Glorious Alpha Two Testers!

Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.

Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.

Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.

Please don't force us to be victims of PvPers!

1272830323350

Comments

  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited June 2017

    PvP conflict is what the devs mean by meaningful conflict.
    Steven specifically stated that the pillar is Meaningful Conflict; not Meaningful "PvP". And his use of "PvP" meant "PvP combat".
    Meaningful Conflict is separate from, but related to PvP combat.

    Player characters killing other player characters is not what causes the world to change. Destroying and building nodes/settlements/buildings/environment is what causes the world to change. As does destroying caravans.

    The Ashes game design includes player characters killing playing characters as a method of resolving PvP conflict. We can expect that to be the most common method, given the mindset of hardcore PvPers. But, the pillar that drives world change is actually the conflict and caravan destruction and city building and destruction. It's really the PvE actions which arise from PvP conflict that cause the world to change.

    People are concerned about being forced into PvP combat when they're not in the mood to participate in PvP combat.
    People who were not following EQNext closely enough to understand the concept of PvP conflict (the EQNext/Daybreak term for meaningful conflict) and how that will motivate players to attack PvEers while they are engaging in PvE may think they're only concerned with random PKers. Sure.

    But, the real issue is going to be that the actions of PvErs will negatively affect other nodes in such a way that the citizens of rival nodes will want to attack them.
    As in the example I've given where the Nikua are chopping down Empyrean trees they need to complete their crafting quest, but chopping down those trees will cause the spirits of the dryads who lived in the trees to spawn and attack the nearby Empyrean villages.

    And part of what's being said is that PvP combat and extortion don't have to be the primary way to solve conflicts.
    We're all playing on the same server.
    The Nikua should be able to resolve that conflict by offering to help kill the dryads or even to kill all the dryads by themselves.
    Rather than the Empyreans just attacking the Nikua because PvP combat is possible and the players of the Empyreans prefer PvP combat over fighting mobs.

  • Who ever said that conflict of interest can't be solved with politics, bargaining or having some kind of talk?

    We just can't expect that it will always be the way that it is resolved. We also can't expect that it will always even be considered by everyone.

  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited June 2017

    From experience, we can predict how it's going to be resolved the majority of the time because hardcore PvPers have the attitude that it's OK for them to kill anyone it's possible for them to kill.
    In Ashes, that will include people who are flagged as combatants.

  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited June 2017

    Who ever said that conflict of interest can't be solved with politics, bargaining or having some kind of talk?"

    Did you seriously just ask that? LOLOLOLOLOL

  • <Bringslite quaffs his elixir of Titan Strength, picks up the massive thread over his head and body slams it to the ground as roughly as possible!> "Die damn you, Die!" <He shrieks at it while stomping the thread with his magical Slippers of Comfort>
  • Note - gank Stabby on release
  • @nagash @Krojak fair enough

    But now can we all just take a moment, and enjoy the fact that the person who started the thread of "Don't force us to be the victims of PvPers" goes by the name stabby?
  • kelijahf said:
    @nagash @Krojak fair enough

    But now can we all just take a moment, and enjoy the fact that the person who started the thread of "Don't force us to be the victims of PvPers" goes by the name stabby?
    My thoughts exactly when I read the post.

    Mods need to lock this one up, more than enough has been said.
  • This thing is still going? Games catalyst is PvP and world events. It'd be next to impossible to make it solely PvE. I don't like being ganked either I'm sorta the middle ground on this being a light PvPer. It's just pointless to continue this kind of charade when you know damn well it would require gutting the games entire mechanical lay out.

    It's supposed to be more of a living world. That guy you see on the street tomorrow maybe he wants to punch you in the face. There's your real life PvP. He might have no reason and it also penalizes him with an assault charge. It's gonna happen, the difference here is it's a game and you have the means to play with friends or hire guards.
  • If this thread is locked a brand new one will soon be started.
    Possibly a handful of new ones.
    Better to keep it all in this one instead of starting over in new threads.

  • He might be right and my comfy slippers had almost no effect on the beastie.
  • I don't think anyone is saying no pvp at all.  I think some would just prefer it be voluntary.  If I go to a siege I expect pvp to happen.  If I protect or defend a caravan I expect pvp to happen.  If in a guild war I expect pvp to happen.  If I just want a quiet evening where I'm just farming or questing, I'd like the ability to be left alone if I so choose.

    I don't think it's asking too much myself to have servers with pvp lite, and full flavor pvp.
  • hravik said:
    I don't think anyone is saying no pvp at all.  I think some would just prefer it be voluntary.  If I go to a siege I expect pvp to happen.  If I protect or defend a caravan I expect pvp to happen.  If in a guild war I expect pvp to happen.  If I just want a quiet evening where I'm just farming or questing, I'd like the ability to be left alone if I so choose.

    I don't think it's asking too much myself to have servers with pvp lite, and full flavor pvp.


    Honestly I don't either. The only PVP you will see me in voluntarily is what you described. There are some things to consider though:

    With no RPKers, it is likely more players will gather as there is no risk besides NPCs. Your hard work bringing home the Bacon will likely not be worth much for your time. (mainly applies to gather/traders)

    No Pirates! and no bandits and no real sense of accomplishment for another day in the wild. (Only applies to danger lovers)


  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited June 2017
    High risk, high reward. 

    No risk = ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

    I enjoy a good fight, but understand people don't. But we both have to play this game. So let's compromise. I think it's selfish to ask that a game change a major part of it just to cater to your desire to play the game on easy mode. 

    Hire me to protect you while you run your stuff! Win/Win!!
  • Stabby said:

    What they're doing here is setting themselves up for the biggest gank & grief ever made.
    No, that would be Black Desert Online.
  • Possum said:
    Stabby said:

    What they're doing here is setting themselves up for the biggest gank & grief ever made.
    No, that would be Black Desert Online.
    I hope the character creator will be the only thing similar to that game in Ashes. 
  • Karthos said:
    High risk, high reward. 

    No risk = ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

    I enjoy a good fight, but understand people don't. But we both have to play this game. So let's compromise. I think it's selfish to ask that a game change a major part of it just to cater to your desire to play the game on easy mode. 

    Hire me to protect you while you run your stuff! Win/Win!!
    That's not a compromise. 
    That's like telling vegetarians who are against people eating meat that they don't have to eat meat, you will eat meat for them.
  • Not forcing a PvE'er to PvP but how, in the overall scheme of things, does a PvE'er negate PvP entirely.

    Given, the argument above as been about PvE'ers avoiding gankers, but I will give a few other scenario's that PvE'ers encounter and question what they would do if not willing to PvP

    a) Your group spent 40min to get to the desired PvE location, and have spent 1hr playing in the same location, with every intention to spend a few more hours there and then another PvE team arrives and starts XP'ing over your same play spot. After all PM conversing fails to have the other team depart. In a pacifist scenario, you either leave or play compromised.

    Would you not want to PvP just to retain your area?

    b) Similar to above, you are enjoying playing in an area and a nearby group of players are training mobs to power xp and they keep pulling trains through your area resulting in your full team from wiping out.

    Would you not want to do something?

    c) You are XP'ing quietly and a great item drops and some random player runs up and picks it up and runs off with it.

    In the spur of the moment do you want to accept the loss or retaliate?

    d) You are XP'ing in a remote area and you see the player that has been griefing your Guild buddies regularly, the notorious  XP'ing alone and vulnerable.

    Would you want the opportunity to take vengeance?

    e) You are XP'ing with a group of friends and see the ex-guild member that ran off with all the guild's coin and top gear.

    Would your group prefer to just turn the other cheek or would there be a little satisfaction for exercising the minimal punitive measures you can do within game?

    f) Player X has been player killing every person that crosses Y bridge. You cannot pass to meet your buddies without paying his extortionate ransom.

    Do you go home for the day, knowing you cannot pass?

    Point being from above, not all scenarios are the PvP death of a PvE'er by griefing.

    Agreed, there are times that it is great to enjoy a quiet, uninterrupted PvE session.
    But in an open world game, not everyone will behave as you might like around you.

    Options become very limited if no PvP capability.




  • Karthos said:
    High risk, high reward. 

    No risk = ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

    I enjoy a good fight, but understand people don't. But we both have to play this game. So let's compromise. I think it's selfish to ask that a game change a major part of it just to cater to your desire to play the game on easy mode. 

    Hire me to protect you while you run your stuff! Win/Win!!
    See, I actually enjoy PvP.  Way back in EQ, the worst mistake one of my friends ever made was teaching me to duel.  Eventually he never won a fight against me again.  Heck, we'd duel during dull moments in a raid.  Imagine your warrior (me) and a rogue trying to kill each other out of boredom at the entrance to the Plane of Hate.  We're on our way to fight a god, but he looked at me funny.

    But with all things, even in an MMO, sometimes I just want to be left alone.  I can't be the only one in heavy raiding guilds that had alts nobody else knew about just so I could do my own thing sometimes.  Having to have a body guard, or having to deal with Badguy McStabberson kinda defeats that. 
  • Getting rid of Open-World PvP will make this MMO bad & it'll look like a "Shadow" of its formal self 

    (despite it still being in Pre-Alpha Xp )

    In short, Open-World PvP is good because it creates a unique atmosphere.
  • Protection for hire or finding a quiet place to do your thing.  Choices will have to be made for all of us.  That's the nature of the game as intended. Pretty much like life if ya ask me.   Safe at home? Depends where you live.  Safe  traveling? Again. depends where you're going.  I seriously don't like pkers, But what I don't like most is living in fear in real life or a game.  I go about my business and make myself aware of what's around me and stay prepared the best I can.  

    We need a game that will be all immersive. That's evident by what most people are saying and we wouldn't be here if we didn't want that because that is what Intrepid is offering us.  They seem to be trying to balance the system and be fair. Will it make us all happy all of the time? Highly unlikely.  But where you going to find anything better or euphoric?   Candyland ------------->  

    Is it going to be easy? No way!  But if it was all that easy would we be here? 
  • @AkaBear Most of your scenarios are just examples of poor and archaic game design that don't apply to Ashes. But, pacifists tend not to be interested in vengeance and tend to be willing to avoid conflict. The interactions that drive PvPers to attack other player characters don't motivate carebears to attack other player characters. Most of your examples aren't issues on PvE servers. And some of your examples aren't even possible if PvP combat isn't possible. All that being said, I think the best solution we have at the moment is to use Stock Exchange analytics to try to find the server with the least amount of PvP combat.
  • kelijahf said:
    @nagash @Krojak fair enough

    But now can we all just take a moment, and enjoy the fact that the person who started the thread of "Don't force us to be the victims of PvPers" goes by the name stabby?
    Stabby relates to my class preferences, not PvP or PvE. I like melee classes and in your face combat.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited June 2017
    hravik said:
    I don't think anyone is saying no pvp at all.  I think some would just prefer it be voluntary.  If I go to a siege I expect pvp to happen.  If I protect or defend a caravan I expect pvp to happen.  If in a guild war I expect pvp to happen.  If I just want a quiet evening where I'm just farming or questing, I'd like the ability to be left alone if I so choose.

    I don't think it's asking too much myself to have servers with pvp lite, and full flavor pvp.
    This. Many of us prefer consensual combat and would even participate in PvP at times. Nobody is asking to remove it completely, even on PVE focused servers. Personally I hate PvP 99% of the time. But I would like the option to PvP during seiges, caravans, etc. I firmly believe that forcing people into PvP ruins games. And that there should ALWAYS be server options to allow players to pick their preferred play style.

    The problem is that AoC PvP is compunded by the fact that there are no safe spots and there are no channels to flee to if someone is harassing you. This opens the door for all kinds of potential griefing. And in the video the collision mechanics aint no joke. This is another major form of potential griefing.

  • And this will cause a great divide of PvEers & PvPers - thus creating a Huge Split like I've seen in other MMOs where some Servers are drastically bigger than others
    *cough* swtor *cough*

    And this will cause constant requests for server merges. 
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited June 2017
    Every time I read the title to this thread I think it says perverts.
  • Eragale said:

    And this will cause a great divide of PvEers & PvPers - thus creating a Huge Split like I've seen in other MMOs where some Servers are drastically bigger than others
    *cough* swtor *cough*

    And this will cause constant requests for server merges. 
    Which servers are bigger than the others?
    Why would there need to be a server merge other than it's easier on the devs?
  • Here is the thing, EVERYONE'S potential actions has consequences and benefits you might be inconvienienced by.  an up and coming guild wants to become a metro,  or control the leather market, or maybe just has a beef with someone 
    who conned them before.  

    In game there is the choice to slay them, to strike them down from the pillars and ruin their stuff.

    You don't like it? The mobs try to do the same thing left unchecked.  What is the difference except that players are smarter (and cuter looking)?

  • It feels like we are just going round in circles. some people like the system and some do not, we can complain or agree with they way the game will work all we want but in the end if intrepid what to have this in their game then we can't stop them.
  • What is the difference except that players are smarter (and cuter looking)?
    Players are smarter and more ruthless and more relentless.
Sign In or Register to comment.