Consensual PvP System in Ashes of Creation

The type of competitive imbalance we have at the moment encourages exploitative behavior, as players look for ways to manipulate mechanics and stats, rather than engage in fair and meaningful battles. Large guilds, hardcore players and zergs dominate, while solo players and small groups are left with no options.

At this point in the game development, Intrepid Studios has created a stunning world better than most mmorpgs out there, however the PvP system is fostering one of the most toxic, divisive and exhausting environments imaginable among players.
Let’s face it, right now, those who treat the game as if there’s no life outside of Verra have significant advantages over casual players. The result? Casual players are leaving already or will eventually leave, and when that happens, even the hardcore players will suffer. A PvP system that only benefits hardcore and zergs will collapse the game inevitably and the population will lessen affecting all participants including Intrepid.

It is my opinion that the best strategy for Ashes of Creation moving forward is a consensual PvP system that allows players to engage in combat when they feel adequately prepared, rather than forcing them into unwinnable encounters with the consequential anguish.

Please Intrepid allow players to opt-in when they are ready to fight, not when they’re forced.

Completely eliminate PvP zones and instead make the whole world PvP but only when the fight is consensual. This will also prevent in large scale exploit abuse and large-scale zerg dominance as individuals don’t mind if a guild is "the 8th wonder of the world" or a player "the last coca cola in the desert" as long as they can enjoy the game without someone coming and killing his or her character for no other reward than bragging rights, ego, glint and some materials.

All comments are welcome and appreciated.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

hayness666

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

No casuals dropped cash to play alpha

This is my first mmo ever lol and there are many others i play with in the same boat

But I'm cool with the current pvp system

Xeeg

Andi wrote: »

People will protest against this, of course, because they know a PVE server will absolutely kill the PVP servers - because all their "walking content" will switch there, leaving them alone on the PVP servers with the other antisocials.

PVE servers will die when people hit 25 because there is no PVE left. The only reason to get gear after 25 is to PVP with.

Andi

Xeeg wrote: »

Andi wrote: »

People will protest against this, of course, because they know a PVE server will absolutely kill the PVP servers - because all their "walking content" will switch there, leaving them alone on the PVP servers with the other antisocials.

PVE servers will die when people hit 25 because there is no PVE left. The only reason to get gear after 25 is to PVP with.

Nah. I'd still be playing P1 if the phase had gone on. That I'm not playing now has more to do with how Steven is hugging and protecting his exploiter friends.

Noaani

Xeeg wrote: »

Andi wrote: »

People will protest against this, of course, because they know a PVE server will absolutely kill the PVP servers - because all their "walking content" will switch there, leaving them alone on the PVP servers with the other antisocials.

PVE servers will die when people hit 25 because there is no PVE left. The only reason to get gear after 25 is to PVP with.

I agree - and this will also be the case on live servers when people hit the level cap.

But then, what is the point of PvP?

In a game like WoW or EQ/EQ2, the point was to be able to see and experience more content. The more successful you were at PvE, the more of it you were able to experience. Even if you killed it the day it was released, a new encounter was still very much a new experience (less so in WoW post WotL).

If the point is to just PvP, then the game gets really boring, really quickly. That's coming from my 4 years in Archeage more than my decade in EQ2 - can't really draw from EQ2 for most PvP related discussions.

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

But then, what is the point of PvP?

In my experience the point is to get better. Better gear, better coordination with your mates, better guild coordination, better gameplay skill, better tactic skill - all of that requires you to pvp over and over, especially if the design supports different party/char builds, where your opponents can counter your own builds well.

I know we're special snowflakes of mmos and all that, but majority of L2 players have been playing the same pve content for years upon years, but still enjoyed the game because it was about the fights over that pve against other players.

Kotako

I want to take a moment to express my sincere gratitude to everyone who has taken the time to engage with my post. Seeing so many responses (whether in agreement or presenting an opposing perspective) has been truly rewarding. The level of discussion, passion, and insight shared in this thread speaks volumes about the dedication of this community to shaping Ashes of Creation into the best game it can be.

Regardless of whether you support my viewpoint or challenge it, I genuinely appreciate every perspective shared. Constructive dialogue is what drives meaningful improvements in any MMO, and it's inspiring to see so many players invested in making this world a better experience for everyone. Your input (both in agreement and disagreement) adds value to the discussion, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to exchange thoughts with such an engaged and caring community.

Thank you again for your time, your passion, and your willingness to contribute to this conversation. I look forward to continuing the discussions so we can all contribute to the evolvement of Ashes of Creation.

Kotako

As promised here we go again.

We all understand that the evolution of PvP systems in MMORPGs has been influenced by the need to balance competitive gameplay with player retention and satisfaction. If the develpers get it wrong, people will leave in masses. A lot of successful MMORPGs have adopted consensual PvP models, allowing players to choose when and how to engage in PvP combat.

Here's an analysis for all considerations on how this approach has impacted games like World of Warcraft (WoW), Final Fantasy XIV (FFXIV), The Elder Scrolls Online (ESO), Guild Wars 2 (GW2), and New World (NW).

World of Warcraft (WoW)

Initially, WoW featured distinct PvP and PvE servers, with PvP servers enabling open-world PvP. Over time, Blizzard introduced the War Mode feature, allowing players on any server to toggle PvP on or off at will. This shift provided players with the flexibility to engage in PvP when desired, without the constant threat of unsolicited combat.

As a consequence:
• Increased Player Satisfaction: Players appreciated the autonomy to choose their PvP engagement, leading to a more personalized gaming experience.
• Balanced Server Populations: The removal of strict PvP/PvE server distinctions helped in balancing server populations and reduced the fragmentation of the player base.

Final Fantasy XIV (FFXIV)

FFXIV has predominantly focused on PvE content, with PvP elements being entirely optional and confined to specific zones or events. This design ensures that casuals and players who prefer PvE can enjoy the game without unexpected PvP encounters.

As a consequence:
• High Player Retention: The game's emphasis on rich storytelling and cooperative gameplay has attracted a broad audience, contributing to its sustained popularity.
• Positive Community Reputation: The consensual nature of PvP has fostered a welcoming environment, enhancing the game's community appeal.

The Elder Scrolls Online (ESO)

ESO segregates its PvP content to the Cyrodiil region and specific battlegrounds, allowing players to opt into PvP experiences without affecting their PvE exploration and enjoyment of the world.

As a consequence:
• Diverse Player Engagement: Players can choose to participate in large-scale PvP battles or focus solely on PvE content, condescending with varied playstyles.
• Sustained Growth: This flexibility has contributed to a steady increase in the player base, as individuals can adapt their experiences to whatever they want.

Guild Wars 2 (GW2)

GW2 offers optional PvP modes, such as Structured PvP and World vs. World, separate from its PvE content. Players can engage in PvP without impacting their PvE progression.

As a consequence:
• Seamless Transition: The ability to switch between PvP and PvE modes without penalties has been well-received, encouraging participation in both aspects of the game.
• Community Inclusivity: By not forcing PvP, GW2 has maintained an inclusive environment, appealing to both competitive and casual players.

New World (NW)

Originally designed with a strong emphasis on open-world PvP, New World faced challenges with player griefing and imbalance which sounds very familiar to what is happening in Ashes at the moment. In response, Amazon Games implemented a consensual PvP system, allowing players to choose when to flag for PvP.

As a consequence:
• Reduced Griefing: The opt-in PvP system minimized unwanted player confrontations, addressing early concerns about player harassment.
• Broadened Appeal: By accommodating both PvP and PvE enthusiasts, the game attracted a more diverse player base, enhancing its overall appeal.

The argument can certainly be made that New World was a failure at launch, and that would be an entirely fair assessment. However, it wasn’t the PvP approach that caused its initial downfall, it was the unfinished state of the game, plagued by technical issues, lack of content, and numerous design flaws which they have now fixed and the game is ranked at number nine in popularity according to PCGamesN

If we are to follow history and not repeat mistakes and errors by other development teams the adoption of consensual PvP systems in these MMORPGs has generally led to positive outcomes, including increased player satisfaction, community inclusivity, and sustained growth. By allowing players to choose their level of PvP engagement, these games have successfully catered to a wider audience, balancing competitive elements with cooperative gameplay.

Some people are suggesting traditional servers with the option to toggle PvP on and off and others with PvP permanently flagged all the time and in my opinion, this might be a solution and scenario to take in consideration by the Intrepid team.

Picture this:

Instead of having one PvP system for all players, Ashes of Creation could introduce two types of servers:

• Standard Servers: Toggle on/off PvP of course without the current corruption system which fails anyways to deter large guilds and zergs and only punish solo players and small groups, allowing PvP only when desired, while still enabling PvE-focused gameplay.

• Hardcore PvP Servers: No corruption penalties, full open-world PvP, and more PvP based rewards for risk-takers and hardcore players with all the time in the world to play the game.

I think this will satisfy all players.

In conclusion, adopting a consensual PvP system can lead to a more inclusive, enjoyable, and sustainable gaming environment, aligning with both player preferences and successful industry practices already tested by other successful teams leading to player retention which of course is what we all agreed on and are aiming for in the discussions here.

Thanks again for taking the time to read and answer the post.

Xeeg

Noaani wrote: »

I agree - and this will also be the case on live servers when people hit the level cap.

But then, what is the point of PvP?

Well yeah I thought the PVP was based around building up and taking down nodes. I was hoping that once I was max level and close to max gear, I would be spending most of my time and effort gathering, glint grinding, running caravans and PVPing in order to empower the node and fight other nodes. If our node gets destroyed then we need to build it up again, etc.

Like I thought the end game "loop" was preparing for and executing node wars basically. We dont have to keep chasing player power if we can keep chasing node power which has a reset mechanism.

Arya_Yeshe

I don't think AoC PvP has any huge issues, aside from not having more diplomacy options and the chance to hire people as mercenaries. Plus, a better gold flow would help, especially since repairs are such a gold sink, people should be able to play as node militia and live off war targets.

The main issue seems to be the lack of clear systems for setting allies, enemies, who can help you in war, who gets paid what, and all that.

For example, why can a mayor just declare war on any node whenever he feels like it? No cooldown or anything? Why not limit a mayor to declaring up to three wars and with upgrades that let them declare more wars? There could even be war declarations by votes that doesn't require any node upgrade. Let the citizens vote to declare war on each node, and if they want to go to war with everyone, they can vote for it.

This way, a mayor could run the node like a dictator, focusing on upgrading the government so they can declare as much wars as they want without popular support. Or they could let the people vote on each war individually.

If the people want to be at war with everyone, they can vote for it. If the mayor wants to be a tyrant, they can expand the State and do whatever they want.

See? My struggle with AoC is shallow diplomacy and pvp is just a gold and time sink in most cases.

Ludullu

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

For example, why can a mayor just declare war on any node whenever he feels like it? No cooldown or anything? Why not limit a mayor to declaring up to three wars and with upgrades that let them declare more wars? There could even be war declarations by votes that doesn't require any node upgrade. Let the citizens vote to declare war on each node, and if they want to go to war with everyone, they can vote for it.

The mayor can't really do that on release. We simply don't have the full system implemented yet.

Thier node war stream showed that it's gonna be about proposing a war by the mayor and then people deciding to contribute to it or not. And it's gonna take a ton of resources and also will have a cd on it.

Once again, all issues of "the game" stem from the game not existing currently. This is why I keep saying, critique the plan and not the current state.

The plan for pvp event death penalties changed and I started critiquing that. The static resources keeps being a plan, so I'm critiquing that too. Corruption is planned to be tuned harsher than L2's was, so I've critiqued that in the past. And we haven't even heard about updates to some other plans either, so it'd be nice to ask some questions about that, but obviously we're not getting stream Q&As anymore.

Caww

Kotako wrote: »

..... In conclusion, adopting a consensual PvP system can lead to a more inclusive, enjoyable, and sustainable gaming environment, aligning with both player preferences and successful industry practices already tested by other successful teams leading to player retention which of course is what we all agreed on and are aiming for in the discussions here.

I think the OP is correct that a softening of the PvP environment will, in the end, be needed to keep AoC from becoming a niche game. I wouldn't want separate servers since the massive castle siege events are really going to need PvP players (and associated guilds) that know their stuff and are willing to organize the average PvE'er just looking for a little hot action but not really having a clue how to go about such a large affair.

The one-on-one, anytime bushwhacking will be very tedious and that is what needs to be harnessed.

Ludullu

Caww wrote: »

keep AoC from becoming a niche game

It literally being built as a niche game. Steven has said so himself countless times at this point. PvP environment is already too damn soft. People just see the reports of literally broken unfinished systems and keep fucking thinking THAT IT'S THE ENTIRE GAME. It is not, ffs.

Xeeg

Ludullu wrote: »

Caww wrote: »

keep AoC from becoming a niche game

It literally being built as a niche game. Steven has said so himself countless times at this point. PvP environment is already too damn soft. People just see the reports of literally broken unfinished systems and keep fucking thinking THAT IT'S THE ENTIRE GAME. It is not, ffs.

Yeah but a niche game that has a pop of 5k users on 1 server? or are they trying to make a "Massive" multiplayer game?

Srixun

Non Consensual PVP is a pillar of Ashes. and I hope it stays that way.

Ludullu

Xeeg wrote: »

Yeah but a niche game that has a pop of 5k users on 1 server? or are they trying to make a "Massive" multiplayer game?

Niche compared to games like ff14, wow, eso at its peak, etc. I said before, I believe that Ashes can hold 200-300k players monthly. That's ~6 full servers. Maybe 3-4 if they go for bigger server, if dynamic gridding allows that.

That would be 1 central us server, 1 eu, 1 sa, 1 sea/asia. And more, if the servers are the planned 50k accs per server.

And this estimate could be potentially low, if Intrepid manage to deliver on a lot of their promises.

Noaani

Ludullu wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

But then, what is the point of PvP?

In my experience the point is to get better. Better gear, better coordination with your mates, better guild coordination, better gameplay skill, better tactic skill - all of that requires you to pvp over and over, especially if the design supports different party/char builds, where your opponents can counter your own builds well.

In other words, the point of PvP is PvP. Unlike PvE where developers can (and do) create new mechanics to give encounters, PvP is limited to the set of mechanics thet players have access to. This means PvP'ing in order to do more PvP'ing is literally just more of the same.

All of the things you talk about above are things PvE requires of players as well. The big difference is that in PvP, you are limited as I said above. You know that the players you come up against only have access to the same mechanics you have. When developers drop a new PvE encounter, this statement doesn't hold true - you don't know what mechanics the developers may have coded just for it.

If the point of Ashes is to PvP in order to PvP more, I don't see how anyone can xall the game anything other than a PvP game. This is a point I bought up years ago - that you label a game as PvP or PvE based on what the point is - and Ashes has jo point in regards to PvE, everything you do is for PvP.

Noaani

Ludullu wrote: »

Caww wrote: »

keep AoC from becoming a niche game

It literally being built as a niche game. Steven has said so himself countless times at this point. PvP environment is already too damn soft. People just see the reports of literally broken unfinished systems and keep fucking thinking THAT IT'S THE ENTIRE GAME. It is not, ffs.

A niche game with a target of 50k players making each server home.

It isn't a niche game, it is an ill-considered game.

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

You know that the players you come up against only have access to the same mechanics you have.

Imo this comes down to augment and gear design. Even L2, with its limited design, had situations where you didn't know what your opponent might have in their arsenal.

People could get a class change, so even if you knew the name of a particular enemy and their main class, they could be a completely different class the next time.

And in a later update weapon augment were implemented that let people put additional skills from other classes into their weapons, so, say, a class that does not have a stun in their kit could suddenly have one.

In Ashes augments could theoretically introduce a different enough gameplay approach vs the same enemy, especially when we consider that any class can wear any kind of gear.

And hopefully gear itself might present different special builds, so that your own actions need to change if you wanna keep winning against that player. Even something basic like higher elemental resist or stun resist could change your actions in pvp. Well, given that ttk is not a single fucking second of course.

It's up to Intrepid to create an interesting system for pvp encounters. If they fail that - they fail in that. But at that point I'd imagine that they would've failed at interesting pve too.

Noaani wrote: »

A niche game with a target of 50k players making each server home.

It isn't a niche game, it is an ill-considered game.

I'm not fully sure what you mean here. Is it that a megaserver, like Albion/EVE would be better, or is it that servers should be smaller so that the game doesn't feel dead as quickly after the release player crash?

Arya_Yeshe

Kotako wrote: »

As promised here we go again.

We all understand that the evolution of PvP systems in MMORPGs has been influenced by the need to balance competitive gameplay with player retention and satisfaction. If the develpers get it wrong, people will leave in masses. A lot of successful MMORPGs have adopted consensual PvP models, allowing players to choose when and how to engage in PvP combat.

Here's an analysis for all considerations on how this approach has impacted games like World of Warcraft (WoW), Final Fantasy XIV (FFXIV), The Elder Scrolls Online (ESO), Guild Wars 2 (GW2), and New World (NW).

World of Warcraft (WoW)

Initially, WoW featured distinct PvP and PvE servers, with PvP servers enabling open-world PvP. Over time, Blizzard introduced the War Mode feature, allowing players on any server to toggle PvP on or off at will. This shift provided players with the flexibility to engage in PvP when desired, without the constant threat of unsolicited combat.

As a consequence:
• Increased Player Satisfaction: Players appreciated the autonomy to choose their PvP engagement, leading to a more personalized gaming experience.
• Balanced Server Populations: The removal of strict PvP/PvE server distinctions helped in balancing server populations and reduced the fragmentation of the player base.

Final Fantasy XIV (FFXIV)

FFXIV has predominantly focused on PvE content, with PvP elements being entirely optional and confined to specific zones or events. This design ensures that casuals and players who prefer PvE can enjoy the game without unexpected PvP encounters.

As a consequence:
• High Player Retention: The game's emphasis on rich storytelling and cooperative gameplay has attracted a broad audience, contributing to its sustained popularity.
• Positive Community Reputation: The consensual nature of PvP has fostered a welcoming environment, enhancing the game's community appeal.

The Elder Scrolls Online (ESO)

ESO segregates its PvP content to the Cyrodiil region and specific battlegrounds, allowing players to opt into PvP experiences without affecting their PvE exploration and enjoyment of the world.

As a consequence:
• Diverse Player Engagement: Players can choose to participate in large-scale PvP battles or focus solely on PvE content, condescending with varied playstyles.
• Sustained Growth: This flexibility has contributed to a steady increase in the player base, as individuals can adapt their experiences to whatever they want.

Guild Wars 2 (GW2)

GW2 offers optional PvP modes, such as Structured PvP and World vs. World, separate from its PvE content. Players can engage in PvP without impacting their PvE progression.

As a consequence:
• Seamless Transition: The ability to switch between PvP and PvE modes without penalties has been well-received, encouraging participation in both aspects of the game.
• Community Inclusivity: By not forcing PvP, GW2 has maintained an inclusive environment, appealing to both competitive and casual players.

New World (NW)

Originally designed with a strong emphasis on open-world PvP, New World faced challenges with player griefing and imbalance which sounds very familiar to what is happening in Ashes at the moment. In response, Amazon Games implemented a consensual PvP system, allowing players to choose when to flag for PvP.

As a consequence:
• Reduced Griefing: The opt-in PvP system minimized unwanted player confrontations, addressing early concerns about player harassment.
• Broadened Appeal: By accommodating both PvP and PvE enthusiasts, the game attracted a more diverse player base, enhancing its overall appeal.

The argument can certainly be made that New World was a failure at launch, and that would be an entirely fair assessment. However, it wasn’t the PvP approach that caused its initial downfall, it was the unfinished state of the game, plagued by technical issues, lack of content, and numerous design flaws which they have now fixed and the game is ranked at number nine in popularity according to PCGamesN

If we are to follow history and not repeat mistakes and errors by other development teams the adoption of consensual PvP systems in these MMORPGs has generally led to positive outcomes, including increased player satisfaction, community inclusivity, and sustained growth. By allowing players to choose their level of PvP engagement, these games have successfully catered to a wider audience, balancing competitive elements with cooperative gameplay.

Some people are suggesting traditional servers with the option to toggle PvP on and off and others with PvP permanently flagged all the time and in my opinion, this might be a solution and scenario to take in consideration by the Intrepid team.

Picture this:

Instead of having one PvP system for all players, Ashes of Creation could introduce two types of servers:

• Standard Servers: Toggle on/off PvP of course without the current corruption system which fails anyways to deter large guilds and zergs and only punish solo players and small groups, allowing PvP only when desired, while still enabling PvE-focused gameplay.

• Hardcore PvP Servers: No corruption penalties, full open-world PvP, and more PvP based rewards for risk-takers and hardcore players with all the time in the world to play the game.

I think this will satisfy all players.

In conclusion, adopting a consensual PvP system can lead to a more inclusive, enjoyable, and sustainable gaming environment, aligning with both player preferences and successful industry practices already tested by other successful teams leading to player retention which of course is what we all agreed on and are aiming for in the discussions here.

Thanks again for taking the time to read and answer the post.

Not reading that for less than a dollar

Noaani

Ludullu wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

You know that the players you come up against only have access to the same mechanics you have.

Imo this comes down to augment and gear design.

It really doesn't, to be honest.

While you may not know what abilities a given player has, you *KNOW* for a fact that the player only has abilities that are available to players. Gear design and augments don't alter this, players still only have access to the things players have access to. It isn't hard for players to know and understand every mechanic in the game that players have access to, because you as a player (or, specifically, your guild) have access to use those same abilities.

In PvE, you have no idea when you are pulling a mob what new thing the developers could have added to it. The mob in question may have something that is completely new to the game, that jo other mob has ever had, thst players do not have access to.

Ludullu wrote: »

I'm not fully sure what you mean here. Is it that a megaserver, like Albion/EVE would be better, or is it that servers should be smaller so that the game doesn't feel dead as quickly after the release player crash?

I'm more talking about the fact that Intrepid has committed to regional servers in a game where filling one regional server would see Ashes be the second most popular MMORPG in said region - yet still calls the game niche.

Like, make up your mind Intrepid - are you aiming to be the second most played MMORPG in the west, or are you trying to be niche? Pick a side, and make decisions based on it.

Child Item