powerful alliance, of course.
The more direct the possibility to shut off growth opportunities for a dominating guild/node the better. And in turn make it difficult to win the fights required to enforce those restrictions/punishments. If it's too easy for tryhard guilds just to shrug off losses in the battlefield and maintain their power indefinitly simply because each individual player has too much individual wealth, people will stop caring about the ostensibly inconsequential PvP objectives.
I think the clearest sign of failure for the PvX system would be if the same set of players can suffer loss after loss when people have had enough, and be just as strong as they were before once the attacks stop.
And the beauty of a design that allows for punishing the top dog is that it can't be used against the minority groups, at least given sufficient restrictions for how many wars/sieges a single node/guild can launch in total. If the underdogs are spread out across 15 small guilds in 5 nodes while the powerhouse are like 4 massive guilds in a metropolis and its stage 6 vassal, the powerhouse can't suppress all those other guilds, because they simply can't dish out enough wars to put pressure on every one of those groups.
Are there any must-haves that you would like to see in sieges?
I can only think of the two-way doors mentioned in my reply to akabear above. That, or something equivalent to allow for constant back-and-forth where every class always gets to engage in active combat. Two-way doors for defenders seem like the most direct solution.
Generally having outposts would be extremely cool. Mid-sized fortresses that can be unlocked for contestation before sieges start through winning wars or other achievements. Not too many, so people don't get spread out and become too disconnected. In my ideal picture of sieges or some war types, there would be significance to maintaining control of those outposts during the siege, and both sides should be encouraged to clash into each other at those locations.
One thing I was wondering about a lot while watching the Dev Update is the threat of being caught unprepared while clearing a PvE objective. To the point where the meta would devolve into never doing any objectives yourself, because it's much more free to let the opponents struggle with them, and rush them moments before they are done. When the players are at their weakest exposed to be killed, *and* the objective is almost free for the taking if the timing is lucky enough.
Part of this can be counteracted by giving rangers and simlar classes scouting abilities, but if enemies can come from every side, you can't scout every direction.
There doesn't have to be completely controlled environment for every PvP objective that exists in the game, but I'd say where you do add it, add it decisively, so it's at least near-impossible to bypass. If that means random 20 metre tall cliffs and gorges here and there, so be it. Because there's nothing more frustrating than when there's the illusion of strategic advantage everywhere, but no actual strategic advantage anywhere.
It's fine if there are a few locations where the opponent can surprise you by tanking 80% of their HP to come from an angle that was mistakenly deemed safe. But those should be exceptions among the controlled environment areas.
I would also appreciate if most objectives had safe spots to retreat into when enemies show up (but not close enough to the objective to fight it from within the safe spot originally), so you actually have a response when you successfully scout an approaching group that's about to gank you.
Similarly for mele types provide cover, nooks, crannies and small out-of-main-view gathering spots for players to dash into to provide chance to hide to avoid or hide to time attacks/defence.
With perhaps the minor cover in castle sieges pre-purchasable by the defenders and placeable.
Bards strumming or Wardrums.
When node wars start, there should always be a way to launch player-driven surprise attacks on strategic enemy locations. Make wars feel like they are continuously being fought, not just during special in-game events.
As for curated PVP content (as shown in the last showcase), avoid huge useless maps and non-rewarding content like Alterac Valley was in WOW.
Underrated idea. Not only does this make sense in-world and give dispersed players a chance to congregate, it also gives organized nodes the opportunity to have their entire standing player army march out alongside the caravans, which would look awesome.
That being said, two of the main experiences with PvP in MMOs that I did enjoy are from LOTRO playing the FREEPS (Free People aka the normal characters you level) and the CREEPS (the orcs, spiders, Uruks, etc. that are playable by players), as well as WvWvW from GW2 where three servers (Worlds) fight against each other on a massive battleground.
As someone who mainly PvE's, one aspect I really enjoy from these large scale PvP areas is the ability to capture outposts, forts, and castles which are filled with the NPCs of the current captor, which once captured, either offer bonuses to your side either for a specified amount of time, or as long as the building is held, or add points to your side to aid in determining the winner of the war.
While I do enjoy being part of a giant zerg of 30-50+, I also like the ability to be part of a small strategic group between 10-15, and a game that allows the small strike team to take on groups of much larger numbers if they have the coordination and shot calling to do so, and within reason, are very satisfying and it's not just a "throw more bodies at the problem" type of war.
While the two aforementioned games don't have any kind of role for crafters (though GW2 does have a caravan type system that brings supplies to different bases to allow for the building of siege weapons and repairing fortifications), having crafters play a role in gathering materials and building up the siege weapons and fortifications while PVPers can be on the front lines of the battle, and the PVEers can have opportunities to take on world boss spawns or capture strategic areas and buildings to aid in the war, would be great way to have everyone involved in such a big game system.
A few things I dislike about mass PvP are when players can simply win any fight by bringing more numbers and zerging nodes. Skilled players are currently organizing zerg-level guilds easily, which ruins competition and servers in general. This often leads to less emphasis on strategy, reducing its potential impact.
Elements I like include having a mix of objectives during mass PvP that help split up fights, so it isn't just a giant ball vs. ball. These objectives can vary widely but should include defending certain points during the war. Creating a good flow of the fight is crucial, so people are more spread out, doing a variety of tasks that can help them win or provide other benefits.
With a well-designed flow, it won't all be about one big ball to win all content. This will allow smaller groups of players to feel more effective and choose objectives that fit their style. For example, in Planetside, multiple objectives spread players out across the map, providing various benefits and helping the overall war effort.
What would motivate you to declare a siege or war on others in-game?
Beyond the general desire to PvP and to clear certain areas for farming monsters or materials, it would have to be specific benefits that improve my node, providing a clear advantage for what I do there. In particular, sieges would be motivated by the need to eliminate threats and for the benefits they might bring, beyond just potential lootable materials.
Are there any must-haves that you would like to see in sieges?
1. Competitive Balance and Strategy:
Sieges should be competitive, focusing on the even number of players and ensuring strategy plays a key role. There should be reasons to destroy objectives, defend/hold multiple objectives throughout the siege, and effectively use siege or special items to gain an advantage or push back when losing. Victory shouldn't be about capturing one spot; each spot can be weighted differently, but multiple objectives should be required to build up a timer. Holding all objectives should lead to victory, avoiding the chaos of ball vs. ball in a small area.
2. Balanced Spawns:
Spawn mechanics are crucial and need to be balanced. Quick respawns can make sieges feel like team deathmatches, diminishing strategic elements. Players should consider the time it takes to get back into the fight, discouraging reckless behavior. Objectives around gaining multiple spawn points can help spread players out and create additional tactical elements.
3. Innovative Mechanics:
Personally, as a fan of Risk, board games and Magic the gathering, I think incorporating card-type effects would be interesting. Players could use powerful effects from certain artifacts or elsewhere, such as instantly rebuilding a gate with enhanced strength and special effects, disabling wall defenses temporarily, reducing respawn times, casting a powerful spell to damage the entire battlefield, summoning a giant corruption beast for a duration, etc. This could add a fun element to sieges, with politics around obtaining these items. Maybe there is even draw backs to having these as well in general cause could cause people to siege a node
Edit*
Another important thing is making sure things aren't over complicated when in terms of being able to declare war. I noticed a following post talking about talking about 0 draw backs if you lose and such and there should be additional elements if you lose, to make people second guess it. I feel this is more of a PvE mind set to reduce actual pvp in the game and add on more unnecessary elements. The fiction between nodes on wars happening often enough within reason is important. Any relation to new world having played the game competitively doesn't relate to anything to do with AoC. The closest really would be war siege burn out as sieges happened on a node every few days.
- Destructible gates and walls.
- Defensive and offensive siege equipment.
- Capture point within the node/fortress/castle.
- Castle/node defensive upgades (i.e. fortified gate, fortified walls, defensive siege equipment).
- Supply system.
Hopefully regional nodes governing vassal nodes will be able to be weakended by capturing or damaging vassal nodes and other linked objectives to setup a siege. Ideally regional wars break out between metropolis nodes and during these wars there is a sense that you are capturing enemy terriory similar to the way that a WvW match plays out between servers in Guild Wars 2.
I really hope there is good "command/control" map functionality to help coordinate large groups of players outside of 3rd party communication tools like Discord
I share a similar belief in that when you are competing with another group death should be more impactful.
Obviously disregarding open world caravans and just normal day to day PvP. I think PvP in sieges and even node wars should be impactful so that small groups can have an effect and death has meaning.
For node wars, granted this was a showcase, respawning felt so fast that death had no real consequence. I think the more you die within a certain amount of time the longer it takes to respawn. This gives weight behind killing or being killed and allows for strategic play-styles to emerge.
For castle sieges and such the one life is an interesting but potentially valid idea. I think something like a castle siege really is importantly and losing has tons of ripple effects. Having one life makes it feel so important but also dying first makes it feel really boring and bad. So maybe instead of one life it’s multiple lives or like Battlefield you have an amount of tickets (respawns) so you have to treat every encounter very seriously and actually thought needs to go into things.
I think you should have a different win condition based on your status in the war (attacker or defender, type of war), and these win conditions should come with their own objectives attached to them. So the war wouldn't revolve around objectives that interest both parties directly. You can gather intel on the enemy's objectives and disrupt it, but it won't count as victory for you directly. Ofc some of these objectives will eventually intersect and you'll have some events that interest both, like an intersection that causes a big battle, but not all of them are strictly that. And most of these objectives don't need to be prime time locked. It could be long-term objectives that ppl would complete during the war and require effort from a lot of the citizens.
A territory control war should have objectives related to gaining ground and establishing a stronghold in the region. A trade war should have objectives involving disrupting trade routes, destroying warehouses, stealing resources from the other nodes' area, etc.
There should also be diplomacy options to resolve the conflict, make peace and stop the war before all the objectives are completed.
Wars should be diverse and in-depth tools for players to resolve their conflicts, a tool that supports and enriches the political aspect of the game, and not a "minigame" that people activate for rewards (not saying that there shouldn't be rewards).
My idea is that these announcements are public to all nodes, so that mayors could solicit or offer contributions as Alliance Declarations for a war effort, whether that be money or particular items or even mercenary players. If Wars happen all the time, then maybe these are not a big deal but if Wars are a more rare occurrence (maybe an average node will be at war 10-20% of the time, while contested territory will be at war up to 50% of the time)., then it gives nodes not at war a way to participate in affairs.
I think I would prefer Wars to be a more rare event, to allow for interaction between neighbor citizens and mayors.
Epic battles are fun as long as they are manageable and not a cluster fuk.
What would motivate you to declare a siege or war on others in-game?
if they smell or look funny or try to take my materials, mobs or snacks!
Are there any must-haves that you would like to see in sieges?
as a former guild leader of over 3k people and an alliance leader in Lineage 2...
The toughest thing for a guild leader to do is to keep track of people and objectives. One thing lineage 2 had was to the left side of each persons name was a small icon showing which guild they were in, it helped a lot. It would be even more helpful to have a raid # and group # designator following or preceding the icon in the name. (i know that's asking alot
In Lineage 2 you were able to invite / choose which guilds you wish to participate in the event for your side. An issue with this was the amount of people on the battlefield. Ideally, or a must...i would think it would be wise to limit the amount of people per side participating at one time. This could be fixed by if you die you have to wait in a queue. If a large guild of say 500 people go up against a small guild, the small guild should be able to choose what guilds can participate in helping them, again keeping with the limit of maximum people allowable on the play field at any given time.
One should also be allowed to leave the battlefield in order to let someone else in that is in the queue.
Raid leaders should be marked somehow as well within the raid, if he or she dies then it gets passed to someone else or you can pass it to someone else in the raid if you don't want it.
Raid leaders should be able to move people between groups by drag and drop to help manage classes / tasks, etc.
sieges should be only able to happen during certain prime time windows.
I'm loving the system where mayors activate edicts, players show support by delivering items, and the whole process gets posted on the bulletin board. It's brilliant that nodes receive war tokens, giving mayors options on how to use them.
Regarding warscore, I think it should reflect more than just the number of kills. A system where the level of the player killed impacts the score makes sense to me. Lower-level players teaming up against higher-level ones should earn more points. If we kill a player who is level 50 we should get 50 warscore, but if the guy in my party who lands the killing blow is a level 42 then we should get 50-42= 8 + 50 = 58 warscore. Same way for killing down, if I am at 50 and i kill a 42 then i should get 42-50 = -8+42 - 34 warscore only. The difference would be significant if you are punching down or up.
So, if a level 50 kills a level 25 we have 25(dead player)-50 (killer) = -25... then we go and do 25 (player) -25 (difference between players) and equals 0... zero warscore when a level 50 kills a level 25... but if people gang up and a level 25 delivers the final blow on a level 50 we get 50(victim)-25(killer) = +25 (bonus) then we go 50(victim)+25(bonus)=75 warscore
Formula: victim + (victim - killer)
Differentiating bulletin board cards with colors is a simple yet effective idea. It would make it easier to find what you're looking for at a glance. Green for harvesting stuff, black for wars, purple for bonuses, orage for special events and so on.
Having an encampment for gearing up during war is a genius idea. The encampment could use a couple vendors and a quartermaster would be essential for quick gear changes and restocking.
Thoe arrow shower effects arejust fantastic.
I'm impressed with the damage numbers and messages—they feel just right in terms of speed and appearance.
Name plates are a BIG NO right now, they are overwhelming. Shrinking the node emblems and utilizing less than half the space would be a big improvement, and health bars are too big, should be a third of that size or less.
The overall feel of the fights has me feeling optimistic about the game.
Special effects got better, but thunder sounds accompanying lightning strikes would take it to the next level. Speedy effects that come and go quickly are just what I like.
Uniform magic wall colors threw me off a bit. It would be nice to have any visual cue indicating ownership.
Including farm bonuses in war zones is a smart move.
The dragon divebomb move is nice, it could knock people to the ground tough.
It was surprising not to see target broadcasts during the war video. I was expecting them.
The sheer number of red name plates and big icons during big fights felt overwhelming.
I'm a fan of the map banners and circle feature, it's a great way to keep track of things.
Shutting down services from other nodes sounds like a fun idea to add some strategic depth to the game.
WAR IS IN A GOOD DIRECTION, KEEP GOING!
Enjoyable mass PVP content for me is most enjoyable when it revolves around clear objectives. When the majority of players are interacting in focused areas towards the same objective, that is when the best large scale PvP happens IMO. This can be expanded upon to be a Tug of War style objectives, where objectives once cleared move to another zone or an additional objective. Doing this allows for a progressive large scale PvP and can be moved around a large map. A large sticking point for this is that the map area of the big objective battles needs to be unique but fair. Both sides need flanking routes, there should be major chokepoints, there should be verticality.
Another large scale PvP feature that I like is having the option to do side objectives or capturing areas for buffs for your team. This can be both PvE or PvP focused for side objectives. Adding a PvE element allows players of all types to engage and have an impact in the overall large scale PvP objective. In regards directly to what was showcased in the recent Node Wars stream, I would like to see more/alternative PvE goals other than simply kill mobs for loot drops and return them. Alterac Valley in WoW had great side objectives. You could capture points for additional spawn areas, you could farm materials to buff NPCs that fought on your side (this can be expanded to allow gatherer/crafters to harvest/craft buff items for NPCs or players). Another idea for a side objective is to harvest meat from mobs to load onto a caravan, which can be delivered to an area in the enemy territory that can attract monsters to their side which could block them from accessing certain areas until they are dealt with.
Another large scale pvp feature I enjoy is when there is noticeable NPC interactions. If this is supposed to be a "War" why are only players fighting? Where are the guards? Where are the mercenaries? This is an area where MOBA type elements can be added where NPCs patrol or follow paths to fight towards objectives. In huge maps this makes the combat much more fleshed out and consistent. There is a balance element to this, as you don't want enemies everywhere constantly, there should be routes for stealth players to take to avoid NPC/Player paths and do their stealthy work.
What would motivate you to declare a siege or war on others in-game?
Personally I need a clear reason or concrete rewards to declare war on others. There should be some tangible reward to declaring war and winning. This can be a large amount of gold, top tier item drops, removing an obstacle that is hindering your progression, or better yet a combination of all that. I also believe there should be a consequence in declaring war and losing. If there's no consequence, why wouldn't you declare war? I think if you declare war and lose, you need a penalty like having to pay war reparations or something. If there's no penalty, then it becomes a predictable automatic game feature like it is in New World.
Are there any must-haves that you would like to see in sieges?
Must haves for me in a siege is the progressive stages. A siege should not be a 1 and done objective, it should be a series of progressive objectives that ends in a panicked flurry. This is where the last ditch efforts come in, players have built up on this progressive series of objectives and are mad dashing to cap a final point, or destroy the final flag. Defenders are throwing themselves into a chokepoint to stop the enemy from coming through the last gate. In large scale PvP the final objective is the most fun and should be built up to.
Another must have in sieges is destructible areas/ability to change the environment to create new paths. Make an area of a wall breakable, have an underground path be able to be built to tunnel in, have a siege ramp come up and be installed on a wall. These additional optional paths add a lot of modularity to siege warfare and players need to adapt to the changing environment to win.
Bonuses throughout the war are awesome. Whether they empower a single player or a few players or the entire group, they're great.
Environmental design that allows for ambushes or escapes.
Features I don’t like in mass PVP content:
I don’t like it when melee players are cannon fodder in large-scale PVP. Melee players don’t necessarily get to use their fun abilities before getting nuked since they are the first line of defense against 30+ people.
Some large-scale pvp game modes require the attacking side to get kills to start their siege. Occasionally, this causes the defending side to run and hide, which isn’t the most fun gameplay. If there are ways to circumnavigate that so that killing players is ideal and beneficial for both sides, combat is guaranteed to occur.
What would motivate me:
If there were rare reagents, I would have access to them only during or after winning the war.
Gear improvements and permanent power increases would be great to see.
Retaliation. It could be because of something that happened to my node. It could be something that happened to an ally node.
If wars and sieges had some sort of benefit to the winners. An item they’d bring back to empower their node and its citizens. What would make things even more interesting is if that could be taken away during another war or the next war. I know node types haven’t been tested, but it would be cool to see one node stealing something important from another node upon winning or because a specific point of interest wasn’t defended during the war. For instance, if a divine node gets attacked, it could lose a sacred relic from its temple. This could benefit the node that stole it and give a detriment to the divine node that they must overcome. This could apply to all node types but be represented or achieved differently.
The enemies are toxic
Must-haves:
Summonable NPCs that aid your cause. Large NPCs who have a noticeable impact are awesome. Dragons, Giants, Treants, Elementals, Siege weapons, you name it. It would be awesome to be on a losing side, but you summon reinforcements to aid your cause and change the tide of battle.
A POI that gives strategic bonuses to the event themed around the area in which the node war takes place. If claiming certain POIs increases damage, healing, or survivability, and multiple of them exist, mini-battles could occur throughout the map, so armies must allocate forces to them if they don’t want to lose an advantage.
Major characters that can be killed as objectives. This could go a myriad of routes. Either NPCs that are strong but can be attacked by a group of players or PCs with a leadership role in the node or temporary leadership role given to them before/during the war.
I think you need to have the ability to respawn. You could have a limited number of lives, but I think you absolutely must be able to respawn.
An additional comment I have regarding Node Sieges is if Sieges are random pull from the citizenry into the mode event it may run into the same problem New World has in their OPR mode.
That being, combat balance is based in these games on having a 5 or 8 player size group with specific roles to make the group function well, typically the most critical being a healer. If Node Sieges random pull and the groups do not contain healers or the healers are all randomly placed in the same group it will be problematic and unfun.
I understand wanting to encourage more access to casual players in node sieges to avoid a New World war mode gatekeeping issue, but there still needs to be some form of roster management possible at least to shuffle the players around in a prep phase somehow to make sure groups are set up properly.
Or set no groups at all and let players form their own inside during a siege prep. Phase as they see fit. With the number of players proposed on each side though that could be quite chaotic trying to sort out quickly.
Like:
Raid/army leader pings visible to all members of the army, party pings visible to immediate party (up to 8 players) and a distinct ping visual for the party leader. Allows for chain of command control for the more ad-hoc scenarios. I understand most people will have an organised discord call but a universal ping system will promote coordination beyond pre-established groups.
Multiple concurrent objectives alongside the standard capture the flag (CTF) objectives to achieve victory.
Also the final victory condition should be a variety which are potentially not pre-determined before a siege. e.g.
a) CTF
b) Push the ram/relic to the site
c) Ignite 'X' location supplies (Fun concept here is to make each supply site volatile like a plant the bomb concept)
d) Regicide (Kill the leader whether AI or player)
e) Steal the item from the fortress and return to the siege camp (flip is to defend it for a period of time)
You could combine completed objectives with material impacts to the battlefield too such as the supplies being burnt limits consumables for that siege. Apply this to the wider region, an objective in the greater Node region impacts the strength of the static defence of the owner or limits the siege engine's available to the attackers.
Dislike:
Area of effect spells that are not coloured/tinted appropriately. If an AOE, crowd control or buff are not clearly red(enemy) or blue(friendly).
Low threat static defence or attacking engine - Siege engines should be force multipliers not an expensive ornament to either side.
Low threat AI
What would motivate you to declare a siege or war on others in-game?
- Content
- Rewards
- Politics
Are there any must-haves that you would like to see in sieges?
High damage siege for both sides - I don't want to see someone eat a ballista bolt and keep walking tank or not they dead.
Limited respawns or no respawns - Maybe only in some 'modes' but respawns drastically reduce the real impact of fortifications. This could also be achieved with balanced respawn timers.
Sapper and Sally concepts - Sneaky ways into the castle and sneaky (optional) ways out of the castle to attack. Not just a handful of gates that make the battle grind to a funnelled AOE stat check.
Meaningful PvE mechanics in the instance/event valid for both attack and defence:
- Gatherable resources inside the battlefield (for gathering folks)
- Repair engines and walls. (engineers?)
- Construct engines and additional fortifications (engineers?)
- Buff NPC and character armour/weapons (Blacksmith etc)
- Provide consumables unique and more impactful then items that can be brought in (chemist/cook)
This PvE content would ideally be funded by the resources found in the battle but both sides should be allowed to bring a limited amount in to begin with that promotes scarcity.
Environment impact
- Slowing of movement speed such as mud or dense brush
- Cover destructible with many variations
- Elevation % increase to projectiles
- Lava hot
- Dark % decrease to projectiles (as visibility will be adjusted by third party gamma settings it has to be a stat change too not just visual).
Long drawn out battles, at least an hour in my opinion, short wars are no fun as you rarely get to have multiple large engagements throughout the fight and with the introduction of PVE objectives in node wars for Ashes I believe its more essential to have longer wars to maximize the PVP experience.
What would motivate you to declare a siege or war on others in-game?
Resources/money that could be gathered for the guild/node and be distributed to members. Or just the idea of going against a powerful guild/alliance with your own.
Are there any must-haves that you would like to see in sieges?
Large zones for battle, not so much in the sense that there is a lot of open space, but just being able to fit so many people into one area without there being 400 players on screen at once, and having multiple things going on at once on a large scale.
If a victory condition of a war (the war as a whole, not the war events or the sieges) is to kill a certain number of enemy players, I would like to see some options to contribute to that total using PvE (as opposed to separate PvE only victory conditions). Maybe the mayor could make these available using commissions to give their node a slight tactical advantage. For example, seek and destroy enemy scouts and bring their intel to your home node. It would be less efficient that straight PvP because you would need to return to your node to gain the points and if you get ganked on the way the points would be lost. Also, it gives an opportunity for players to see the effects of their investments (or their enemy's investments) into their node's guards.
Are there any must-haves that you would like to see in sieges?
An absolute must is a clear understanding of how the caravan system feeds the sieges.
My ideal scenario is that in the days leading up to the siege, the attackers must run caravans to the "front line". The number and type of packages delivered would determine the quantity and quality of the siege engines the attackers have to use in the siege. Since the number of siege engines is finite, this gives the defenders a reason to sally out beyond the walls to try to pick off some easy targets. If the defenders can destroy all of the siege engines before the gate/walls are destroyed, is could result in a defender's victory.
If you plan on having some sort of a respawn limit for players or NPC soldiers, it should be fed before the siege by the caravan system in a similar way.
In sieges, and maybe some war events, I would like to see the NPC guards/soldiers play a tactical roll. I want to see them in small to medium sized groups that slowly advance from the base camp toward an objective after the players have taken it. They can be the occupation force to prevent the enemy for recapturing the objective and can function as a relative safe spot for the players, giving them a rally point to retreat to. Also, I can see role players loving the moments of "Hold the line until the reinforcements arrive!"
I think it would be interesting if the mayor/general could designate a spot on the map for the guards to occupy, even if it isn't an objective. Parking a platoon on a hill or near a choke point can give the players the support they need to hold a valuable area.
I do think that NPC guards/soldiers should be a limited resource in sieges, though. The quantity and quality of these soldiers should be tied to a node's investments and success with the caravan system prior to the siege.
I would like to see destructible gates and walls. The walls should 2 to 3 times harder to destroy than the gates, though. This can open up unexpected, but not unpredictable, vectors of attack. Also, maybe consider the walls having a partial destruction state that will allow rouges to parkour their way in or semi-flying mounts to leap/glide over.
And that plays very well into the role play aspect of this class.
What I have in mind is Alterac Valley battle in WoW. If a team is not coordinated, an important resurrection point could be captured in your own base (talking about the graveyard inside the base).
Another cool thing would be to have some sort of a ritual spell that needs 10+ healers. They would channel some sort of huge battlefield-wide heal. But don't make it as a click and stare at the progress bar thing. Make some sort of a blob in the sky that needs to be healed actively and gets bigger and bigger, then bursts and heals the battlefield. As a fighter on the battlefield, seeing the bubble in the sky, would give me motivation to push my luck a bit more further. This also comes with some questionable strategies, like - both teams fill the massive heal until 99% and wait for their team to storm the gate and only leave 1 healer guy near it , so he could pop it at the required time. If needed, this could be mechanically made to require a number of heals per second.
There's been a lot of discussion around the PvX element, with some feeling that PvE can detract from the excitement or seem like filler content. Often, PvE elements are perceived as mere trash mobs that offer little challenge and serve only to pad out the gameplay.
However, I believe that by viewing PvE from a different perspective, we can create engaging content where PvE isn't just filler but a vital part of the overall experience. By making PvE more intricate and impactful, we can enhance the battlefield dynamics, leveraging the player adjacency that Ashes of Creation aims to be known for.
Drawing inspiration from MOBAs (despite my love-hate relationship with them), I think we can borrow elements that integrate PvE into larger-scale wars seamlessly. In MOBAs, PvE components feel essential and contribute significantly to the gameplay.
Here's a rough outline of my idea, including key objectives and gameplay flow:
Map Layout and Objectives
Overall Objective:
Gather Demonic Energy Crystals: Each team must collect demonic energy crystals and bring them to their main base. The goal is to accumulate the most energy to survive an impending demonic energy wave threatening to annihilate everything.
Main Objective:
Control the Corrupt Crystal: Located at the center of the map, this crystal spawns powerful demons. Defeating these demons yields the highest amount of crystal energy, which players must transport back to their main base.
Control Objectives (Purple):
Smaller Control Points: Surrounding the main objective are smaller control points, initially guarded by powerful demons. Once defeated, players can claim these points, which then spawn NPCs to aid their team at the main objective. Controlling all points allows for more NPC spawns and fortifies the area, enhancing the team's ability to defend and gather crystals.
Strategic Flow: These control points are crucial for map control, creating a dynamic strategy where teams must balance attacking and defending to gain leverage around the main objective. If one side controls majority it will be very difficulty for players to kill demons, if a team owns 0 purple control it be to the point any size zerg would end up losing (this could also come in the form of debuffs and such not just relying on NPCs and their effects)
Attack Objectives (Purple):
Defend and Attack Points: Each side of the map features two attack points. Holding these points spawns NPCs that attack the opposing team's side base. Protecting your side base is critical to prevent your crystal battery from being destroyed.
Battery Mechanics: The crystal battery, which generates a protective barrier, can only be destroyed by NPCs from the attack points. These NPCs are also required to breach the heavily fortified gates leading to the side base. If the battery is destroyed, the team loses their crystals, and their control points revert to demon control, with these demons gaining a temporary buff. The crystal will restore itself after some time, requiring ongoing defense and strategy.
Breaching the Gate: Players alone cannot breach the side base gates; they must rely on the NPCs spawned from the attack points. Successfully holding both attack objectives for a significant duration allows the NPCs to break through the gates and reach the crystal battery.
General Mob Objectives:
Resource Gathering: Additional mobs spawn around the map, providing resources necessary for sustaining control objectives and spawning NPCs to support the main node. These mobs are essential for maintaining control points and bolstering your team’s strength.
Gameplay Logic
Balanced Dynamics: The game is designed to encourage a balanced approach, where PvE elements support and enhance PvP objectives. Teams must work together to control points, gather resources, and protect their base, creating a multifaceted and strategic gameplay experience.
Player Involvement: By integrating PvE in this way, every element feels purposeful and impactful, ensuring that players are always engaged and contributing to their team's success.
This approach ensures that PvE elements are not just filler but a critical part of the game, enriching the overall PvX experience and making each battle feel meaningful and intense.
100.000% agree here.
I read that for Example "Node Sieges" last 2 Hours or so -> and this is absolutely right. The Fate if a Node prevails or falls to level down or Destruction,
this should be an epic Time-Window which shouldn't be decided beneath Two Hours, or at least even One Hour even if the Battle is very one-sided and either the Defenders or Attackers absolutely wipe the Floor with their Opponents.
A very long Time ago by now -> when in WoW Vanilla the first Battleground with Fourty Players versus Fourty,
" Alterac Valley " - was still very huge,
and Battles could last EASILY Seven Hours or above,
back then that WAS -> the absolute epic Peak of the Game for me. Especially before even the first Expansion dropped. When You could spawn NPC Extra-Troops, or huge gigantic Mobs, or summon a Meccha-like Power-Armor into the Battle in form of a "Goblin Shredder",
which could burn the Enemy Forces and take a good Amount of Damage before it got destroyed,
THAT WAS HUGE. That was the most amazing Experience Alliance versus Horde for me. The smaller Battlegrounds just couldn't compare to this Feeling of epic War and Battle.
That was "War" in World of Warcraft.
If my Senses didn't deceive me in the last 12 Months -> then i am 100% confident that Ashes of Creation is completely superior in Engine and what for a Burden in Graphics and Player-Numbers it can take.
Unreal Engine 5.4 or above is a very powerful Tool. One of the very Advantages of being such a young MMO in the VideoGame World which keeps improving it's Soft- and Hardware.
Technically - there is just no Chance that Ashes could fail to be more epic than World of Warcraft has ever been. Intrepid has everything on the Table to create Greatness for Decades to come.
- What would motivate you to declare a siege or war on others in-game?
Ambition.
The Hunger and Greed for more and more Power.
The Ambition to help my fellow Node Citizens that We can ALL rise to Power - by becoming a mighty Metropolis. The Ambition to rule like half to full our Biome as a small Node EMPIRE - and flaunt our Dominance and Superiority as one of the greatest Cities of all.
I am aware this is proooooooooooobably not necessary to like - "save the whole World of Verra" - but then again this is also not necessarily the Goal, right ? Aside from stopping/resisting the Corruption of the Ancients.
It is only a Means to an End. Let us become the most glorious City on the whole Server - with the most Freeholds, Guilds, Vassals and Soldiers.
" From Ashes to Empires. "
And i am taking that personally.
- Are there any must-haves that you would like to see in sieges?
I would love to see, that Siege Engine's are possible.
- Huge Catapults to attack the City Walls of a Node with. Maybe even in Form of some "Monsters" in Case of a Monster Coin Siege-Attack : and not an Attack by "humanoid Citizens" of playable Races.
- Somewhat huge "Towers" People can run up inside - to try to board the defensive Guard's Walkway ontop of the Node's City-Walls with. Towers that can slowly approach by being pushed and pulled and being on thick, fat Wheels,
and when they are not destroyed in Time - it gives the Attacker-Troops one more Way into the City to attack it.
Just the cool Stuff that should be involved in a REALLY epic, huge Battle. I am not even against the Concept and Mechanic that such Siege Engines would need to get build during the Battle or before it, similar like a Caravan when being summoned,
or when a Caravan gets turned into a Raft or the other way around -> and when the Siege Engines are then attacked and damaged before they are finished -> then the "finished" Product of them would be damaged as well in an equal Amount of "HP/Health-Bar Loss" - and hence easier to get destroyed when it's finally operational.
This is what I don't understand about wars and sieges, either. This is a slow-travel universe with very few exceptions...and potentially NO exceptions depending on how the nodes develop.
And on top of that, you can't even just ride to these places, you'll have to sail to reach half the world, potentially.
But the team believes that wars will be a huge basis for gameplay and resolving issues between factions.
I'm not so sure when everything will be so far away.
Also you have all these people wanting to do their caravans and what have you. Where is the time going to come from to walk/run/ride/sail to participate in all these wars, fight in them, return and still get your caravans, crafting harvesting, bosses, raids, etc done?
And that's just resolving the time conflict with your NODE. Add in whatever your Guild is getting you involved in and now you've doubled your time investment in things potentially far away.
Most players (and I mean that literally, 50%+) will only have so much time, but it seems like the game is being made only for hardcore players to fully enjoy.
That's dangerous. And it's also an assumption that the hardcore players and/or players with plenty of time on their hands will want to do all that.
So you end up excluding:
1) People who don't have the time
+
2) People who don't have the inclination
This feels like a "kitchen sink" game where only 20% of the players will end up fully enjoying 80% of the mechanics, and 80% will only enjoy about 20%.
(I don't know if it's actually that bad, but it's always good to stick to the 80/20 as your baseline.)