New World lays out its argument for three-sided PvP

    
69

Don’t count New World’s PvP side down-and-out just yet. Amazon Game Studios made a strong case this past week for why the MMORPG’s faction system will draw in players from all walks of life and make territorial conflict a centerpiece of the game.

As explained in a new dev blog, the trio of factions in the game — the militaristic Marauders, the secretive Syndicate, and the clerical Covenant — will be locked in a three-way struggle for land throughout the game’s operation. At a certain point in the game, every player, despite PvP preferences, will have to pledge a faction and help support it through various activities.

And while some of those activities may include PvP battles — especially in declaring war upon a specific territory — PvE players in a faction can help undermine enemy areas by completing missions. The territory war sounds pretty interesting, as it involves a multi-stage approach and the selection of a random company (guild) to be a “vanguard” for the coming struggle. The vanguard gathers all interested PvPers under its banner and, if successful, will end up controlling the territory conquered.

Amazon said that it’s being mindful of factions that end up losing territory: “To avoid that feeling like a total defeat, we’ve been careful about tuning the benefits of being in a faction that controls the majority of the territories, while paying extra attention to making the factions that control fewer territories feel like underdogs, not the losing side. No matter who is winning in the moment, we’ve built the system in a way that makes strong comebacks an exhilarating part of the game.”

Source: New World

69
LEAVE A COMMENT

Please Login to comment
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most liked
Subscribe to:
Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Vunak

Imagine calling your game a PvP MMORPG, and the only people excited for it are PvE players.

Something seems off….

Random MMO fan
Reader
Random MMO fan

No matter who is winning in the moment, we’ve built the system in a way that makes strong comebacks an exhilarating part of the game

Translation: it does not matter what you do in factional warfare, you cannot eliminate opposing faction completely.

Another thing that does not matter: control of settlements on your captured territory. All you can do is to adjust taxes by insignificant amount. You cannot evict anyone from settlement you control, does not matter if players of opposing factions live there or use crafting or trading facility there. You also cannot prevent anyone from visiting your territory unless they voluntarily flag themselves for PvP.

Another thing that does not matter: your own will to participate in 50v50 battles. A company who is either initiating the attack or defending against it has an ability to never select you for participating in war.

Considering all these facts, why would most people who like PvP even want to participate in war system in this game? Why would anyone care if their faction holds any areas considering you do not have full control over territories?

It is funny to see how Amazon is still trying to fix this inherently flawed system with bandaid solutions like Factional PvP quests.

Reader
Arktouros

Fast forward a year and we’ll get another article like FO76 recently where they say they are surprised there aren’t more players engaging in PvP and PvP focused players and what people really want is collaborative PvE and social objectives.

eyeroll.png
Reader
Loyal Patron
jay

Interesting considering this worked amazingly well for DAOC for years, and they didn’t even have the taxes etc. Shockingly people just did it for fun!

Random MMO fan
Reader
Random MMO fan

What used to “work amazingly well” in some old MMO back when there wasn’t even a choice of various MMOs to play does not mean would still work “amazingly well” today. Today, we have games like Planetside 2, where there are still 3 fixed factions but with much less restrictions (you are allowed to attack any structure without waiting for a specific date and without asking for company leader if the leader will allow you into war instance) and much larger scale. Why would I play much more limited New World and not Planetside 2? ;-) GW2 also has it, so does ESO. Why would I waste time in New World where I can do the same in much better overall games already?

We also have games like EVE Online, where you can actually control who goes through your territory, where you can build new structures in your territory, destroy structures built by others and you can fight any other corporation or alliance at any time, as well as do many other things. Why would I play New World and not EVE if I am interested in more meaningful territory control? ;-)

See, you are failing to understand something. You cannot make a game which is a clone of existing games and which is, in fact, inferior in many ways than many existing games in today’s world where there are plenty of choices already. Unless, of course, you are not trying to make a profit from your game and just “doing it for the lulz”, like for example what Riot Games is doing now with their upcoming CS:GO clone ;-)

Reader
traja

This only really makes sense if you exclude all other considerations and focus solely on this aspect of PvP. If you imagine that games like EVE and Planetside 2 are competing for the same space.

Reality of course is that there are many other things to consider besides faction and territory wars. Now I have no idea how good New World is as a whole but just saying that its war aspects are worse than EVEs doesn’t suddenly make me want to play with spreadsheets.

Random MMO fan
Reader
Random MMO fan

Now I have no idea how good New World is as a whole but just saying that its war aspects are worse than EVEs doesn’t suddenly make me want to play with spreadsheets.

That is a good point, but as far as for what else New World has:
https://www.ign.com/articles/new-world-hands-on-with-amazons-upcoming-open-world-mmorpg

“As far as I could tell the main story exists entirely in optional lore pages scattered around the world, other than that it seemed to be a bunch of fetch quests to grind out levels. From what I was told it sounds like most PvE content is free-form open-world bosses and a few large “points of interest” scattered about, but there won’t be any actual dungeons or raids at launch at this time. Overall, I fear the result could be relentlessly tedious travel across a mostly empty world. PvE felt lifeless, uninspired, and unoriginal”

I can confirm that everything said is true. There is nothing else for PvE players other than simple crafting and gathering system. A system which now allows anyone to gather anything and craft anything. And with everyone doing this because there is nothing else to do – you can imagine how useful the crafting will be (a hint: not very).

The game currently exists in a situation where it is neither a game for PvE players nor for PvP players, at least for the kind of PvP players which like large combat and not pointless duels or pointless fights in open world where you cannot even loot anyone or attack anyone if they do not enable PvP flag first.

Reader
Arktouros

You’re misattributing why DAoC was successful.

DAoC was worked amazingly well because it had wide, open world PvP on a large scale restricted only by factions. The factions did the work of limiting PvP and giving players the ability to have allies to rely upon. They also protected newer players and separated out the PvP areas from the PvE areas, something often times suggested to AGS during the New World Alpha.

New World by comparison has overly restricted PvP to the point of obsolescence. As referenced with the recent Fallout76 article, systems that are opt in PvP are generally don’t have people who do it “just for fun.” This is likely because people who are PvPing “just for fun” can find any number of other existing products (GW2, ESO, etc etc etc) where you can find easy, breasy casual PvP times at any time and not gated purely behind a once in a while 50 v 50 mechanic that you might, maybe possibly get to participate or go to if you win the roll.

Reader
EmberStar

Wow. Just when I think that I can’t have any greater disdain for this game, they find a way for me to like it even less. Well done, I suppose. Not that they would even slightly care of course. I wasn’t even slightly part of the original target audience, so it’s not like they’ve “lost” a sale. I was never going to buy it to begin with.

Reader
Matt Comstock

I think this reveal supports the notion that New World will still be a PvP game at its core at launch, but that PvE participation is viable. Removing the open-world-full-loot-loss-on-death-PvP did not turn this into a PvE game. I would argue that it moved it towards a more directed and meaningful PvP game. Where PvP combat during the PvP faction missions will break out in the open world while supporting or trying to undermine a faction in any given territory.

I’m actually excited to see how this plays out, and how it successfully, or not, entices me (a PvE guy at heart) to participate in the PvP faction missions and sieges.

Reader
Arktouros

You’re filling in the blanks with your thoughts, it doesn’t work the way you think it does. It’s still all entirely optional PvP and the PvP labeled missions are still PvE objectives. It’s a less directed and less meaningful PvP system because even if you push hard to declare war/take a territory the war could go to another faction or group who put no work into the zone.

Reader
Matt Comstock

Perhaps. But so are you. We’ll see how it actually works out.

Reader
Arktouros

Nah, the beta has me covered with all the information I need. Big patch was delayed from today till tomorrow.

Random MMO fan
Reader
Random MMO fan

New World will still be a PvP game at its core at launch

This is a very irrational thing to say about game that:

1) Never forces you to PvP in any area of non-instanced world

2) Makes control of territories irrelevant – you cannot control who goes through your territory and who uses crafting or trading facilities on it or buys houses

3) Alienates you from even participating in large scale battles – the choice whether you get selected as a part of 50 player team of defenders or attackers depends on a company leader, who can always not select you because you suck, or because you belong to certain gender or whatever other reason

4) Makes people not care about factional PvP since the factions will always exist no matter what you will do in game

5) Makes people unable to easily switch faction or declare war against companies if they are in the same faction

I wish people would actually play the game first (like I have) before posting random assumptions and giving other people false impressions about game…

P.S: Can’t wait to read another reply that “it is alpha, everything can change for final game” about game that has official release date in about 3 month from now.

Reader
Matt Comstock

Given that typical NDA’s constrain a person from stating whether they are currently participating in an Alpha, i.e. playing the game, you never really know who has or has not played it like yourself, unless they are willing to violate the NDA.

That you have played the game, or are possibly playing the game now, is inconsequential to me in forming my own opinion based on the game’s media and informational releases and when I’m able to play the final product.

Random MMO fan
Reader
Random MMO fan

You may form any opinion you want to, does not change the fact that it is factually wrong. Or that others cannot correct your false assumptions. This is why I put this sentence in my previous post about wishing people would actually play game first before making any kind of assumptions.

Reader
Utakata

So does this mean you get hit from 3 sides? Or two players hitting you and you hitting the ground gank sandwich style…

…to which I would posit that PvP is already 3-sided for most games. That is, the player hitting you, you hitting the ground and then you hitting the release spirit button. /sigh

oldandgrumpy
Reader
Kickstarter Donor
oldandgrumpy

I wonder what is the magic target player numbers they have to reach or is everything MAU’s these days.

Reader
Natalyia

GW2 WvW is a three-sided fight, and I don’t see collusion between two sides against one. But that’s a situation where the game resets weekly and character gear/level are normalized. Not the more-or-less permanent world with character power-progression of this game.

Without a mechanism to reset things and keep players on a more-or-less even footing, the game will soon cease to be “fun” for anyone. The “winners” will have their stuff, but nobody to fight, and the “losers” will leave for other games.

Crowfall is trying to address that situation by ensuring nobody “wins” or “loses” forever. I don’t know if it’ll work, but at least they’re thinking about the problem. Too many other games seem to just be hoping “this time, it’ll be different!”

Godnaz
Reader
Godnaz

GW2 WvW is a three-sided fight, and I don’t see collusion between two sides against one.

That’s because no one cares about being in Tier 1 anymore, which is why unless you like the fights, WvW is effectively pointless. WvW once had a season with legit rewards at the end and politics in WvW were rife that people were willing to cheat and collude for gain an advantage. Blackgate and Tarnish Coast lost that WvW season to Jade Quarry. BG vowed to dismantle JQ after that and with the help of those influencers and ArenaNet because BG was Anet’s home server, they eventually did. They closed transfers to all Tier 1 and Tier 2 servers and left BG open on purpose, effectively stacking BG. Not even the developers could stay out of gamer politics.

Reader
EmberStar

I’m sure that the theorycrafting is that if one side gets too far ahead the other two will “gang up” on them and equalize things. Realistically what I expect will happen is that one faction will be inherently less popular (maybe in general, maybe only on a specific server.) And both of the stronger factions will pick on that one because it’s an easy target until everyone in it quits or changes sides. Then the stronger faction will resume the normal “winner’s bloat” as everyone else either bails out or changes to the faction that isn’t getting constantly curbstomped.

Reader
Arktouros

Reset conditions (aka: Win conditions) are huge for shaking things up constantly.

Like I’ve known for a fact (cause I was part of brokering the deals) two servers have teamed up against a third in WvW. But those kinds of deals rarely last longer than a week because at the end it resets and servers can go up/down.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Loyal Patron
Tobasco da Gama

Yeah, this is going to end up like every single other one of these where the two biggest groups have a gentlemen’s agreement to pick on the third. You need either two factions or *lots* of factions or make this kind of thing work.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Patreon Donor
Loyal Patron
Ashfyn Ninegold

Yup. Three looks good on paper, is trash in real in-game play. The concept that you’re never down and out and can make a great come back is just horse patuti.

Reader
Hikari Kenzaki

So… Illuminati, Dragon, and Templars?

It sounds like they’re making it a bit too complex, honestly.

Reader
angelangelthree

That’s what I was thinking too!

Random MMO fan
Reader
Random MMO fan

Nah, it is much simpler than that. This game does not have any significant lore or anything else which makes faction names relevant. So this is more of a “Red faction, Blue faction and Yellow faction”, especially when it comes to looking at a map.

Reader
Marty Woods

I haven’t been following this game closely but I am a bit confused as to what these developers want it to be . There seems to be a lot of mixed messages being sent out .

Cyclone Jack
Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Cyclone Jack

I don’t think the developers know what they want it to be.