As an artist, business owner and die hard MMO player (pretty much every MMO ever made) I would offer an alternative. I was taught to never complain unless I offer a solution. So here it goes...
PVP SERVERS - Everything and everyone is killable outside of safe areas. Exclusive currency for PVP gear, mounts, ships, guild functionality.
PVP / PVE SERVERS (what you have now) Diminished PVP currency. Diminished PVE currency. Diminished PK penalty system.
PVE SYSTEM - No PK allowed. Duels are allowed and arena combat is allowed. Increased drop rate on harvestables, crafting XP and PVE specific guild functionality. PVE currency exclusive to this server type.
On the PVE server focus node wars based on monster coin combat only. Guilds will most certainly contribute to this. Do something a little different with monster coins and you have your solution. There's got to be a creative way to allow node wars and caravans to happen with these monster coin illusions. Incentivize their participation by tieing in the monster coins to end game content and raids. I have a feeling that the above server types I listed would be heavily right down the middle. But this setup will entice PVE only players to leave their home game and flock to AoC. It's a win for everyone.
Sorry but you are delusional in everything you said. Just because you are a PVE Player which SO AM I does not make you the best solution for every MMORPG out there. You have several dozen MMORPG that are PVE focused and look they have major issues with player retention. You over value yourself and its because you hate PVP in all forms just read your own post. If you do not like PVP then this game is not for you.
I do agree that PKing can be a PROBLEM but there are ways to combat PKing and that is not overvaluing people like you who will be bored to death with this game inside of 2 months. I have thrown out some ideas out there. Maybe you should get your head out of your ass and understand this is a PVP focused game. Once you understand that make intelligent comments about how to reduce the worst end of PVP without cutting out the soul of the game.
[quote quote=17083]As an artist, business owner and die hard MMO player (pretty much every MMO ever made) I would offer an alternative. I was taught to never complain unless I offer a solution. So here it goes…
PVP SERVERS – Everything and everyone is killable outside of safe areas. Exclusive currency for PVP gear, mounts, ships, guild functionality.
PVP / PVE SERVERS (what you have now) Diminished PVP currency. Diminished PVE currency. Diminished PK penalty system.
PVE SYSTEM – No PK allowed. Duels are allowed and arena combat is allowed. Increased drop rate on harvestables, crafting XP and PVE specific guild functionality.
On the PVE server focus node wars based on monster coin combat only. Guilds will most certainly contribute to this. Do something a little different with monster coins and you have your solution. There’s got to be a creative way to allow node wars and caravans to happen with these monster coin illusions. Incentivize their participation by tieing in the monster coins to end game content and raids.
[/quote]
Again you cannot have a PVE server in a PVP focused GAME. Get your head out of your ass again.
[quote quote=17090]They could have pvp-light with restrictions on openworld pvp. Dungeons and specific pve areas could be pvp-disabled.
[/quote]
I brought up have areas not designed for PVP like near the roads of the node, and towns and the node itself. But the Wild area of the node is Free For All PVP. With the corruption system and if they force people who attack greens to go red right away. You will reduce the bad parts of PVP and be a little more PVE friendly but it will not completely make it a PVE game. Now that still keeps in Caravan and Siege PVP as designed. If your node is under Siege and you are in that node you are a purple by design unless in a group. This would be a good middle ground and also for people who want to go into the Wild will go in groups to reduce the PKers because most PKers will be in smaller groups if not solo. So if you go out into the Wild with 2+ people you have a better chance of not getting jumped.
1. PVP and PVE are intertwined in what this game is trying to achieve. They both feed off each other.
2. Simply not true. Alot of us want BOTH.
3. PVE players should find and play games that are built just for PVE content. This is not that type of game.
4. Happens to PVP and PVE players alike. Adds to the risk versus reward. Can't have the best farming/gathering spot without the need to fight for it and either win it or lose it. PVE players will still cry that someone keeps tagging "their" mobs or mining "their" ore even with no pvp like they want. lol
5. You want separation. Again they are over a year in development and they can't and won't make an entirely new game just for you because that is what they would have to do.
6. and 7. Find games that are strictly PVE then. Don't be so entitled. If you don't like waht a game is designed to be then don't play it. Crying about any of these games changed nothing so why keep crying? Just move on already.
8. There are a lot of toxic gamers on both sides. I personally rather be ganked than have my progression stopped by a group of people camping a spawn and tagging or kill stealing mobs all day.
9. This is what makes this game exciting! A player that wants to chop trees all day DOES affect the content of the game and can affect boss drops or the type of world boss that spawns. If other people don't want that type of node or world boss they can kill you to stop it. You then have the option to find people that want the same as you to group up and either fight for you or fight together.
10. You keep whining about the same thing but differently worded. THIS. GAME. IS. NOT. FOR. YOU.
Seems to me that a PvE server could have similar restrictions to an RP server. Devs don't have to turn anything off.
Again, this concept of "travel in groups to reduce the chances of getting jumped" is not a "middle ground". That crap does nothing to appease people who dislike PvP combat. Anything that includes an option for PvP combat is not a solution. I don't know why people have a problem comprehending that. "OK. You don't want to be in a war with Mexico. Just get Russia to go to war with Mexico." "You believe bombing Mexico is despicable. That's OK. Just get China to bomb Mexico. See, that's better."
No game can please all of the players. Don't play games you don't like. I won't be playing Crowfall just like I don't play EVE and didn't play Shadowbane. They are all too PvP-centric for my tastes. AoC is going to have fast travel. If you don't like playing games with fast travel; don't play AoC. If you don't like playing games that have penalties for PvP combat; don't play AoC. Play the games you like to play.
There will always be differing opinions from both sides of the fence. People will always march to the forums to passionately voice their concerns in hope to encourage a product better suited to their own play style. This is ok, we are all people and want what we want. I support the optional PvP content like sieges and caravans. Its the open world PvP i dont care for.
For the devs, it should be obvious. This game needs to make money to flourish. The more players it has paying a subscription the more money it makes to further development of future content.
Lets take a sample size of 10 PvE players. 5 of them will only PvE, 3 may take part in sieges and caravans, 2 may even take part in open world PvP on their own terms. NONE of them will play a non consensual PvP game.
-Option 1: Open world PvP is forced These players will not play the game so not be available for PK's
-Option 2: PvP has a 100% toggle option for open world These players will toggle off and not be available for PK's These players will continue to play and bolster the games population count These players continue to pay a subscription and help to finance the game
In both situations the players will not be available to PK, so it should make no difference to PvP players.
In only 1 situation the players will be contributing to the game. Now multiply that sample of 10 players many, many times to fully represent the amount of players that will not play a forced PvP game.
From a developers point of view it should be a no brainer which option is best for the health of the game.
[quote quote=17109]There will always be differing opinions from both sides of the fence. People will always march to the forums to passionately voice their concerns in hope to encourage a product better suited to their own play style. This is ok, we are all people and want what we want. I support the optional PvP content like sieges and caravans. Its the open world PvP i dont care for.
For the devs, it should be obvious. This game needs to make money to flourish. The more players it has paying a subscription the more money it makes to further development of future content.
Lets take a sample size of 10 PvE players. 5 of them will only PvE, 3 may take part in sieges and caravans, 2 may even take part in open world PvP on their own terms. NONE of them will play a non consensual PvP game.
-Option 1: Open world PvP is forced These players will not play the game so not be available for PK’s
-Option 2: PvP has a 100% toggle option for open world These players will toggle off and not be available for PK’s These players will continue to play and bolster the games population count These players continue to pay a subscription and help to finance the game
In both situations the players will not be available to PK, so it should make no difference to PvP players.
In only 1 situation the players will be contributing to the game. Now multiply that sample of 10 players many, many times to fully represent the amount of players that will not play a forced PvP game.
From a developers point of view it should be a no brainer which option is best for the health of the game.
[/quote]
Thing is the developers are not developing the game for PVEers of MMORPGS that want nothing to do with PVP. They are making a game they want to play and others who are tired as fuck of the entitlement that players have today that the game must be designed for them. Well this is exactly why MMORPGS are in the garbage state they are in. Its time that changed.
Pantheon is a strictly PVE game so I have no interest in it. Not going to go cry in their forum for them to make the game cater to me. I want a game that has BOTH. I love open world pvp and I love doing pve content as well which this game will have. Trying to threaten a game developer with you wallet is laughable. They have a vision and are sticking to it and that's why I backed this game.
[quote quote=17118]Pantheon is a strictly PVE game so I have no interest in it. Not going to go cry in their forum for them to make the game cater to me. I want a game that has BOTH. I love open world pvp and I love doing pve content as well which this game will have. Trying to threaten a game developer with you wallet is laughable. They have a vision and are sticking to it and that’s why I backed this game.
[/quote]
Yep Agreed. I am with Trip here.
I do agree with people not wanting to be ganked over and over which does happen in PVP games BUT if done right that shit will not happen because it is too punishing to do that.
That Option 2 would have to be restricted to a PvE server with PvP combat turned off. The devs seem to be saying that the design of the game relies on PvP combat to catalyze tasks, events and narratives. But, it doesn't seem possible that it's literally players killing other players that's driving that change.
I agree. If players are willing to play on a server that has PvP combat turned off...test that on one server and see how long that server remains popular. If it ends up being a deserted server because the players there were too bored and left... overwrite it with a normal server. For EQNext, I was hoping the devs would have one server that was a kind of Hell server - where they just let all the catastrophic events succeed for a a few months and then allow players in to deal with those consequences. If AoC is going to have servers with different rulesets seems easy enough to have one that is designated for PvE only. Especially if they're going to have an RP server.
[quote quote=17123]I do agree with people not wanting to be ganked over and over which does happen in PVP games BUT if done right that shit will not happen because it is too punishing to do that. [/quote] If I wanted to gank people, I would just create alts to do so and not care about how much corruption the alts accrue. In fact, that would be one of my primary objectives: To see how long those characters can last with max corruption. My main character in EQ2 leveled to 60 wearing only starting rags because her backstory was that she is a ratonga slave whose Kerran master only allowed her to wear starting rags. Made leveling overly challenging sometimes, but the RP was more important than the ease of gameplay. People's reactions to encountering a Level 20 or Level 40 or Level 60 character adventuring in those zones wearing only starting rags was worth the effort. So, I don't buy the claim that corruption will be an adequate deterrent.
[quote quote=17131]<blockquote> <div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/please-dont-force-us-to-be-victims-of-pvpers/page/5/#post-17123" rel="nofollow">Helzbelz wrote:</a></div> I do agree with people not wanting to be ganked over and over which does happen in PVP games BUT if done right that shit will not happen because it is too punishing to do that.
</blockquote> If I wanted to gank people, I would just create alts to do so and not care about how much corruption the alts accrue. In fact, that would be one of my primary objectives: To see how long those characters can last with max corruption. My main character in EQ2 leveled to 60 wearing only starting rags because her backstory was that she is a ratonga slave whose Kerran master only allowed her to wear starting rags. Made leveling overly challenging sometimes, but the RP was more important than the ease of gameplay. People’s reactions to encountering a Level 20 or Level 40 or Level 60 character adventuring in those zones wearing only starting rags was worth the effort. So, I don’t buy the claim that corruption will be an adequate deterrent.
[/quote]
From what I heard your stats will also be nerfed so your corrupted alt will in effect become a walking marshmallow. Since it's a sub based game and you won't have unlimited character slots you would have to pay for more accounts just to make your marshmallow army lol.
[quote quote=17118]Pantheon is a strictly PVE game so I have no interest in it. Not going to go cry in their forum for them to make the game cater to me. I want a game that has BOTH. I love open world pvp and I love doing pve content as well which this game will have. Trying to threaten a game developer with you wallet is laughable. They have a vision and are sticking to it and that’s why I backed this game.
[/quote]
What i said isnt stopping you from having both. The sieges and caravans and open world pvp will still all be there. You just do it with the other like minded people doing the same thing. Nothing i have said even suggested removing PvP from the game.
Tell me why it bothers you if i can play the game without being subjected to your random PK? Why are you not satisfied to play PvP with the other PvP'ers?
I myself am still open minded about the system as it is, but it doesnt matter what i think, or what you think. Look at the bigger picture. They can appeal to few or appeal to many. I really like the look of the game but fear for its long term health. Without the PvE player base the numbers may be too low to sustain a subscription payment model long term. The game will end up f2p and the cash shop will have to become more aggresive as their only income source.
[quote quote=17138]<blockquote> <div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/please-dont-force-us-to-be-victims-of-pvpers/page/5/#post-17131" rel="nofollow">Dygz wrote:</a></div> <blockquote> <div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/please-dont-force-us-to-be-victims-of-pvpers/page/5/#post-17123" rel="nofollow">Helzbelz wrote:</a></div> I do agree with people not wanting to be ganked over and over which does happen in PVP games BUT if done right that shit will not happen because it is too punishing to do that.
</blockquote> If I wanted to gank people, I would just create alts to do so and not care about how much corruption the alts accrue. In fact, that would be one of my primary objectives: To see how long those characters can last with max corruption. My main character in EQ2 leveled to 60 wearing only starting rags because her backstory was that she is a ratonga slave whose Kerran master only allowed her to wear starting rags. Made leveling overly challenging sometimes, but the RP was more important than the ease of gameplay. People’s reactions to encountering a Level 20 or Level 40 or Level 60 character adventuring in those zones wearing only starting rags was worth the effort. So, I don’t buy the claim that corruption will be an adequate deterrent.
</blockquote> From what I heard your stats will also be nerfed so your corrupted alt will in effect become a walking marshmallow. Since it’s a sub based game and you won’t have unlimited character slots you would have to pay for more accounts just to make your marshmallow army lol.
[/quote]
Thank you Trip! I really appreciate your description! I am significantly more relieved and more encouraged by this! For some reason the way the penalties were described, it seemed incremental. This sounds harsh enough to be a successful deterrent. Not 100%, but crippling enough to make players weigh the option because of the consequences...
[quote quote=17138] From what I heard your stats will also be nerfed so your corrupted alt will in effect become a walking marshmallow. Since it’s a sub based game and you won’t have unlimited character slots you would have to pay for more accounts just to make your marshmallow army lol. [/quote] Yep. If I wanted to gank people none of that would matter to me. My objective would be to gain as much corruption as possible and see how long the character can do so before a brand new newbie could one shot it. Typically alts can be deleted, but even if deleting alts were not an option - I'd just work off the corruption to whatever degree I'm ready to start ganking again. I'd essentially be playing a zombie. Which would be cool with me, if I was really into pissing off other players and ruining their fun.
[quote quote=17142]<blockquote> <div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/please-dont-force-us-to-be-victims-of-pvpers/page/5/#post-17118" rel="nofollow">Trip wrote:</a></div> Pantheon is a strictly PVE game so I have no interest in it. Not going to go cry in their forum for them to make the game cater to me. I want a game that has BOTH. I love open world pvp and I love doing pve content as well which this game will have. Trying to threaten a game developer with you wallet is laughable. They have a vision and are sticking to it and that’s why I backed this game.
</blockquote> What i said isnt stopping you from having both. The sieges and caravans and open world pvp will still all be there. You just do it with the other like minded people doing the same thing. Nothing i have said even suggested removing PvP from the game.
Tell me why it bothers you if i can play the game without being subjected to your random PK? Why are you not satisfied to play PvP with the other PvP’ers?
I myself am still open minded about the system as it is, but it doesnt matter what i think, or what you think. Look at the bigger picture. They can appeal to few or appeal to many. I really like the look of the game but fear for its long term health. Without the PvE player base the numbers may be too low to sustain a subscription payment model long term. The game will end up f2p and the cash shop will have to become more aggresive as their only income source.
[/quote]
Because I think the game needs BOTH type of players working together.
An example would be a pve player wants to farm something in a specific area but there is an apposing guild pve group already there taking everything. If it is a strictly pve rule set and you can't tag mobs, mine or chop any trees then that player's progression is stopped just like getting ganked would stop it. BUT, with it being a pvp rule set the player can have the people who like to have meaningful pvp remove the pve players that are stopping him from progressing.
The people I play with are very pvp orientated but we understand the importance of having people that want to just craft because a strong guild will need them to become stronger and we will protect them. This adds content for both pve and pvp players.
[quote quote=17146]<blockquote> <div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/please-dont-force-us-to-be-victims-of-pvpers/page/5/#post-17138" rel="nofollow">Trip wrote:</a></div> From what I heard your stats will also be nerfed so your corrupted alt will in effect become a walking marshmallow. Since it’s a sub based game and you won’t have unlimited character slots you would have to pay for more accounts just to make your marshmallow army lol. </blockquote> Yep. If I wanted to gank people none of that would matter to me. My objective would be to gain as much corruption as possible and see how long the character can do so before a brand new newbie could one shot it. Typically alts can be deleted, but even if deleting alts were not an option – I’d just work off the corruption to whatever degree I’m ready to start ganking again. I’d essentially be playing a zombie. Which would be cool with me, if I was really into pissing off other players and ruining their fun.
[/quote]
LMAO player's like that don't usually last long in open world pvp. You make a name for yourself and that character will have a target on its back pretty quik and no matter how good you think you are you won't be able to progress to a point where you will be competetive. Even entire troll guilds get destroyed sooner rather than later, but I will never tell you how to play or how to have fun because even trolls add content to these types of games.
[quote quote=17142] What i said isnt stopping you from having both. The sieges and caravans and open world pvp will still all be there. You just do it with the other like minded people doing the same thing. Nothing i have said even suggested removing PvP from the game.
Tell me why it bothers you if i can play the game without being subjected to your random PK? Why are you not satisfied to play PvP with the other PvP’ers?
I myself am still open minded about the system as it is, but it doesnt matter what i think, or what you think. Look at the bigger picture. They can appeal to few or appeal to many. I really like the look of the game but fear for its long term health. Without the PvE player base the numbers may be too low to sustain a subscription payment model long term. The game will end up f2p and the cash shop will have to become more aggresive as their only income source.
[/quote]
Problem with consensual flagging systems comes down to human nature and the path of least resistance. Yes, i may love pvp but if i'm off doing my gathering or pve thing, i'm not going to flag so someone can jump me. I'm wasting my time if i do that. It's like removing any meaningful loot from raid bosses and telling pve'ers to do them because they like raids. Bottom line of what i'm trying to say is people don't just do activities because they like the activity, they need to have a reason to do it.
[quote quote=17156] LMAO player’s like that don’t usually last long in open world pvp. You make a name for yourself and that character will have a target on its back pretty quik and no matter how good you think you are you won’t be able to progress to a point where you will be competetive. Even entire troll guilds get destroyed sooner rather than later, but I will never tell you how to play or how to have fun because even trolls add content to these types of games. [/quote] Yes. I expect zombie's to have targets on their back. The character doesn't necessarily need to progress very far since characters don't lose levels. Progress the character to level 5 or 10. And then use to gank newbies. I am a non-competitive person in any case. The goal of my zombie would not be to be competitive. The goal of my zombie would to gain as much corruption as possible by ganking newbies and see how decrepit it becomes before a newbie one-shots it. Always strange to me when people think that alts have to be competitive and master skills or gain levels.
Even trolls add content to these types of games... which is why the corruption mechanic ain't gonna do much to deter PKers.
[quote quote=17151]<blockquote> <div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/please-dont-force-us-to-be-victims-of-pvpers/page/5/#post-17142" rel="nofollow">OneShot wrote:</a></div> <blockquote> <div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/please-dont-force-us-to-be-victims-of-pvpers/page/5/#post-17118" rel="nofollow">Trip wrote:</a></div> Pantheon is a strictly PVE game so I have no interest in it. Not going to go cry in their forum for them to make the game cater to me. I want a game that has BOTH. I love open world pvp and I love doing pve content as well which this game will have. Trying to threaten a game developer with you wallet is laughable. They have a vision and are sticking to it and that’s why I backed this game.
</blockquote> What i said isnt stopping you from having both. The sieges and caravans and open world pvp will still all be there. You just do it with the other like minded people doing the same thing. Nothing i have said even suggested removing PvP from the game.
Tell me why it bothers you if i can play the game without being subjected to your random PK? Why are you not satisfied to play PvP with the other PvP’ers?
I myself am still open minded about the system as it is, but it doesnt matter what i think, or what you think. Look at the bigger picture. They can appeal to few or appeal to many. I really like the look of the game but fear for its long term health. Without the PvE player base the numbers may be too low to sustain a subscription payment model long term. The game will end up f2p and the cash shop will have to become more aggresive as their only income source.
</blockquote> Because I think the game needs BOTH type of players working together.
An example would be a pve player wants to farm something in a specific area but there is an apposing guild pve group already there taking everything. If it is a strictly pve rule set and you can’t tag mobs, mine or chop any trees then that player’s progression is stopped just like getting ganked would stop it. BUT, with it being a pvp rule set the player can have the people who like to have meaningful pvp remove the pve players that are stopping him from progressing.
The people I play with are very pvp orientated but we understand the importance of having people that want to just craft because a strong guild will need them to become stronger and we will protect them. This adds content for both pve and pvp players.
[/quote]
I get what you're saying. Your example of PvE and PvP players working together sounds like a cool little co-op situations from the view point of yourself as the aggressor. But think also about that bunch of PvE players you just wiped out. Maybe they were having fun together too. Maybe they hate this kind of shit and its the 5th time today. How long before they unsub and scrap the game. Maybe this also happens in reverse too often to your PvE crafter in the example, and he stops playing too.
I understand your point and can see both sides of the coin. I honestly can. I just think my side is the one that better maintains the games population and health.
But.... maybe the corruption system will work, there will be very limitted arsehattery and the game can be enjoyed by both PvE and PvP players.
[quote quote=17157]Problem with consensual flagging systems comes down to human nature and the path of least resistance. Yes, i may love pvp but if i’m off doing my gathering or pve thing, i’m not going to flag so someone can jump me. I’m wasting my time if i do that. It’s like removing any meaningful loot from raid bosses and telling pve’ers to do them because they like raids. Bottom line of what i’m trying to say is people don’t just do activities because they like the activity, they need to have a reason to do it.[/quote] I agree that it wouldn't work to have consensual PvP flags on the normal servers. Consensual PvP flags is the worst solution for this game. PvPers would rage quit if players immune to PvP were running around in PvP spaces. There would have to be a PvE server either with rules similar to those enforced on RP servers or with with PvP combat turned off.
I think the reason why the devs don't want to have a PvE server is that they're designing the game with the intention that players who don't like PvP combat will enjoy play non-combatant support for players who love PvP combat. They want the Artisans to provide goods for the economy. Non-combatant crafters will forge weapons and armor for the PvP adventurers. And non-combatant husbandry characters will provide faster mounts for the PvP adventurers. In turn, the PvP adventurers will provide protection for and retaliation against enemy PvPers who attack their non-combatant friends.
But... I don't really want PvP adventurers protecting me. I'd probably prefer to play on a server where the players are co-op v the environment. Why put up with getting PKed at all when I can just play on the PvE server. The corruption feature is meaningless to me. The bounty hunter feature is meaningless to me. The adventurers protection is meaningless to me. So, I'm just not going to play on the normal servers.
Well... If too many PvE players decide to do the same thing, there won't be enough PvE players on the normal servers focusing on the gathering and crafting and processing that's intended to support the PvPers.
I think that's why the devs don't want to have a PvE server. It forces PvEers to play where they can act as support the PvPers. With the intention that the PvPers will in turn protect the PvEers.
[quote quote=17164]<blockquote> <div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/please-dont-force-us-to-be-victims-of-pvpers/page/6/#post-17156" rel="nofollow">Trip wrote:</a></div> LMAO player’s like that don’t usually last long in open world pvp. You make a name for yourself and that character will have a target on its back pretty quik and no matter how good you think you are you won’t be able to progress to a point where you will be competetive. Even entire troll guilds get destroyed sooner rather than later, but I will never tell you how to play or how to have fun because even trolls add content to these types of games. </blockquote> Yes. I expect zombie’s to have targets on their back. The character doesn’t necessarily need to progress very far since characters don’t lose levels. Progress the character to level 5 or 10. And then use to gank newbies. I am a non-competitive person in any case. The goal of my zombie would not be to be competitive. The goal of my zombie would to gain as much corruption as possible by ganking newbies and see how decrepit it becomes before a newbie one-shots it. Always strange to me when people think that alts have to be competitive and master skills or gain levels.
Even trolls add content to these types of games… which is why the corruption mechanic ain’t gonna do much to deter PKers.
[/quote]
As far as people finding ways to push what they can do to the limit, for whatever reason, is why it's been stated repeatedly that ways to discourage griefing will be tested, re-tested, and, if they gave should come out, closely monitored in case changes need to be made. Steven, as an avid gamer himself, knows how there are players who will try to find any loop hole, bug, or what have to, to exploit. Hell, as a player, he may have exploited a few times himself.
Whether someone chooses to have faith in the devs to actually get it right, is up to the individual to decide for themselves.
[quote quote=17180]I think the reason why the devs don’t want to have a PvE server is that they’re designing the game with the intention that players who don’t like PvP combat will enjoy play non-combatant support for players who love PvP combat. They want the Artisans to provide goods for the economy. Non-combatant crafters will forge weapons and armor for the PvP adventurers. And non-combatant husbandry characters will provide faster mounts for the PvP adventurers. In turn, the PvP adventurers will provide protection for and retaliation against enemy PvPers who attack their non-combatant friends.
But… I don’t really want PvP adventurers protecting me. I’d probably prefer to play on a server where the players are co-op v the environment. Why put up with getting PKed at all when I can just play on the PvE server. The corruption feature is meaningless to me. The bounty hunter feature is meaningless to me. The adventurers protection is meaningless to me. So, I’m just not going to play on the normal servers.
Well… If too many PvE players decide to do the same thing, there won’t be enough PvE players on the normal servers focusing on the gathering and crafting and processing that’s intended to support the PvPers.
I think that’s why the devs don’t want to have a PvE server. It forces PvEers to play where they can act as support the PvPers. With the intention that the PvPers will in turn protect the PvEers.
[/quote]
From reading (and responding, lol), to alot of your posts, I can understand your dilemma. You're perfectly stated your preferred desire would be to forgo what you feel would be PvP aspects of the game, intruding into the PvE aspects. It's my understanding that your preference would be a clear delineation between to two, to be had had only at ones personal choice. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.
In your post that I quoted, you expertly identified why, as the game stands now, how making any sort of strident separation of the two types of play, the game as a whole will suffer. As I understand it, both PvE and PvP, as you stated, are meant to work in a synergy that makes the world, and players, progress forwards. Without that synergy, a complex AI system (another posters idea) would have to make up the difference, if the game's core design were to stay the same. Otherwise, an intrinsic concept of the game model would have to be re-worked from scratch, to accommodate the shift away from player Pv synergy.
I have followed EQNext, Revival and NMS. In fact, in my head I think of Steven as "Sharif Murray". I don't have faith. I'm no longer falling for hype and the enthusiasm of the devs. The devs will have to show; not tell - to convince me. The PvP design is not a deal-breaker for me, so I don't need faith. The devs simply haven't convinced me that corruption or bounty hunting will be the deterrents they suggest because those measure wouldn't deter me.
Regardless of whether the game actually gets made, I'm willing to spend some bucks supporting the development of this game design.
But, this isn't really about pushing limits or exploiting. I'm just saying that corruption and bounty hunting wouldn't be deterrents for me if I wanted to gank people. And I don't think I'm anywhere close to being unique on that front.
[quote quote=17192] From reading (and responding, lol), to alot of your posts, I can understand your dilemma. You’re perfectly stated your preferred desire would be to forgo what you feel would be PvP aspects of the game, intruding into the PvE aspects. It’s my understanding that your preference would be a clear delineation between to two, to be had had only at ones personal choice. Please, correct me if I’m wrong.[/quote] Oh! No! That wasn't written to outline any dilemma of mine. I don't have much of a problem with the AoC game design. The PvP combat isn't a deal-breaker for me - although, I would probably have a character on a PvE server if it were available to see which server I enjoyed most.
I was just using first person as I illustrated why the devs probably don;t want to have a PvE server.
[quote]In your post that I quoted, you expertly identified why, as the game stands now, how making any sort of strident separation of the two types of play, the game as a whole will suffer. As I understand it, both PvE and PvP, as you stated, are meant to work in a synergy that makes the world, and players, progress forwards. Without that synergy, a complex AI system (another posters idea) would have to make up the difference, if the game’s core design were to stay the same. Otherwise, an intrinsic concept of the game model would have to be re-worked from scratch, to accommodate the shift away from player Pv synergy. [/quote] Yeah, I had to do a whole mess a brainstorming to work that out. lmao
[quote quote=16624]I’m all for PvPers having an amazing game experience and enjoying what they love [/quote]
Well brutally murdering those who can't fight back is one of those things some PvPers enjoy. In games like this you can never fully be safe, give up on that filosofy already. What can be done is to control PKing as much as possible, have it being a high risk. That way it will be rare and mostly done by maniacs. You also need to learn how to avoid pkers, it isn't exactly hard. I've played bdo since launch, never even once got pked at sausans or pirates. Situations that would have led to pking did occur, but I left before it came to that or solved it in a diplomatic way. So instead of crying about open world pvp, learn how you can avoid it instead of forcing others to not be allowed to do it.
Also. 99% of the pvp you might accidently experience in AoC will be through Carvans transporting goods most likely. If you can't even stand that, then hire pvpers to protect it or move it by foot, even if that will most likely take forever.
Comments
PVP SERVERS - Everything and everyone is killable outside of safe areas. Exclusive currency for PVP gear, mounts, ships, guild functionality.
PVP / PVE SERVERS (what you have now) Diminished PVP currency. Diminished PVE currency. Diminished PK penalty system.
PVE SYSTEM - No PK allowed. Duels are allowed and arena combat is allowed. Increased drop rate on harvestables, crafting XP and PVE specific guild functionality. PVE currency exclusive to this server type.
On the PVE server focus node wars based on monster coin combat only. Guilds will most certainly contribute to this. Do something a little different with monster coins and you have your solution. There's got to be a creative way to allow node wars and caravans to happen with these monster coin illusions. Incentivize their participation by tieing in the monster coins to end game content and raids. I have a feeling that the above server types I listed would be heavily right down the middle. But this setup will entice PVE only players to leave their home game and flock to AoC. It's a win for everyone.
Sorry but you are delusional in everything you said. Just because you are a PVE Player which SO AM I does not make you the best solution for every MMORPG out there. You have several dozen MMORPG that are PVE focused and look they have major issues with player retention. You over value yourself and its because you hate PVP in all forms just read your own post. If you do not like PVP then this game is not for you.
I do agree that PKing can be a PROBLEM but there are ways to combat PKing and that is not overvaluing people like you who will be bored to death with this game inside of 2 months. I have thrown out some ideas out there. Maybe you should get your head out of your ass and understand this is a PVP focused game. Once you understand that make intelligent comments about how to reduce the worst end of PVP without cutting out the soul of the game.
PVP SERVERS – Everything and everyone is killable outside of safe areas. Exclusive currency for PVP gear, mounts, ships, guild functionality.
PVP / PVE SERVERS (what you have now) Diminished PVP currency. Diminished PVE currency. Diminished PK penalty system.
PVE SYSTEM – No PK allowed. Duels are allowed and arena combat is allowed. Increased drop rate on harvestables, crafting XP and PVE specific guild functionality.
On the PVE server focus node wars based on monster coin combat only. Guilds will most certainly contribute to this. Do something a little different with monster coins and you have your solution. There’s got to be a creative way to allow node wars and caravans to happen with these monster coin illusions. Incentivize their participation by tieing in the monster coins to end game content and raids.
[/quote]
Again you cannot have a PVE server in a PVP focused GAME. Get your head out of your ass again.
See how PvP players are already pushing your customers away? This will continue until you devs address it. Tackle it now while you still can!
[/quote]
I brought up have areas not designed for PVP like near the roads of the node, and towns and the node itself. But the Wild area of the node is Free For All PVP. With the corruption system and if they force people who attack greens to go red right away. You will reduce the bad parts of PVP and be a little more PVE friendly but it will not completely make it a PVE game. Now that still keeps in Caravan and Siege PVP as designed. If your node is under Siege and you are in that node you are a purple by design unless in a group. This would be a good middle ground and also for people who want to go into the Wild will go in groups to reduce the PKers because most PKers will be in smaller groups if not solo. So if you go out into the Wild with 2+ people you have a better chance of not getting jumped.
1. PVP and PVE are intertwined in what this game is trying to achieve. They both feed off each other.
2. Simply not true. Alot of us want BOTH.
3. PVE players should find and play games that are built just for PVE content. This is not that type of game.
4. Happens to PVP and PVE players alike. Adds to the risk versus reward. Can't have the best farming/gathering spot without the need to fight for it and either win it or lose it. PVE players will still cry that someone keeps tagging "their" mobs or mining "their" ore even with no pvp like they want. lol
5. You want separation. Again they are over a year in development and they can't and won't make an entirely new game just for you because that is what they would have to do.
6. and 7. Find games that are strictly PVE then. Don't be so entitled. If you don't like waht a game is designed to be then don't play it. Crying about any of these games changed nothing so why keep crying? Just move on already.
8. There are a lot of toxic gamers on both sides. I personally rather be ganked than have my progression stopped by a group of people camping a spawn and tagging or kill stealing mobs all day.
9. This is what makes this game exciting! A player that wants to chop trees all day DOES affect the content of the game and can affect boss drops or the type of world boss that spawns. If other people don't want that type of node or world boss they can kill you to stop it. You then have the option to find people that want the same as you to group up and either fight for you or fight together.
10. You keep whining about the same thing but differently worded. THIS. GAME. IS. NOT. FOR. YOU.
Pro tip: PVP players make alts too...
Devs don't have to turn anything off.
Again, this concept of "travel in groups to reduce the chances of getting jumped" is not a "middle ground".
That crap does nothing to appease people who dislike PvP combat. Anything that includes an option for PvP combat is not a solution.
I don't know why people have a problem comprehending that.
"OK. You don't want to be in a war with Mexico. Just get Russia to go to war with Mexico."
"You believe bombing Mexico is despicable. That's OK. Just get China to bomb Mexico. See, that's better."
No game can please all of the players.
Don't play games you don't like.
I won't be playing Crowfall just like I don't play EVE and didn't play Shadowbane. They are all too PvP-centric for my tastes.
AoC is going to have fast travel. If you don't like playing games with fast travel; don't play AoC.
If you don't like playing games that have penalties for PvP combat; don't play AoC.
Play the games you like to play.
For the devs, it should be obvious. This game needs to make money to flourish. The more players it has paying a subscription the more money it makes to further development of future content.
Lets take a sample size of 10 PvE players. 5 of them will only PvE, 3 may take part in sieges and caravans, 2 may even take part in open world PvP on their own terms. NONE of them will play a non consensual PvP game.
-Option 1: Open world PvP is forced
These players will not play the game so not be available for PK's
-Option 2: PvP has a 100% toggle option for open world
These players will toggle off and not be available for PK's
These players will continue to play and bolster the games population count
These players continue to pay a subscription and help to finance the game
In both situations the players will not be available to PK, so it should make no difference to PvP players.
In only 1 situation the players will be contributing to the game. Now multiply that sample of 10 players many, many times to fully represent the amount of players that will not play a forced PvP game.
From a developers point of view it should be a no brainer which option is best for the health of the game.
For the devs, it should be obvious. This game needs to make money to flourish. The more players it has paying a subscription the more money it makes to further development of future content.
Lets take a sample size of 10 PvE players. 5 of them will only PvE, 3 may take part in sieges and caravans, 2 may even take part in open world PvP on their own terms. NONE of them will play a non consensual PvP game.
-Option 1: Open world PvP is forced
These players will not play the game so not be available for PK’s
-Option 2: PvP has a 100% toggle option for open world
These players will toggle off and not be available for PK’s
These players will continue to play and bolster the games population count
These players continue to pay a subscription and help to finance the game
In both situations the players will not be available to PK, so it should make no difference to PvP players.
In only 1 situation the players will be contributing to the game. Now multiply that sample of 10 players many, many times to fully represent the amount of players that will not play a forced PvP game.
From a developers point of view it should be a no brainer which option is best for the health of the game.
[/quote]
Thing is the developers are not developing the game for PVEers of MMORPGS that want nothing to do with PVP. They are making a game they want to play and others who are tired as fuck of the entitlement that players have today that the game must be designed for them. Well this is exactly why MMORPGS are in the garbage state they are in. Its time that changed.
[/quote]
Yep Agreed. I am with Trip here.
I do agree with people not wanting to be ganked over and over which does happen in PVP games BUT if done right that shit will not happen because it is too punishing to do that.
The devs seem to be saying that the design of the game relies on PvP combat to catalyze tasks, events and narratives.
But, it doesn't seem possible that it's literally players killing other players that's driving that change.
I agree. If players are willing to play on a server that has PvP combat turned off...test that on one server and see how long that server remains popular. If it ends up being a deserted server because the players there were too bored and left... overwrite it with a normal server.
For EQNext, I was hoping the devs would have one server that was a kind of Hell server - where they just let all the catastrophic events succeed for a a few months and then allow players in to deal with those consequences.
If AoC is going to have servers with different rulesets seems easy enough to have one that is designated for PvE only.
Especially if they're going to have an RP server.
[/quote]
If I wanted to gank people, I would just create alts to do so and not care about how much corruption the alts accrue.
In fact, that would be one of my primary objectives: To see how long those characters can last with max corruption.
My main character in EQ2 leveled to 60 wearing only starting rags because her backstory was that she is a ratonga slave whose Kerran master only allowed her to wear starting rags. Made leveling overly challenging sometimes, but the RP was more important than the ease of gameplay.
People's reactions to encountering a Level 20 or Level 40 or Level 60 character adventuring in those zones wearing only starting rags was worth the effort.
So, I don't buy the claim that corruption will be an adequate deterrent.
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/please-dont-force-us-to-be-victims-of-pvpers/page/5/#post-17123" rel="nofollow">Helzbelz wrote:</a></div>
I do agree with people not wanting to be ganked over and over which does happen in PVP games BUT if done right that shit will not happen because it is too punishing to do that.
</blockquote>
If I wanted to gank people, I would just create alts to do so and not care about how much corruption the alts accrue.
In fact, that would be one of my primary objectives: To see how long those characters can last with max corruption.
My main character in EQ2 leveled to 60 wearing only starting rags because her backstory was that she is a ratonga slave whose Kerran master only allowed her to wear starting rags. Made leveling overly challenging sometimes, but the RP was more important than the ease of gameplay.
People’s reactions to encountering a Level 20 or Level 40 or Level 60 character adventuring in those zones wearing only starting rags was worth the effort.
So, I don’t buy the claim that corruption will be an adequate deterrent.
[/quote]
From what I heard your stats will also be nerfed so your corrupted alt will in effect become a walking marshmallow. Since it's a sub based game and you won't have unlimited character slots you would have to pay for more accounts just to make your marshmallow army lol.
[/quote]
What i said isnt stopping you from having both. The sieges and caravans and open world pvp will still all be there. You just do it with the other like minded people doing the same thing. Nothing i have said even suggested removing PvP from the game.
Tell me why it bothers you if i can play the game without being subjected to your random PK? Why are you not satisfied to play PvP with the other PvP'ers?
I myself am still open minded about the system as it is, but it doesnt matter what i think, or what you think. Look at the bigger picture. They can appeal to few or appeal to many. I really like the look of the game but fear for its long term health. Without the PvE player base the numbers may be too low to sustain a subscription payment model long term. The game will end up f2p and the cash shop will have to become more aggresive as their only income source.
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/please-dont-force-us-to-be-victims-of-pvpers/page/5/#post-17131" rel="nofollow">Dygz wrote:</a></div>
<blockquote>
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/please-dont-force-us-to-be-victims-of-pvpers/page/5/#post-17123" rel="nofollow">Helzbelz wrote:</a></div>
I do agree with people not wanting to be ganked over and over which does happen in PVP games BUT if done right that shit will not happen because it is too punishing to do that.
</blockquote>
If I wanted to gank people, I would just create alts to do so and not care about how much corruption the alts accrue.
In fact, that would be one of my primary objectives: To see how long those characters can last with max corruption.
My main character in EQ2 leveled to 60 wearing only starting rags because her backstory was that she is a ratonga slave whose Kerran master only allowed her to wear starting rags. Made leveling overly challenging sometimes, but the RP was more important than the ease of gameplay.
People’s reactions to encountering a Level 20 or Level 40 or Level 60 character adventuring in those zones wearing only starting rags was worth the effort.
So, I don’t buy the claim that corruption will be an adequate deterrent.
</blockquote>
From what I heard your stats will also be nerfed so your corrupted alt will in effect become a walking marshmallow. Since it’s a sub based game and you won’t have unlimited character slots you would have to pay for more accounts just to make your marshmallow army lol.
[/quote]
Thank you Trip! I really appreciate your description! I am significantly more relieved and more encouraged by this! For some reason the way the penalties were described, it seemed incremental. This sounds harsh enough to be a successful deterrent. Not 100%, but crippling enough to make players weigh the option because of the consequences...
From what I heard your stats will also be nerfed so your corrupted alt will in effect become a walking marshmallow. Since it’s a sub based game and you won’t have unlimited character slots you would have to pay for more accounts just to make your marshmallow army lol. [/quote]
Yep. If I wanted to gank people none of that would matter to me. My objective would be to gain as much corruption as possible and see how long the character can do so before a brand new newbie could one shot it. Typically alts can be deleted, but even if deleting alts were not an option - I'd just work off the corruption to whatever degree I'm ready to start ganking again. I'd essentially be playing a zombie. Which would be cool with me, if I was really into pissing off other players and ruining their fun.
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/please-dont-force-us-to-be-victims-of-pvpers/page/5/#post-17118" rel="nofollow">Trip wrote:</a></div>
Pantheon is a strictly PVE game so I have no interest in it. Not going to go cry in their forum for them to make the game cater to me. I want a game that has BOTH. I love open world pvp and I love doing pve content as well which this game will have. Trying to threaten a game developer with you wallet is laughable. They have a vision and are sticking to it and that’s why I backed this game.
</blockquote>
What i said isnt stopping you from having both. The sieges and caravans and open world pvp will still all be there. You just do it with the other like minded people doing the same thing. Nothing i have said even suggested removing PvP from the game.
Tell me why it bothers you if i can play the game without being subjected to your random PK? Why are you not satisfied to play PvP with the other PvP’ers?
I myself am still open minded about the system as it is, but it doesnt matter what i think, or what you think. Look at the bigger picture. They can appeal to few or appeal to many. I really like the look of the game but fear for its long term health. Without the PvE player base the numbers may be too low to sustain a subscription payment model long term. The game will end up f2p and the cash shop will have to become more aggresive as their only income source.
[/quote]
Because I think the game needs BOTH type of players working together.
An example would be a pve player wants to farm something in a specific area but there is an apposing guild pve group already there taking everything. If it is a strictly pve rule set and you can't tag mobs, mine or chop any trees then that player's progression is stopped just like getting ganked would stop it. BUT, with it being a pvp rule set the player can have the people who like to have meaningful pvp remove the pve players that are stopping him from progressing.
The people I play with are very pvp orientated but we understand the importance of having people that want to just craft because a strong guild will need them to become stronger and we will protect them. This adds content for both pve and pvp players.
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/please-dont-force-us-to-be-victims-of-pvpers/page/5/#post-17138" rel="nofollow">Trip wrote:</a></div>
From what I heard your stats will also be nerfed so your corrupted alt will in effect become a walking marshmallow. Since it’s a sub based game and you won’t have unlimited character slots you would have to pay for more accounts just to make your marshmallow army lol.
</blockquote>
Yep. If I wanted to gank people none of that would matter to me. My objective would be to gain as much corruption as possible and see how long the character can do so before a brand new newbie could one shot it. Typically alts can be deleted, but even if deleting alts were not an option – I’d just work off the corruption to whatever degree I’m ready to start ganking again. I’d essentially be playing a zombie. Which would be cool with me, if I was really into pissing off other players and ruining their fun.
[/quote]
LMAO player's like that don't usually last long in open world pvp. You make a name for yourself and that character will have a target on its back pretty quik and no matter how good you think you are you won't be able to progress to a point where you will be competetive. Even entire troll guilds get destroyed sooner rather than later, but I will never tell you how to play or how to have fun because even trolls add content to these types of games.
What i said isnt stopping you from having both. The sieges and caravans and open world pvp will still all be there. You just do it with the other like minded people doing the same thing. Nothing i have said even suggested removing PvP from the game.
Tell me why it bothers you if i can play the game without being subjected to your random PK? Why are you not satisfied to play PvP with the other PvP’ers?
I myself am still open minded about the system as it is, but it doesnt matter what i think, or what you think. Look at the bigger picture. They can appeal to few or appeal to many. I really like the look of the game but fear for its long term health. Without the PvE player base the numbers may be too low to sustain a subscription payment model long term. The game will end up f2p and the cash shop will have to become more aggresive as their only income source.
[/quote]
Problem with consensual flagging systems comes down to human nature and the path of least resistance. Yes, i may love pvp but if i'm off doing my gathering or pve thing, i'm not going to flag so someone can jump me. I'm wasting my time if i do that. It's like removing any meaningful loot from raid bosses and telling pve'ers to do them because they like raids. Bottom line of what i'm trying to say is people don't just do activities because they like the activity, they need to have a reason to do it.
LMAO player’s like that don’t usually last long in open world pvp. You make a name for yourself and that character will have a target on its back pretty quik and no matter how good you think you are you won’t be able to progress to a point where you will be competetive. Even entire troll guilds get destroyed sooner rather than later, but I will never tell you how to play or how to have fun because even trolls add content to these types of games. [/quote]
Yes. I expect zombie's to have targets on their back.
The character doesn't necessarily need to progress very far since characters don't lose levels.
Progress the character to level 5 or 10. And then use to gank newbies.
I am a non-competitive person in any case.
The goal of my zombie would not be to be competitive. The goal of my zombie would to gain as much corruption as possible by ganking newbies and see how decrepit it becomes before a newbie one-shots it.
Always strange to me when people think that alts have to be competitive and master skills or gain levels.
Even trolls add content to these types of games... which is why the corruption mechanic ain't gonna do much to deter PKers.
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/please-dont-force-us-to-be-victims-of-pvpers/page/5/#post-17142" rel="nofollow">OneShot wrote:</a></div>
<blockquote>
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/please-dont-force-us-to-be-victims-of-pvpers/page/5/#post-17118" rel="nofollow">Trip wrote:</a></div>
Pantheon is a strictly PVE game so I have no interest in it. Not going to go cry in their forum for them to make the game cater to me. I want a game that has BOTH. I love open world pvp and I love doing pve content as well which this game will have. Trying to threaten a game developer with you wallet is laughable. They have a vision and are sticking to it and that’s why I backed this game.
</blockquote>
What i said isnt stopping you from having both. The sieges and caravans and open world pvp will still all be there. You just do it with the other like minded people doing the same thing. Nothing i have said even suggested removing PvP from the game.
Tell me why it bothers you if i can play the game without being subjected to your random PK? Why are you not satisfied to play PvP with the other PvP’ers?
I myself am still open minded about the system as it is, but it doesnt matter what i think, or what you think. Look at the bigger picture. They can appeal to few or appeal to many. I really like the look of the game but fear for its long term health. Without the PvE player base the numbers may be too low to sustain a subscription payment model long term. The game will end up f2p and the cash shop will have to become more aggresive as their only income source.
</blockquote>
Because I think the game needs BOTH type of players working together.
An example would be a pve player wants to farm something in a specific area but there is an apposing guild pve group already there taking everything. If it is a strictly pve rule set and you can’t tag mobs, mine or chop any trees then that player’s progression is stopped just like getting ganked would stop it. BUT, with it being a pvp rule set the player can have the people who like to have meaningful pvp remove the pve players that are stopping him from progressing.
The people I play with are very pvp orientated but we understand the importance of having people that want to just craft because a strong guild will need them to become stronger and we will protect them. This adds content for both pve and pvp players.
[/quote]
I get what you're saying. Your example of PvE and PvP players working together sounds like a cool little co-op situations from the view point of yourself as the aggressor. But think also about that bunch of PvE players you just wiped out. Maybe they were having fun together too. Maybe they hate this kind of shit and its the 5th time today. How long before they unsub and scrap the game. Maybe this also happens in reverse too often to your PvE crafter in the example, and he stops playing too.
I understand your point and can see both sides of the coin. I honestly can. I just think my side is the one that better maintains the games population and health.
But.... maybe the corruption system will work, there will be very limitted arsehattery and the game can be enjoyed by both PvE and PvP players.
I agree that it wouldn't work to have consensual PvP flags on the normal servers.
Consensual PvP flags is the worst solution for this game.
PvPers would rage quit if players immune to PvP were running around in PvP spaces.
There would have to be a PvE server either with rules similar to those enforced on RP servers or with with PvP combat turned off.
They want the Artisans to provide goods for the economy. Non-combatant crafters will forge weapons and armor for the PvP adventurers. And non-combatant husbandry characters will provide faster mounts for the PvP adventurers.
In turn, the PvP adventurers will provide protection for and retaliation against enemy PvPers who attack their non-combatant friends.
But... I don't really want PvP adventurers protecting me. I'd probably prefer to play on a server where the players are co-op v the environment. Why put up with getting PKed at all when I can just play on the PvE server.
The corruption feature is meaningless to me. The bounty hunter feature is meaningless to me. The adventurers protection is meaningless to me. So, I'm just not going to play on the normal servers.
Well...
If too many PvE players decide to do the same thing, there won't be enough PvE players on the normal servers focusing on the gathering and crafting and processing that's intended to support the PvPers.
I think that's why the devs don't want to have a PvE server.
It forces PvEers to play where they can act as support the PvPers.
With the intention that the PvPers will in turn protect the PvEers.
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/please-dont-force-us-to-be-victims-of-pvpers/page/6/#post-17156" rel="nofollow">Trip wrote:</a></div>
LMAO player’s like that don’t usually last long in open world pvp. You make a name for yourself and that character will have a target on its back pretty quik and no matter how good you think you are you won’t be able to progress to a point where you will be competetive. Even entire troll guilds get destroyed sooner rather than later, but I will never tell you how to play or how to have fun because even trolls add content to these types of games.
</blockquote>
Yes. I expect zombie’s to have targets on their back.
The character doesn’t necessarily need to progress very far since characters don’t lose levels.
Progress the character to level 5 or 10. And then use to gank newbies.
I am a non-competitive person in any case.
The goal of my zombie would not be to be competitive. The goal of my zombie would to gain as much corruption as possible by ganking newbies and see how decrepit it becomes before a newbie one-shots it.
Always strange to me when people think that alts have to be competitive and master skills or gain levels.
Even trolls add content to these types of games… which is why the corruption mechanic ain’t gonna do much to deter PKers.
[/quote]
As far as people finding ways to push what they can do to the limit, for whatever reason, is why it's been stated repeatedly that ways to discourage griefing will be tested, re-tested, and, if they gave should come out, closely monitored in case changes need to be made. Steven, as an avid gamer himself, knows how there are players who will try to find any loop hole, bug, or what have to, to exploit. Hell, as a player, he may have exploited a few times himself.
Whether someone chooses to have faith in the devs to actually get it right, is up to the individual to decide for themselves.
They want the Artisans to provide goods for the economy. Non-combatant crafters will forge weapons and armor for the PvP adventurers. And non-combatant husbandry characters will provide faster mounts for the PvP adventurers.
In turn, the PvP adventurers will provide protection for and retaliation against enemy PvPers who attack their non-combatant friends.
But… I don’t really want PvP adventurers protecting me. I’d probably prefer to play on a server where the players are co-op v the environment. Why put up with getting PKed at all when I can just play on the PvE server.
The corruption feature is meaningless to me. The bounty hunter feature is meaningless to me. The adventurers protection is meaningless to me. So, I’m just not going to play on the normal servers.
Well…
If too many PvE players decide to do the same thing, there won’t be enough PvE players on the normal servers focusing on the gathering and crafting and processing that’s intended to support the PvPers.
I think that’s why the devs don’t want to have a PvE server.
It forces PvEers to play where they can act as support the PvPers.
With the intention that the PvPers will in turn protect the PvEers.
[/quote]
From reading (and responding, lol), to alot of your posts, I can understand your dilemma. You're perfectly stated your preferred desire would be to forgo what you feel would be PvP aspects of the game, intruding into the PvE aspects. It's my understanding that your preference would be a clear delineation between to two, to be had had only at ones personal choice. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.
In your post that I quoted, you expertly identified why, as the game stands now, how making any sort of strident separation of the two types of play, the game as a whole will suffer. As I understand it, both PvE and PvP, as you stated, are meant to work in a synergy that makes the world, and players, progress forwards. Without that synergy, a complex AI system (another posters idea) would have to make up the difference, if the game's core design were to stay the same. Otherwise, an intrinsic concept of the game model would have to be re-worked from scratch, to accommodate the shift away from player Pv synergy.
In fact, in my head I think of Steven as "Sharif Murray".
I don't have faith. I'm no longer falling for hype and the enthusiasm of the devs.
The devs will have to show; not tell - to convince me.
The PvP design is not a deal-breaker for me, so I don't need faith.
The devs simply haven't convinced me that corruption or bounty hunting will be the deterrents they suggest because those measure wouldn't deter me.
Regardless of whether the game actually gets made, I'm willing to spend some bucks supporting the development of this game design.
But, this isn't really about pushing limits or exploiting.
I'm just saying that corruption and bounty hunting wouldn't be deterrents for me if I wanted to gank people.
And I don't think I'm anywhere close to being unique on that front.
From reading (and responding, lol), to alot of your posts, I can understand your dilemma. You’re perfectly stated your preferred desire would be to forgo what you feel would be PvP aspects of the game, intruding into the PvE aspects. It’s my understanding that your preference would be a clear delineation between to two, to be had had only at ones personal choice. Please, correct me if I’m wrong.[/quote]
Oh! No!
That wasn't written to outline any dilemma of mine.
I don't have much of a problem with the AoC game design.
The PvP combat isn't a deal-breaker for me - although, I would probably have a character on a PvE server if it were available to see which server I enjoyed most.
I was just using first person as I illustrated why the devs probably don;t want to have a PvE server.
[quote]In your post that I quoted, you expertly identified why, as the game stands now, how making any sort of strident separation of the two types of play, the game as a whole will suffer. As I understand it, both PvE and PvP, as you stated, are meant to work in a synergy that makes the world, and players, progress forwards. Without that synergy, a complex AI system (another posters idea) would have to make up the difference, if the game’s core design were to stay the same. Otherwise, an intrinsic concept of the game model would have to be re-worked from scratch, to accommodate the shift away from player Pv synergy. [/quote]
Yeah, I had to do a whole mess a brainstorming to work that out.
lmao
[/quote]
Well brutally murdering those who can't fight back is one of those things some PvPers enjoy. In games like this you can never fully be safe, give up on that filosofy already. What can be done is to control PKing as much as possible, have it being a high risk. That way it will be rare and mostly done by maniacs. You also need to learn how to avoid pkers, it isn't exactly hard. I've played bdo since launch, never even once got pked at sausans or pirates. Situations that would have led to pking did occur, but I left before it came to that or solved it in a diplomatic way. So instead of crying about open world pvp, learn how you can avoid it instead of forcing others to not be allowed to do it.
Also. 99% of the pvp you might accidently experience in AoC will be through Carvans transporting goods most likely. If you can't even stand that, then hire pvpers to protect it or move it by foot, even if that will most likely take forever.