As far as my understanding they are making so that PvP has an impact versus what you see in some MMOs where there are low level town surrounded by PKers. Whereas in this it would pertain more to ganking a Caravan and getting stuff from it. Or raiding somewhere
There are people who like pve and pvp and to us the game being pve friendly means there is meaningful pve content to do.
Three of their four "pillars" are PvE. Matter of fact almost everything we know about the game is PvE. Yet the PvP ruleset is designed in such a way that one "pillar" will negatively effect players experience in the other three "pillars". There's nothing meaningful about that. Nothing.
Negatively effect SOME players experiences. Apparently Intrepid believes that there are enough players interested in the game, which They want to play themselves, to have a good shot a succeeding. I would rather play a game that is a dream of some small team than an assembly line product that a giant corporation turns out.
I prefer some challenge in my gaming. Not a handholding theme-park, no-risk low reward train ride.
@Dygz Stop paraphrasing Steven. You sound like a robot copy and pasting someone elses words.
There is no such thing as "meaningful conflict". It's two words that never belong together.
I lived a life of conflict. I play games to get away from negative press, social media, poliotical bullsh!t and real life issues. I play to relax, so leave me the fk alone. What's is so hard to get thru peoples thick skulls about that? I don't want to be your victim! You ruin my gameplay and make me leave games.
Many of us don't want your stupid PvP. We are your GREAT customers. We probably spend 3 times more money than any PvP player ever will. We will stay in your game longer (we even have statistics to prove it). We will not pollute your chat with insults and drama. We will not divide your community, we will unite it. We will create websites, fansites, video channels, social media and even advertise for you. We are the majority of the gaming industry and the largest source of its revenue. We are PVE players and we want to play Ashes of Creation. You're just not giving us a reason to. @Steven
hahahha
1: Meaningful Conflict is one of the four pillars of Ashes of Creation game design.
PvP conflict was a core concept of EQNext.
Whatever you think of the label, that is the core of the game.
If you play games to get away from politics and conflict, then ashes of Creation is not the game for you. Don't play games that you don't like.
2: Just because I'm able to explain the concepts doesn't mean I agree wholeheartedly with Steven's philosophies.
I get it. I get just as pissed off when PvPers say that players are just content; no different from NPCs. It's offensive. I get it.
But, that's the way they feel. And just as you think they can't change your values and your philosophy with regard to PvP combat, you can't change theirs either.
Which is why it's unlikely that all the playstyles will be playing on the same servers.
The playerbase is going to be split regardless. If there are no separate servers, tons of PvE adventurers and tons of casual PvPers will avoid Ashes of Creation like the plague.
There are people who like pve and pvp and to us the game being pve friendly means there is meaningful pve content to do.
Three of their four "pillars" are PvE. Matter of fact almost everything we know about the game is PvE. Yet the PvP ruleset is designed in such a way that one "pillar" will negatively effect players experience in the other three "pillars". There's nothing meaningful about that. Nothing.
No. Economy might be PvE, but even that is interconnected with PvP conflict. Especially when a key aspect of building cities and infrastructure includes taxes. Taxes which are expected to cause players to revolt and overthrow the government via civil war.
The Node system is driven by PvP conflict - especially Caravans and Sieges, but also the PvP political conflicts which will cause changes of regimes - likely resulting in buildings being destroyed and different ones built.
Narrative is interconnected with the node system. Without the PvP conflict inherent in city nodes locking off the narratives of lesser nodes and sieges and political conflict causing the destruction of cities and buildings, the narrative becomes static and stagnant.
It's theoretically possible to have a server with PvP combat disabled, but PvP conflict would still be the core that drives change in the world of Ashes of Creation. The players would have to figure out how to resolve PvP conflicts without resorting to player characters killing other player characters - how to have sieges and successful caravan attacks that don't involve players characters killing other player characters.
I can't flame you for continuing to copy and paste this devs teams words. It's all the information we have. But it still sounds like a word maze designed to get them thru a sales pitch to an angel investor.
The game can be anything they want it to be and work any way they want it to work. Eating cookies could be a pillar if they wanted it to. Washing it down with milk could be another pillar. It's an empty palette on an electronic easel.
I don't care about PvP. I've seen it, experienced it and want nothing to do with it. But I understand no game should ever launch without it. What they're doing here is setting themselves up for the biggest gank & grief ever made. I'll try to be vocal about it while it's still in early development. But I'm starting to believe our feedback is falling on deaf ears.
It's wait and see. For those who are dead set against PVP of any kind why would you even consider a game where the Devs plan is to make it dependent on PVP? It's their baby. Suggestions to improve the system of balancing and trying to make things fair for both is a good and can be a productive thing. Lashing out and offering no productive suggestions gets no where.
Not being able to kill other players enables far more griefing opportunities than it prevents. I personally want to be able to attack other players in open world. Actually being able to gain some loot from it only makes it more exciting. And in the end it provides some fun to the bounty hunters.
Exactly how they will balance this I don't know, High levels sieging a node where some low lvls live seems like domination, unless everybody taking part are temporarily boosted within that nodes range.
All these PvP conflict points should be at guild level. I am a crafter. I might be farming all day and it would be stupid there should be one PvP specialist watching my back all the time. But at the end of the day, when caravan goes rolling, then there is something worth to grab, but i can also call my guild for protection.
My recommendation is to make individual players worthless targets. Murder penalty should be account-wide and so strong that murderer can't continue any kind of playing on any character for the next 32 hours. Instead make enough these guild-wide PvP conflict points so that there is plenty to gain from them.
Under the basic Ashes design system of developing nodes enabling PvE content, if there was no PvP to destroy or change this node development the Server will simply stagnate due to a lack of content.
Its 4 max Nodes per server right (or was it 5?) anyway this will mean many nodes and the associated PvE content will not happen if they are never developed. Once those starting nodes are maxed out nothing seriously new in the world will happen. Players impacting and changing the world is the corner stone of the whole game, PvP is the catalyst of change in the world without it you will not be playing Ashes at all by very definition.
If you want a stale, pvp safe non changing world then this is not the game for you. BTW I am a more PvE focussed player than PvP just for the record.
It would still be possible to destroy cities and caravans as PvE encounters if PVP combat were disabled. The PvP conflict has to be there, but the player characters killing other player characters mechanic isn't imperative to destroy or change nodes.
And, technically, the players on a server like that could cooperatively agree to destroy cities and change the nodes. Much like the denizens of Eminiar VII in Star Trek: TOS A Taste of Armageddon.
Exactly how they will balance this I don't know, High levels sieging a node where some low lvls live seems like domination, unless everybody taking part are temporarily boosted within that nodes range.
A siege generally takes days of prep time. The low lev city may be able to call in enough allies for defense. Theoretically could end up being the whole server against that high level city.
I can't flame you for continuing to copy and paste this devs teams words. It's all the information we have. But it still sounds like a word maze designed to get them thru a sales pitch to an angel investor.
The game can be anything they want it to be and work any way they want it to work. Eating cookies could be a pillar if they wanted it to. Washing it down with milk could be another pillar. It's an empty palette on an electronic easel.
I don't care about PvP. I've seen it, experienced it and want nothing to do with it. But I understand no game should ever launch without it. What they're doing here is setting themselves up for the biggest gank & grief ever made. I'll try to be vocal about it while it's still in early development. But I'm starting to believe our feedback is falling on deaf ears.
You want nothing to do with PvP.
But the devs want PvP conflict to be a core pillar of their game in order to give PvP combat more meaning than just ganking people for loot.
They love PvP combat. And that skews their vision.
The devs aren't going to be convinced by what we say.
The only thing that will convince them is trying it out in alpha and beta, checking to see how players respond and having lower participation than they hoped due to PvE folk hating the mechanics.
And, technically, the players on a server like that could cooperatively agree to destroy cities and change the nodes.
Do you really think an entire PvE server of loads of guilds will easily agree on whats best for node destruction/advancement. If not how will you resolve this? Dont remember Intrepid mentioning anything about a voting system for Node evolution.
Really not sure what you are proposing here but it would not be Ashes of Creation more like Ballot Box of Creation.
Stabby, you keep saying that "the game can be anything that they want it to be." Well, lol, I suppose that is true enough. They are making it how they want it to be. Doesn't look like much is going to change their minds about that, for now...
Dygz, you have this fixation around the separation between PVP conflict and PVP combat. I would bet my alpha access(if I had one) that Steven means combat along with everything else PVP related when he uses the word "conflict". I don't buy, and I don't think that many would buy a game in which conflicts of interest would all be settled by NPCs on one side of any part of the "disagreement". It isn't like red blooded players to trust their hard work to NPC guards. It isn't like different players to go along with having their Metropolises auto destroyed every 3 months so that lesser hard working groups can auto have their Metropolis for 3 months...
Not being able to kill other players enables far more griefing opportunities than it prevents. I personally want to be able to attack other players in open world. Actually being able to gain some loot from it only makes it more exciting. And in the end it provides some fun to the bounty hunters.
One of the things I love about the PvP/PvE threads is the diverse world views. I hear hardcore PvPers talk about griefing that is other than forced PvP combat, but I can't relate. The only thing I experience as griefing is being forced to engage in PvP combat when I'm not in the mood to engage in PvP combat. People have listed other things they consider to be griefing and none of it bothers me at all.
On the Revival forums, some one was enraged by the notion that a person in a tavern could dance naked on a table while verbally insulting them, but they could not attack or kill the them for the insult. While, for me, that would just be rolled in to my RP experience. They aren't adding to my xp debt. They aren't looting my stuff. They aren't adding extra hours to my play session while I work off the xp debt, go on a corpse run and then have to try to regain whatever got looted.
People mentioned body-blocking a door to keep players locked in a room. I have never in 20 years of playing MMORPGs experienced that. But, if I did, seems like I would just port back to my home. And, again, that would not cost me extra xp debt or time from a corpse run and regaining stolen loot.
Do you have a few examples to share of griefing that doesn't involve player characters killing other player characters?
There are people who like pve and pvp and to us the game being pve friendly means there is meaningful pve content to do.
Three of their four "pillars" are PvE. Matter of fact almost everything we know about the game is PvE. Yet the PvP ruleset is designed in such a way that one "pillar" will negatively effect players experience in the other three "pillars". There's nothing meaningful about that. Nothing. If anything it's catering to the smallest and most destructive part of any player community. It's a horrible concept in every way, shape and form.
EVERY GAME IS BUILT AROUND CONFLICT!!! You guys keep quoting this as if it's something new and special.
People play games to have fun. PvP ruins the fun for many players. End of story.
Don't play games with conflict in them if they ruin your fun. Conversely don't ask for a game built around conflict to have that removed thereby ruining the fun for everyone else who does enjoy making their own decisions about how to resolve conflict.
There are people who like pve and pvp and to us the game being pve friendly means there is meaningful pve content to do.
Three of their four "pillars" are PvE. Matter of fact almost everything we know about the game is PvE. Yet the PvP ruleset is designed in such a way that one "pillar" will negatively effect players experience in the other three "pillars". There's nothing meaningful about that. Nothing.
That is literally meaningless. You've said a bunch of words that means nothing and convinced yourself that it's an argument to remove pvp from the game.
In Age of Conan there was plenty. 1. Blocking doorways with bodies to prevent access to NPC's etc (new players did not realise there was a stance that turned off colision detection 2. Being constantly followed by someone for whatever reason, sales, guild invites.
Recently there was a quite disgusting Race abuse issue on Elderscrolls online, resulted in lots of banning I hear. It involved some players wearing white cloaks and doing something (strict PvE area) you can find out the rest your self.
These are perhaps all things where many players might say I dont care about the corruption these players need to die!
When you are overloaded(so moving slowly) the collision mechanics are crap, some joker can keep his toon in front of you so you can't move.
Chat trolls.
Exclusion from groups because you don't have the BiS gear that they want you to have, but to get the gear, you need to be in a group...
Killing by extension: Either training mobs onto players fighting their own mob group or weakening the player by blocking his attacks, interrupting his healing, etc...
Future Griefing: Being told that you have to surrender your Metropolis because it is time for Clan Layabout to have their turn at a Metropolis.
I can't flame you for continuing to copy and paste this devs teams words. It's all the information we have. But it still sounds like a word maze designed to get them thru a sales pitch to an angel investor.
The game can be anything they want it to be and work any way they want it to work. Eating cookies could be a pillar if they wanted it to. Washing it down with milk could be another pillar. It's an empty palette on an electronic easel.
I don't care about PvP. I've seen it, experienced it and want nothing to do with it. But I understand no game should ever launch without it. What they're doing here is setting themselves up for the biggest gank & grief ever made. I'll try to be vocal about it while it's still in early development. But I'm starting to believe our feedback is falling on deaf ears.
You want nothing to do with PvP.
But the devs want PvP conflict to be a core pillar of their game in order to give PvP combat more meaning than just ganking people for loot.
They love PvP combat. And that skews their vision.
The devs aren't going to be convinced by what we say.
The only thing that will convince them is trying it out in alpha and beta, checking to see how players respond and having lower participation than they hoped due to PvE folk hating the mechanics.
That's like hoping the Battlefield 1 developers would respond to the "pve players" lower participation in their game.
You two don't even have the same definition of "pve player" or the same goals for what that's supposed to mean in the game so how do you expect to be represented homogeneously to a development studio?
The game isn't designed to have a conflict free path to progression. How would you remove PVP and expect that not to be exploited? All either of you have done is complain that it will ruin the game but neither of you have addressed how the game could actually even work without it.
Some player harvesting materials in a node isn't an isolated activity. It may be negatively affecting that node by affecting its development and the resources available to the citizens of that node?
Not being able to kill other players enables far more griefing opportunities than it prevents. I personally want to be able to attack other players in open world. Actually being able to gain some loot from it only makes it more exciting. And in the end it provides some fun to the bounty hunters.
One of the things I love about the PvP/PvE threads is the diverse world views. I hear hardcore PvPers talk about griefing that is other than forced PvP combat, but I can't relate. The only thing I experience as griefing is being forced to engage in PvP combat when I'm not in the mood to engage in PvP combat. People have listed other things they consider to be griefing and none of it bothers me at all.
On the Revival forums, some one was enraged by the notion that a person in a tavern could dance naked on a table while verbally insulting them, but they could not attack or kill the them for the insult. While, for me, that would just be rolled in to my RP experience. They aren't adding to my xp debt. They aren't looting my stuff. They aren't adding extra hours to my play session while I work off the xp debt, go on a corpse run and then have to try to regain whatever got looted.
People mentioned body-blocking a door to keep players locked in a room. I have never in 20 years of playing MMORPGs experienced that. But, if I did, seems like I would just port back to my home. And, again, that would not cost me extra xp debt or time from a corpse run and regaining stolen loot.
Do you have a few examples to share of griefing that doesn't involve player characters killing other player characters?
I find it odd that in 20 years of online gaming you don't have a long list of the ways people grief others (preventing or inhibiting progression, kill stealing, node stealing, training, boss resets, add pulls, etc) on pve only servers.
Just because you're fine with other players deciding where you can't enter (the tavern) doesn't mean that's any more acceptable than any other type of griefing.
But we're not talking just about griefing here. There are many legitimate scenarios in the game where you can cause grief to other players without personal battle and personal battles doesn't equate to griefing.
Why do you think your activity in or around a node won't adversely affect that node? You're essentially griefing and combating the inhabitants of that node with your activity. And you want complete immunity from counter-interference? That is an unreasonable request.
So far we haven't seen a completely "pve only" activity in the game because everything is interrelated. In games like LotRO and GW2 where all of your pve activity is meaningless to those around you (what you do doesn't significantly affect others) then carrying your activities with combat immunity (you can't pvp) doesn't matter. In a game like this where all pve activity has an affect on others and your actions affect others then you can't have the sort of combat immunity (safe pve) that you can have in the former games.
@ArkadyRandom I'm a casual challenge, cooperative player. Only way for a player to prevent my progression is to kill my character.
1: There are plenty of mobs to kill - I can always find different mobs to kill.
2: Same for nodes, I guess... I can barely even understand why people would have the concept of "node stealing".
3: The trains I've encountered have most often been accidents rather than intentional - and I can typically outrun a train...especially in more modern games where training isn't even possible.
4: I don't understand the concept of boss reset by a player. How does that work?
5: Oh. The example I've seen is being locked in a tavern, not be blocked from entering a tavern, but...I would probably happily just go find another tavern. I'm an Explorer, so that's not an issue. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Griefing may not be the issue for you. It is the issue for me. I think it is the issue for Stabby and the other people saying they will probably opt out because due Ashes PvP combat design.
I bring up the topic of griefing to point out that what is griefing to some isn't griefing to others. And what isn't griefing to some is griefing to others. It's fairly common for hardcore PvPers to consider their griefing to be fairly play. It is common for hardcore PvPers to present PvP combat as if only PKers grief, so it's the PKers who are the problem...when often the problem is the hardcore PvPers. Because hardcore PvPers don't share the same world view with regard to consent as PvE adventurers and casual PvPers. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The goal of Ashes of Creation is to change the perceptions of PvP conflict and PvP combat from griefing and "meaningless" ganking for pride and loot to Meaningful Conflict.
From my scenario: The Nikua who are harvesting wood from the Sacred Grove are not "griefing" others. They are simply trying to live according to their culture, obtaining the resources they need for the ceremonial rite of passage that will make them Journeyman Crafters. That will allow them to provide people with better gear. There is no grief involved there.
Except! From the Empyrean perspective harvesting trees from the Sacred Grove will place the nearby citizens in danger of attack from the Displaced Dyrads. Even if griefing is not the intent of the Nikua, the result is still the same for the nearby villagers.
The devs expect the PLAYERS to experience that as Meaningful Conflict rather than as griefing and have fun resolving that conflict however they resolve it - even if it results in PvP combat.
But as we can see from Stabby's reaction - PvE adventurers (the PLAYERS) will consider the Empyreans to be the griefers.
I haven't asked for "immunity", so I don't know why you're saddling that on me. I stated that immunity is an unreasonable request. But, there should be a variety of ways other than PvP combat to resolve Meaningful Conflict both character to character and PLAYER to PLAYER. And really, I'm probably looking for PLAYER to PLAYER solutions more than I am character to character solutions or even mechanics solutions.
Maybe this is a character v character solution, too...but it first came to me as a PLAYER to PLAYER offer. If I'm Nikua and just not in the mood for PvP combat at that moment - I would rather offer to let us harvest and then we'll go kill the Displaced Dryads. But, that's because I'm not a competitive person, I'm a coop person.
We agree, at least, on the PvE content...I think the closest we get to a PVE pillar might be Economy, but even that is closely interrelated with the other three. PvP conflict is a fundamental pillar of Ashes of Creation.
I mean at its "Core". As in, being aware of how Non-Combatant, Corrupted and Combatant would engage.
because that seems to be the biggest misunderstanding so far.
As opposed to using the Official Terms, I'll instead use their Color Representations:
Non-Combatant = Green Combatant = Purple Corrupted = Red (****while reading this below, just replace the Terms with the Color Representations ... or vice-versa****)
Green Vs Green: `The "initiator" & the "Attackee" Turns Purple. `Whomever loses, has Reduced Death Penalties - meaning items is looted but not gear
Green Vs Purple: `Same above - solely because the initiator is Green ( the 1st one )
(Quote: " ... If a Non-Combatant attacks a Combatant or another non-combatant, then they become a Combatant for a period of time ... Players can kill Combatants without repercussions, and are encouraged to do so, since dying while a Combatant means you suffer reduced death penalties ... " )
Purple Vs. Green: `The initiator turns Red ( because this time the initiator is Purple ) `Corruption Score/Level is based on a few "Unknown" Terms other than Level Differential `Green (Non-Combatant) does not change color
Red Vs. Green `If the initiator (Red) wins, then Corruption increases `Green (Non-Combatant) does not change color `Green is not Looted
Green Vs. Red `The Initiator (green) will NOT turn Purple nor Red `If Green wins, Red gets looted - including gear
( Quote: " ... While a player is marked as Corrupt, they may be attacked by both Combatants and Non-Combatants. If a non-combatant attacks a corrupt player, the non-combatant will not flag as a combatant ... "
Every other " Vs. Scenario " is speculated. Since that information hasn't been officially stated. But can be inferred ( If anyone has Proof, please assist )
Red Vs. Purple: `If the Initiator (Red) wins, then Purple gets Looted - but not Gear. (Quote:" ... dying while a Combatant means you suffer reduced death penalties ..." ) `If the Attackee (Purple) wins, then Red gets Looted - including (some) Gear
Purple vs Purple: `Whoever loses gets Loot - but not gear `No risk of Corruption due both being Purple
**Queues Epic Music** Red vs Red: ` ... Whomever loses will get Looted - including (some) Gear unsure if Corruption Score increase or not ... think it won't
Despite all of this, the Biggest thing to remember is ... this is just a Linear-View - it'll hardly be a 1-on-1 ; Anyone, can intervene:
Red vs Red: Lets assume the Attackee wins ... then another Red emerges and finishes the Attackee off - the ... "Ambusher" wins. However ... with 3 Reds being in one Area ... thats bound to attract a LOT of other Players preferable those with a Bounty Quest ...
(Quote: " ... the location of these corrupt players will be displayed on the map, if you have the Bounty Hunter title, which can be obtained through a quest available to a citizen from a Military zoned, Stage 4 (Town) Node ... " )
And since they do Plan to implement a ... "Cat-&-Mouse" Scenario ...
(Quote: " ... We also have some other ideas that we haven’t formalized yet that will allow players to participate in what we feel could be a fun cat-and-mouse part of the game ... " )
Meaning Action-Combat will exist both In-combat & Out-of-Combat.
Lastly, One of the Bounty Hunters ( being Purple or Green ) can turn on each other (or accidental misfire ) whenever they want - resulting in Purple or Red. Remember, No Factions in this - Node Citizenship is the closest thing to that, but you can still have Personal Alliances / Friendship that is solely determined by the Player.
In short ... this is technically a Free-4-All ... and Misfire is (techically) always on and can never be turned off.
I'll just add for some perspective that in my experience 100% of griefing I have been exposed to has been by fellow PvE'ers. I played ESO from beta until last year and was kicked from dungeon groups many times because friends were playing together and so when they messed up I was the perfect blame target. So I lost large spans of time spent trying to get better gear due to that. It's aggravating, so I can understand the concern that's being discussed here.
One of my biggest pet peeves was when I would be farming mats or find a treasure chest and would engage the protector mobs so I could open it in peace. Well just about as soon as I would engage, another player would run up and take the chest or mats while clearly aware of what my goal was.
Lots more examples where those came from. My point is, though, while Pk'ers can be an issue, some of the very same players you claim to be defending are just as happy to rob you of time and effort as the PvP crowd if it would profit them. Not every PvP'er is going to be ganking, and not every PvE'er is going to be your friend. That's a human issue, not a game design issue. Ashes will have PvP aspects, and the devs are trying their best to have it in a way that it can cover all the bases of what players want in a balanced form.
Suggestion from me: relax and enjoy the excitement of this new prospective game-changer as a single community. When the first alphas and betas come through and we see how everything works...well I doubt this thread will change it, but perhaps the devs will be in a more willing state to listen to specific requests when they get feedback.
Comments
Because understanding that alone would clarify most - if not all - of these "Scenarios"
Negatively effect SOME players experiences. Apparently Intrepid believes that there are enough players interested in the game, which They want to play themselves, to have a good shot a succeeding. I would rather play a game that is a dream of some small team than an assembly line product that a giant corporation turns out.
I prefer some challenge in my gaming. Not a handholding theme-park, no-risk low reward train ride.
1: Meaningful Conflict is one of the four pillars of Ashes of Creation game design.
PvP conflict was a core concept of EQNext.
Whatever you think of the label, that is the core of the game.
If you play games to get away from politics and conflict, then ashes of Creation is not the game for you. Don't play games that you don't like.
2: Just because I'm able to explain the concepts doesn't mean I agree wholeheartedly with Steven's philosophies.
I get it. I get just as pissed off when PvPers say that players are just content; no different from NPCs. It's offensive. I get it.
But, that's the way they feel. And just as you think they can't change your values and your philosophy with regard to PvP combat, you can't change theirs either.
Which is why it's unlikely that all the playstyles will be playing on the same servers.
The playerbase is going to be split regardless. If there are no separate servers, tons of PvE adventurers and tons of casual PvPers will avoid Ashes of Creation like the plague.
What is the "Basis of the PvP Engagements Scenario"????
Especially when a key aspect of building cities and infrastructure includes taxes.
Taxes which are expected to cause players to revolt and overthrow the government via civil war.
The Node system is driven by PvP conflict - especially Caravans and Sieges, but also the PvP political conflicts which will cause changes of regimes - likely resulting in buildings being destroyed and different ones built.
Narrative is interconnected with the node system. Without the PvP conflict inherent in city nodes locking off the narratives of lesser nodes and sieges and political conflict causing the destruction of cities and buildings, the narrative becomes static and stagnant.
It's theoretically possible to have a server with PvP combat disabled, but PvP conflict would still be the core that drives change in the world of Ashes of Creation. The players would have to figure out how to resolve PvP conflicts without resorting to player characters killing other player characters - how to have sieges and successful caravan attacks that don't involve players characters killing other player characters.
The game can be anything they want it to be and work any way they want it to work. Eating cookies could be a pillar if they wanted it to. Washing it down with milk could be another pillar. It's an empty palette on an electronic easel.
I don't care about PvP. I've seen it, experienced it and want nothing to do with it. But I understand no game should ever launch without it. What they're doing here is setting themselves up for the biggest gank & grief ever made. I'll try to be vocal about it while it's still in early development. But I'm starting to believe our feedback is falling on deaf ears.
For those who are dead set against PVP of any kind why would you even consider a game where the Devs plan is to make it dependent on PVP? It's their baby.
Suggestions to improve the system of balancing and trying to make things fair for both is a good and can be a productive thing. Lashing out and offering no productive suggestions gets no where.
My recommendation is to make individual players worthless targets. Murder penalty should be account-wide and so strong that murderer can't continue any kind of playing on any character for the next 32 hours. Instead make enough these guild-wide PvP conflict points so that there is plenty to gain from them.
Yes! Snowflakes are beautiful and unique and often have good points!
Its 4 max Nodes per server right (or was it 5?) anyway this will mean many nodes and the associated PvE content will not happen if they are never developed. Once those starting nodes are maxed out nothing seriously new in the world will happen.
Players impacting and changing the world is the corner stone of the whole game, PvP is the catalyst of change in the world without it you will not be playing Ashes at all by very definition.
If you want a stale, pvp safe non changing world then this is not the game for you.
BTW I am a more PvE focussed player than PvP just for the record.
The PvP conflict has to be there, but the player characters killing other player characters mechanic isn't imperative to destroy or change nodes.
And, technically, the players on a server like that could cooperatively agree to destroy cities and change the nodes.
Much like the denizens of Eminiar VII in Star Trek: TOS A Taste of Armageddon.
Dont remember Intrepid mentioning anything about a voting system for Node evolution.
Really not sure what you are proposing here but it would not be Ashes of Creation more like Ballot Box of Creation.
@Stabby @Digz
You two are persistent, if nothing else.
Stabby, you keep saying that "the game can be anything that they want it to be." Well, lol, I suppose that is true enough. They are making it how they want it to be. Doesn't look like much is going to change their minds about that, for now...
Dygz, you have this fixation around the separation between PVP conflict and PVP combat. I would bet my alpha access(if I had one) that Steven means combat along with everything else PVP related when he uses the word "conflict". I don't buy, and I don't think that many would buy a game in which conflicts of interest would all be settled by NPCs on one side of any part of the "disagreement". It isn't like red blooded players to trust their hard work to NPC guards. It isn't like different players to go along with having their Metropolises auto destroyed every 3 months so that lesser hard working groups can auto have their Metropolis for 3 months...
I hear hardcore PvPers talk about griefing that is other than forced PvP combat, but I can't relate.
The only thing I experience as griefing is being forced to engage in PvP combat when I'm not in the mood to engage in PvP combat. People have listed other things they consider to be griefing and none of it bothers me at all.
On the Revival forums, some one was enraged by the notion that a person in a tavern could dance naked on a table while verbally insulting them, but they could not attack or kill the them for the insult.
While, for me, that would just be rolled in to my RP experience. They aren't adding to my xp debt. They aren't looting my stuff. They aren't adding extra hours to my play session while I work off the xp debt, go on a corpse run and then have to try to regain whatever got looted.
People mentioned body-blocking a door to keep players locked in a room. I have never in 20 years of playing MMORPGs experienced that. But, if I did, seems like I would just port back to my home. And, again, that would not cost me extra xp debt or time from a corpse run and regaining stolen loot.
Do you have a few examples to share of griefing that doesn't involve player characters killing other player characters?
Don't play games with conflict in them if they ruin your fun. Conversely don't ask for a game built around conflict to have that removed thereby ruining the fun for everyone else who does enjoy making their own decisions about how to resolve conflict.
1. Blocking doorways with bodies to prevent access to NPC's etc (new players did not realise there was a stance that turned off colision detection
2. Being constantly followed by someone for whatever reason, sales, guild invites.
Recently there was a quite disgusting Race abuse issue on Elderscrolls online, resulted in lots of banning I hear. It involved some players wearing white cloaks and doing something (strict PvE area) you can find out the rest your self.
These are perhaps all things where many players might say I dont care about the corruption these players need to die!
When you are overloaded(so moving slowly) the collision mechanics are crap, some joker can keep his toon in front of you so you can't move.
Chat trolls.
Exclusion from groups because you don't have the BiS gear that they want you to have, but to get the gear, you need to be in a group...
Killing by extension: Either training mobs onto players fighting their own mob group or weakening the player by blocking his attacks, interrupting his healing, etc...
Future Griefing: Being told that you have to surrender your Metropolis because it is time for Clan Layabout to have their turn at a Metropolis.
You two don't even have the same definition of "pve player" or the same goals for what that's supposed to mean in the game so how do you expect to be represented homogeneously to a development studio?
The game isn't designed to have a conflict free path to progression. How would you remove PVP and expect that not to be exploited? All either of you have done is complain that it will ruin the game but neither of you have addressed how the game could actually even work without it.
Some player harvesting materials in a node isn't an isolated activity. It may be negatively affecting that node by affecting its development and the resources available to the citizens of that node?
I find it odd that in 20 years of online gaming you don't have a long list of the ways people grief others (preventing or inhibiting progression, kill stealing, node stealing, training, boss resets, add pulls, etc) on pve only servers.
Just because you're fine with other players deciding where you can't enter (the tavern) doesn't mean that's any more acceptable than any other type of griefing.
But we're not talking just about griefing here. There are many legitimate scenarios in the game where you can cause grief to other players without personal battle and personal battles doesn't equate to griefing.
Why do you think your activity in or around a node won't adversely affect that node? You're essentially griefing and combating the inhabitants of that node with your activity. And you want complete immunity from counter-interference? That is an unreasonable request.
So far we haven't seen a completely "pve only" activity in the game because everything is interrelated. In games like LotRO and GW2 where all of your pve activity is meaningless to those around you (what you do doesn't significantly affect others) then carrying your activities with combat immunity (you can't pvp) doesn't matter. In a game like this where all pve activity has an affect on others and your actions affect others then you can't have the sort of combat immunity (safe pve) that you can have in the former games.
I'm a casual challenge, cooperative player.
Only way for a player to prevent my progression is to kill my character.
1: There are plenty of mobs to kill - I can always find different mobs to kill.
2: Same for nodes, I guess... I can barely even understand why people would have the concept of "node stealing".
3: The trains I've encountered have most often been accidents rather than intentional - and I can typically outrun a train...especially in more modern games where training isn't even possible.
4: I don't understand the concept of boss reset by a player. How does that work?
5: Oh. The example I've seen is being locked in a tavern, not be blocked from entering a tavern, but...I would probably happily just go find another tavern. I'm an Explorer, so that's not an issue.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Griefing may not be the issue for you. It is the issue for me. I think it is the issue for Stabby and the other people saying they will probably opt out because due Ashes PvP combat design.
I bring up the topic of griefing to point out that what is griefing to some isn't griefing to others. And what isn't griefing to some is griefing to others.
It's fairly common for hardcore PvPers to consider their griefing to be fairly play.
It is common for hardcore PvPers to present PvP combat as if only PKers grief, so it's the PKers who are the problem...when often the problem is the hardcore PvPers.
Because hardcore PvPers don't share the same world view with regard to consent as PvE adventurers and casual PvPers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The goal of Ashes of Creation is to change the perceptions of PvP conflict and PvP combat from griefing and "meaningless" ganking for pride and loot to Meaningful Conflict.
From my scenario:
The Nikua who are harvesting wood from the Sacred Grove are not "griefing" others. They are simply trying to live according to their culture, obtaining the resources they need for the ceremonial rite of passage that will make them Journeyman Crafters. That will allow them to provide people with better gear.
There is no grief involved there.
Except! From the Empyrean perspective harvesting trees from the Sacred Grove will place the nearby citizens in danger of attack from the Displaced Dyrads. Even if griefing is not the intent of the Nikua, the result is still the same for the nearby villagers.
The devs expect the PLAYERS to experience that as Meaningful Conflict rather than as griefing and have fun resolving that conflict however they resolve it - even if it results in PvP combat.
But as we can see from Stabby's reaction - PvE adventurers (the PLAYERS) will consider the Empyreans to be the griefers.
I haven't asked for "immunity", so I don't know why you're saddling that on me.
I stated that immunity is an unreasonable request.
But, there should be a variety of ways other than PvP combat to resolve Meaningful Conflict both character to character and PLAYER to PLAYER.
And really, I'm probably looking for PLAYER to PLAYER solutions more than I am character to character solutions or even mechanics solutions.
Maybe this is a character v character solution, too...but it first came to me as a PLAYER to PLAYER offer.
If I'm Nikua and just not in the mood for PvP combat at that moment - I would rather offer to let us harvest and then we'll go kill the Displaced Dryads.
But, that's because I'm not a competitive person, I'm a coop person.
We agree, at least, on the PvE content...I think the closest we get to a PVE pillar might be Economy, but even that is closely interrelated with the other three.
PvP conflict is a fundamental pillar of Ashes of Creation.
I mean at its "Core".
As in, being aware of how Non-Combatant, Corrupted and Combatant would engage.
because that seems to be the biggest misunderstanding so far.
As opposed to using the Official Terms, I'll instead use their Color Representations:
Non-Combatant = Green
Combatant = Purple
Corrupted = Red
(****while reading this below, just replace the Terms with the Color Representations ... or vice-versa****)
Green Vs Green:
`The "initiator" & the "Attackee" Turns Purple.
`Whomever loses, has Reduced Death Penalties - meaning items is looted but not gear
Green Vs Purple:
`Same above - solely because the initiator is Green ( the 1st one )
(Quote: " ... If a Non-Combatant attacks a Combatant or another non-combatant, then they become a Combatant for a period of time ... Players can kill Combatants without repercussions, and are encouraged to do so, since dying while a Combatant means you suffer reduced death penalties ... " )
Purple Vs. Green:
`The initiator turns Red ( because this time the initiator is Purple )
`Corruption Score/Level is based on a few "Unknown" Terms other than Level Differential
`Green (Non-Combatant) does not change color
Red Vs. Green
`If the initiator (Red) wins, then Corruption increases
`Green (Non-Combatant) does not change color
`Green is not Looted
Green Vs. Red
`The Initiator (green) will NOT turn Purple nor Red
`If Green wins, Red gets looted - including gear
( Quote: " ... While a player is marked as Corrupt, they may be attacked by both Combatants and Non-Combatants. If a non-combatant attacks a corrupt player, the non-combatant will not flag as a combatant ... "
Every other " Vs. Scenario " is speculated. Since that information hasn't been officially stated. But can be inferred ( If anyone has Proof, please assist )
Red Vs. Purple:
`If the Initiator (Red) wins, then Purple gets Looted - but not Gear.
(Quote:" ... dying while a Combatant means you suffer reduced death penalties ..." )
`If the Attackee (Purple) wins, then Red gets Looted - including (some) Gear
Purple vs Purple:
`Whoever loses gets Loot - but not gear
`No risk of Corruption due both being Purple
**Queues Epic Music**
Red vs Red:
` ... Whomever loses will get Looted - including (some) Gear
unsure if Corruption Score increase or not ... think it won't
Despite all of this, the Biggest thing to remember is ... this is just a Linear-View - it'll hardly be a 1-on-1 ; Anyone, can intervene:
Red vs Red:
Lets assume the Attackee wins ... then another Red emerges and finishes the Attackee off - the ... "Ambusher" wins. However ... with 3 Reds being in one Area ... thats bound to attract a LOT of other Players preferable those with a Bounty Quest ...
(Quote: " ... the location of these corrupt players will be displayed on the map, if you have the Bounty Hunter title, which can be obtained through a quest available to a citizen from a Military zoned, Stage 4 (Town) Node ... " )
And since they do Plan to implement a ... "Cat-&-Mouse" Scenario ...
(Quote: " ... We also have some other ideas that we haven’t formalized yet that will allow players to participate in what we feel could be a fun cat-and-mouse part of the game ... " )
Meaning Action-Combat will exist both In-combat & Out-of-Combat.
Lastly, One of the Bounty Hunters ( being Purple or Green ) can turn on each other (or accidental misfire ) whenever they want - resulting in Purple or Red.
Remember, No Factions in this - Node Citizenship is the closest thing to that, but you can still have Personal Alliances / Friendship that is solely determined by the Player.
In short ... this is technically a Free-4-All ... and Misfire is (techically) always on and can never be turned off.
One of my biggest pet peeves was when I would be farming mats or find a treasure chest and would engage the protector mobs so I could open it in peace. Well just about as soon as I would engage, another player would run up and take the chest or mats while clearly aware of what my goal was.
Lots more examples where those came from. My point is, though, while Pk'ers can be an issue, some of the very same players you claim to be defending are just as happy to rob you of time and effort as the PvP crowd if it would profit them. Not every PvP'er is going to be ganking, and not every PvE'er is going to be your friend. That's a human issue, not a game design issue. Ashes will have PvP aspects, and the devs are trying their best to have it in a way that it can cover all the bases of what players want in a balanced form.
Suggestion from me: relax and enjoy the excitement of this new prospective game-changer as a single community. When the first alphas and betas come through and we see how everything works...well I doubt this thread will change it, but perhaps the devs will be in a more willing state to listen to specific requests when they get feedback.