Idea copied from an old game, one of my all time favorites that could fit ashes perfectly.

In a dev post talking about PvP i kinda mentioned this idea but I've been thinking about it a lot sense then so I'm shooting my shot on this concept in a little bit more detail.

SOE, one of their earliest games was Infantry Online which was so good it was one of the few things that could take me away from playing starcraft at that time.

Infantry online hosted a bunch of game modes but there was one that I fell in love with, and think the concepts for it fit perfectly into Ashes. And that was with their CTF Extreme mode.. I’m going to try my best to explain the concept behind this game mode and how it can fit into Ashes.

CTF Extreme hosted I think a max of either 100 or 200 players on a map that had a middle area with bridges going north, east, south, and west most of the land on these islands were big hollow bases each with a neutral flag in the middle. The game started with players dropping into random areas and scouring to grab whatever flag(s) they could get.
Other islands were connected by bridges in the corners (NE, SE, SW, NW) with resources for Medics and Engineers.
Players could also create private teams to go against the public teams.
There are other things in the game that may or may not fit into ashes like the game saving your money you get from finishing matches and killing players and a loadout you must customize using the money you make in game.

Picture the idea of an NPC who could teleport you to what would be the map/arena you play on. You get thrown into a random team and put into a hub that is pvp free and enter the arena when you’re ready as well as respawn there.

Private teams formed by guilds could use this game mode to poach people who they like on public teams and practice group PvP with other allied guilds by getting on the same team.

Using the server tech, they could create instances each of which generate a name just like a server listing when you login. You basically get a server listing while in game that is shared cross server (the actual servers you play on) allowing a larger pool of players to mingle with each other while allowing bigger premade teams to pick and choose where they go based on open player slots.

As for matches themselves, give them a whole 2 hours before the game ends itself and another starts if no one captures all the flags, record all the data and give performance rewards to whoever was in that instance based on what they done. This way people can come and go from matches without finishing them and screwing over their team or themselves as players will come and go as the match progresses

Whatever PvE stuff like collecting resources for Medics and Engineers could be replaced by using whatever features you have planned for Ashes. All the siege stuff they have (maybe do new world style of resource collection in PvP to build of siege equipment) and stick the bulk of the PvE harvesting stuff away from the high traffic PvP areas of the map.

Personally I would like to see this and the whole thing has it's own currency system. the bag you have on you and your bag in the area are separate, consumables you need are bought there from an NPC vendor and disappear if you leave with them or moved to a stash (private locker/stash inside the neutral area) keeping outside and inside items separate. also list cosmetics and other stuff that can be mailed to the player upon purchase so people have rewards to take outside of the arena and show off the actual MMO world

this is a great alternative to wars for players, a lot of PvP oriented players are going to want more PvP then Wars and simple Arena combat. New World kind of shares this dynamic all your PvP is either Wars or 20v20 and the 20v20 they have is always one side getting stomped into the ground by the other. this game mode would clear a lot of that up with the separate teams holding their own flags while picking and choosing who to go after. The top dogs who gather all 4 flags will have to face the wrath of hundreds of players for 30 seconds or whatever in order to win. and if they get run over they at least get a boosted score for holding time.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Ludullu

Mag7spy wrote: »

To further drive it home you are trying to say na those 5% of players that want to focus on pve and focus on pvp arenas since they hate ow need to be froced not to have arena content just cause. Even though it hardly effects the game as a whole. And those players need to do pve to get gear to begin with which means pvx content.

Yes, I want those 5% to be in the damn game and not in an instance. That's my only point

Apok

so I see people who talk about "Having to run arenas" this is one of the issues MMOs have when it comes to instanced arena play. It's supposed to be for fun outside of the over world stuff but it gets boring fast. with this concept being applied I feel like people will play it because it's fun and not because they have to grind some kind of reward.

going from simple team vs team play on infantry to what ctf extreme offered was just way better on so many levels. If you make the game mode fun you won't have to incentivize it so much. RO, WoW, L2, FFXIV all do this, the PvP they add ends up being too straight forward and boring so they make you grind out rewards out of it for something to do.

Ayeveegaming1

I guess after thinking about it a bit more, I'm not worried about this to much. People can still put on their own arena events in the open world. This has been done in a couple older games that I have played, and creates an environment that can spark so many different unexpected results.

Texas

Would be cool though if you.could build an arena on a barony or at a certain level military node. I thought one of the core ideas behind the game was to get away from group-queue lobby type play.

Mag7spy

Ravicus wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Ravicus wrote: »

I guess according to the wiki it is instance based. https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Arenas I find that sad however, as you lose a lot of community involvement.

You don't lose community involvement that doesn't make any sense. You main more community rep in the server in a wider margin based on the size of the server.

you would have community involvement in open world arenas by having to post guards and police the area. You would have the announcers and such. You would have an audience to watch the event. You have zero community involvement when you que up for an instance.

This makes no sense in an open area arena u don't need guards around. The point of these place is to test dmg and such and you don't waste healing pots, mana and have no death consequences.

There is plenty of a community in qued arenas people know each other, or see people they have heard about.

People could do this in the open world, but there should be a open world arena as well. Where people can test the things i mentioned above and do whatever they want. Same way as BDO.

Mag7spy

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

To further drive it home you are trying to say na those 5% of players that want to focus on pve and focus on pvp arenas since they hate ow need to be froced not to have arena content just cause. Even though it hardly effects the game as a whole. And those players need to do pve to get gear to begin with which means pvx content.

Yes, I want those 5% to be in the damn game and not in an instance. That's my only point

So you are just wanting the game to be worse just cause from what I'm seeing. I'll trust the devs to not kill off content in the game for no reason and lower the player base, and actually work against pvp players. OR ways to get people into pvp.

Ludullu

Mag7spy wrote: »

So you are just wanting the game to be worse just cause from what I'm seeing.

Worse in your opinion? Yes. Worse in mine? No

Mag7spy

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

So you are just wanting the game to be worse just cause from what I'm seeing.

Worse in your opinion? Yes. Worse in mine? No

You are literally trying to make the game worse and add mobile level mechanics for when people can do arena . Collectively people would say you are trying to make it worse because you don't want people to do it just cause.

Ace1234

@Ravicus

Ashes is not forcing anyone to do owpvp. You choose to do it. You choose to play a game that has owpvp by simply logging in. Now arena's should not have any downtime. That should not have any limitations other than maybe other players in the actual arena at that time. There will be some intanced stuff now, but it will not be the focus. If instancing becomes the focus of the game then it will fundamentally change the game's focus.

Yeah obviously but thats not the point. The point is that you are missing out on players who might want to choose to log in and play the game but decide not to because it would be limiting the ways they can enjoy the game. We can argue all day about who the game is for, but the fact is that agency and choice is a design pillar so their is an argument to be made for providing this type of choice even if that means instanced content. So, if you are aiming to satisfy that certain subset of players then you would be failing by not providing their preferred type of content through things like arenas, so you are removing their choice to choose between owpvp or arenas.

Even if we disagree on whether this is the goal of Ashes, I also disagree that it would be taking away from the open world so it shouldn't even matter regardless. The open world would still be the focus even if some more instancing existed, and you would only increase the playerbase and funnel more players into that open world who might otherwise not play the game, through providing those additional choices for players who like to switch things up based on their mood. Obviously instancing is a part of the vision and a part of providing choices for different types of players because they are already aiming to provide that type of content to an extent, I am just saying that expanding a little further in that direction could be a good idea, without taking away from the rest of the game.

Ace1234

@Ludullu_(NiKr)

And I want those choices to not include instanced bullshit

I know that people love instanced shit. It's obvious by the genre and by my own experience. People also love a ton of things that are not good for them or others, but it doesn't mean that they should be free to do those things.

We supposedly won't have farmable instanced pve (if even repeatable at all), so why in the hell should pvpers get pure instanced content for themselves?

Well, I think the difference is the farmable aspect. We don't want to undermine the open world through instanced content being farmable, so I think a better comparison would be instanced dungeons/raids which happen to already be planned for the game, which would be more comparable to instanced pvp/arenas, conversely. Its supposed to add options to the game and appeal to more types of players. The game is pvx, and about having choices, so its reasonable to have a certain amount of all types of content: pvx content (open world contested areas/combatant flagged areas) pvp content (arenas), and pve content (instanced pve/corruption deterred areas). I think ideally the game should lean more towards the pvx emergent type stuff, which it already is doing, but it doesn't need to be so niche that you ignore other types of players altogether. Players who don't want to play pvx stuff arent going to play the game regardless of how much you try to "remove their ability to avoid playing in the open world", so it would only help the game to draw in more players by allowing them to play the way they want, since they may end up developing an interest in the open world content, while keeping more players happy by giving the the flexibility to adapt how they can play based on the mood they are in.

Apok

people who want to do small group stuff can make small private teams and focus on farming kills, with the multi team/flag design there's a changing dynamic with the arena that would create random foot traffic all over, so the arena combat feels more like open world combat unlike the traditional constant zerging of specific areas.

even in the game infantry, groups were created just to roam the map killing people and stacking bounties to earn money, there was also solo players going after people with big bounties as well as engineers and medics who were out farming resources.

I honestly feel like this is the only instanced pvp you would need that doesn't impact the game world like sieges and wars. the small team stuff like 3v3 can be done outside in the world. I know in NW there was a lot of time spent dueling and people would bet in game currency in discord on who wins the fight. could definitely see the same thing happening if enough people want small team v team battles (just flag for a dual as a group) that way it can be 2v2 up to whatever the group/alliance size is

I am all for keeping as much to the open world as possible, but content is consumed faster than it can be put out and MMOs need something to keep people busy, that's why most of them have arenas

Ludullu

Ace1234 wrote: »

Well, I think the difference is the farmable aspect. We don't want to undermine the open world through instanced content being farmable, so I think a better comparison would be instanced dungeons/raids which happen to already be planned for the game, which would be more comparable to instanced pvp/arenas, conversely.

And those pve instances are supposedly either non-repeatable or are just very limited in their repetition. And I've been saying for a while now that arenas should be the same way. Limited time per week, if not per month.

Pvers have already used arenas as the main argument for why they should get repeatable instanced content. And I completely agree with that argument. Except I want neither group to have repeatable instanced content.

Ace1234 wrote: »

Players who don't want to play pvx stuff arent going to play the game regardless of how much you try to "remove their ability to avoid playing in the open world", so it would only help the game to draw in more players by allowing them to play the way they want, since they may end up developing an interest in the open world content, while keeping more players happy by giving the the flexibility to adapt how they can play based on the mood they are in.

I completely disagree with this position because it's this kind of thinking that has diluted every damn game out there. You start with "let's have something that appeals to a broader audience", then this broader audience complains and pushes for even more content that appeals to them, and by the end your game is changed so much that you have completely lost your main target audience, while this broader appeal has diluted your game past its uniqueness and this broader audience left to play other games that specialize in their preferred content.

I'd rather have a niche specialized game that only appeals to its audience than a vague mess that barely appeals to anyone in particular. And if that niche game is great - it'll attract people naturally, because those who're playing it will share their hype with their friends and spread the word about the game.

Ace1234

@Ludullu_(NiKr)

I completely disagree with this position because it's this kind of thinking that has diluted every damn game out there. You start with "let's have something that appeals to a broader audience", then this broader audience complains and pushes for even more content that appeals to them, and by the end your game is changed so much that you have completely lost your main target audience, while this broader appeal has diluted your game past its uniqueness and this broader audience left to play other games that specialize in their preferred content.

I'd rather have a niche specialized game that only appeals to its audience than a vague mess that barely appeals to anyone in particular. And if that niche game is great - it'll attract people naturally, because those who're playing it will share their hype with their friends and spread the word about the game.

I agree thats why I said it would be best to prioritize the pvx stuff to maintain the identity of the game, but I don't think its as black and white as that, I think its more of a sprectrum and a matter of degrees. You can still have the focus on a certain type of content while still including other types of content, as long as you satisfy the needs of the target audiences, I think the problem starts to form when you swing the pendulum too far in another direction where you cant keep up with the needs of the main target audience, or when the needs of a different audience cause decisions to be made that have too much of a negative impact on the experience of the main target audience. Again, I don't think this would be the case by simply adding instanced pvp content for players who desire that, because players are going to play how they want and if they can't meet their needs with one game they will just play a different one, so I don't think this would have any effect on the experience of the pvx players other than a potentially positive impact by drawing more players to the game.

Mag7spy

Ace1234 wrote: »

@Ludullu_(NiKr)

I completely disagree with this position because it's this kind of thinking that has diluted every damn game out there. You start with "let's have something that appeals to a broader audience", then this broader audience complains and pushes for even more content that appeals to them, and by the end your game is changed so much that you have completely lost your main target audience, while this broader appeal has diluted your game past its uniqueness and this broader audience left to play other games that specialize in their preferred content.

I'd rather have a niche specialized game that only appeals to its audience than a vague mess that barely appeals to anyone in particular. And if that niche game is great - it'll attract people naturally, because those who're playing it will share their hype with their friends and spread the word about the game.

I agree thats why I said it would be best to prioritize the pvx stuff to maintain the identity of the game, but I don't think its as black and white as that, I think its more of a sprectrum and a matter of degrees. You can still have the focus on a certain type of content while still including other types of content, as long as you satisfy the needs of the target audiences, I think the problem starts to form when you swing the pendulum too far in another direction where you cant keep up with the needs of the main target audience, or when the needs of a different audience cause decisions to be made that have too much of a negatove impact on the experience of the main target audience. Again, I don't think this would be the case by simply adding instanced pvp content for players who desire that, because players are going to play how they want and of they can't meet their needs with one game they will just play a different one, so I don't think this would have any effect on the experience of the pvx players other than a potentially positive impact by drawing more players to the game.

Its so obvious i don't see how people don't see this. It be one thing if someone was arguing about arenas giving pvp gear. My guild was raising a eyebrow hearing about this talk about no arenas or mobile style ones where you only can do it a few times during a certain time of day.

The moment you need to protect your node, get your own gear, etc means the priority is pvx gameplay. Which is good but it doesn't mean people won't enjoy arena during times there is less going on.

This is also why i hated the argument about being forced into pvp because it raises the question of pvp happening even more often. IS is definitely going to be going for a balance and not going to kill of their game by having everyone forced into pvp every second (obviously not every second but you know what i mean 2-4* the amount)

I've seen Nikr argue not wanting the game to die off yet every time I see these suggestions on the super niche level that would hinder growth.

Apok

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

I'd rather have a niche specialized game that only appeals to its audience than a vague mess that barely appeals to anyone in particular. And if that niche game is great - it'll attract people naturally, because those who're playing it will share their hype with their friends and spread the word about the game.

you realize MMOs used to not have mounts, your argument would be like me saying Ashes shouldn't have mounts because old school MMOs didn't.

there's gonna be arena play, it's always incentivized cause it gets dull and boring. if you make it fun you won't have to hand out rewards that take away from playing the actual game so you don't end up loosing any immersion

Ludullu

Apok wrote: »

you realize MMOs used to not have mounts, your argument would be like me saying Ashes shouldn't have mounts because old school MMOs didn't.

Not quite the same thing. I don't want instanced arena exactly BECAUSE I've played an old owpvp game with it and I saw a shitton of people choose the arena instead of the open world.

Also, I'd support a no-mount design, because it'd lead to more PKs which means more targets for BHs

All of us want at least a single thing that someone else here doesn't want. I just want a lot of things that a lot of people don't want (on both sides of the pvx spectrum).

Mag7spy

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

Apok wrote: »

you realize MMOs used to not have mounts, your argument would be like me saying Ashes shouldn't have mounts because old school MMOs didn't.

Not quite the same thing. I don't want instanced arena exactly BECAUSE I've played an old owpvp game with it and I saw a shitton of people choose the arena instead of the open world.

Also, I'd support a no-mount design, because it'd lead to more PKs which means more targets for BHs

All of us want at least a single thing that someone else here doesn't want. I just want a lot of things that a lot of people don't want (on both sides of the pvx spectrum).

There is much more nuance to people choose to do arena over OWPVP just because there area arenas. You can make a argument some people on BDO spend a lot of time doing pvp in arena. The quest is the cause and effect of why someone will do that, in BDO's cause it is the lack of Owpvp and the regression of ability to do it.

I'm sure there are reasons for Linage as well on why there wasn't as much owpvp based on the systems and effects in game. This is a common issue with older games do to lack of content or heavy consequences. That is why saying this point on its own doesn't really stack of.

You are effective trying to push for a niche game that isn't going to be good because you want L3, and L3 already exist as throne and liberty. Pushing towards that will end up as a dead game, there is no reason to hyper alienate all players to make a niche game that isn't going to draw people.

If there is a reason why people are not doing OWpvp that issue needs to be solves on its own to get people to do that. In AoC it would mean the game has failed to deliver on their systems, because unlike other mmorpgs this game really is giving a lot of OWpvp for players to do tied to rewards, consequences, growth and drama.

This is why your point is you just don't want it just cause. And you aren't making a clear point on why current systems won't draw enough Owpvp engagement. To the point you even admitted even if its just 5% of players avoiding owpvp to do arena you want them forced as well. Which brings up the point it isn't about having most players doing owpvp it and just about you not wanting arena without a clear point to go against it.

Ludullu

Mag7spy wrote: »

Which brings up the point it isn't about having most players doing owpvp it and just about you not wanting arena without a clear point to go against it.

My point has been clear. Anyone who's not in the open world - are not in the open world. If there's any repeatable instanced content - people will be repeating it for a multitude of reasons, none of which I care about. What I do care about is that those reasons will always exist, which will directly lead to people not participating in ow content.

And if 5% of concurrent players are sitting in an instanced thing - that's 5% of server slots not being used by people who would've been existing in the open world. And I'd prefer if everyone in an owpvx game were in the ow doing pvx things

Mag7spy

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Which brings up the point it isn't about having most players doing owpvp it and just about you not wanting arena without a clear point to go against it.

My point has been clear. Anyone who's not in the open world - are not in the open world. If there's any repeatable instanced content - people will be repeating it for a multitude of reasons, none of which I care about. What I do care about is that those reasons will always exist, which will directly lead to people not participating in ow content.

And if 5% of concurrent players are sitting in an instanced thing - that's 5% of server slots not being used by people who would've been existing in the open world. And I'd prefer if everyone in an owpvx game were in the ow doing pvx things

This is the issue you are so stuck wanting L3 and AoC is not L3, issues and how the game played are going to be different in AoC. AoC isn't going to go down the round of extreme niche for no reason so it dies off.

You are trying to turn a non-issue into a issue because you don't like it. Which isn't creating a strong argument for what you are trying to complain about. This goes into the category of people thinking mortal online 2 is the best and AoC should copy their hardcore mechanics, even if it means a dead mmorpg.

What you should be concerned about is such things not taking away from OWPvP Ie being able to gear from it or progress, or a lack of OwPvP content that is interesting and engaging for players.

Wanting good content that draws players wins over forcing players any day of the week. But either way your concern for arena really doesn't make a lot of sense as well as your example based on AoC and their direction.

Ludullu

Mag7spy wrote: »

This is the issue you are so stuck wanting L3 and AoC is not L3, issues and how the game played are going to be different in AoC. AoC isn't going to go down the round of extreme niche for no reason so it dies off.

Mag, this argument makes literally no sense in this context, when I said multiple times that I want arenas to be super limited exactly because I know what happens when they are not as limited. L2 had 5 (iirc) hours of arena every day during prime-time. Imo that's waaaay too much.

In other words, I literally want the opposite of what L2 had, so no, this is not the case where I want L3. This is the case where I dislike instanced content, as I've always had. I dislike it when it's pve and I dislike it when it's pvp.

Child Item