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

ArchivedUser

@LithiusV

I will give that a read, thanks.

Bless online has soured my trust in companies (and taken $250 Aus dollars and used that to make a xbox one version of Bless that's F2P and on ue4 when the pc is only ue3... so the feeling of being completely scammed is still there) making so called MMOs for the forseeable future. i will still be keeping an eye on AoC and try to partake in this alpha 1 stress testing... right now however, from a pve player point of view, its not looking very enticing...

and as others have pointed out... this game needs both pve and pvp apparently so yeah, i will wait for some pve news at least...

thanks for not resorting to insults and name calling, i get that alot, the whole 'carebare' accusation (i really just dont like the stress involved with pvp, cos i suck at it mostly)

*PS just read the wiki on pvp witht he very helpful 'non combatant combatant and corrupt ms paint masterpiece'

not sure if you have more details that whats on there, but is there a way to revert from combatant to non combatant. doesnt say on wiki.

ArchivedUser

@LithiusV
Gave the open world pvp part a read of that wiki, aleviated some aprehension i have for the pvp focus of the game.

still need to see more pve aspect of game. thanks for not resorting to insults, this was... refreshing for a forum discussion.

i hope you can go from combatant to non combatant again.

ArchivedUser

{Edited for intro clarity}

If you think this is just a pvp focused game, you really need to do a bit more research into the game. And how the systems are designed.

In order for pvp to happen, people are forced to want pve events or pve changes for dungeon/trial/story focused events. 


In order for anything to destroyed (at all) a succesful siege must be done against a node.

A siege to be declared requires massive amounts of ingame resources, people, and timing. And only AFTER a succesful siege can any freeholds be attacked. And even then your freehold items arent destroyed. They just go into your inventory/storage until you plop it down again afterwards. Your settings for placement is also saved


As far as Player killers are concerned I've already addressed that. And if you still arent satisfied, then you must either wait for Alpha two to come along to see for yourself, or this game just isnt for you. AoC is not a themepark carebear game. And That is why so many people want it so badly. 

And for reiteration please read this what I wrote here below.

*********************************************

PvP players need PvE to drive ingame PvP dynamics through questing and raiding. And PvE players need PvP players to conflict to open up constantly changing PvE paths and new events. Likewise PvE can cause open world events that PvP players need to engage.

That is essentially how AoC is designed at its core because of the Node system, the Node system itself is a literal design around both. You can choose to play one or the other, but need both in this game. 

So really asking what to focus on is a rhetorical question and cannot logically be answered because that is just not how the game works. The flagging system, corruption (including the potential to drop their gear), Bounty system, and ingame politics will be plenty of detriment.

Player killers who do it just to do it, will be easy to deal with, and likely lose their gear and everything in the process. Not to mention having massively reduced stats.

So keep your toon unflagged by selection, and if you are just farming, or pveing know if anyone kills you. They will suffer massively for it lol 

ArchivedUser

I'm not sure where some of you have picked up this conceived definition of "MMO" meaning NO PvP.   I guess we can blame WoW for that as they're all that a lot of players have seen.

The first big example of an MMO (not counting Meridian 59) was Ultima Online.  It was an open sandbox allowing global PVP with zero controls over that.   While that turned out to be a mess and their subsequent attempts to control ganking didn't work very well (Trammel? Ugh), it was a hell of a lot of fun to play, with that added knowledge that someone might try and whack you at any time.   Players actually had to WORK to build reputations as a good or bad guy and that meant something in the community.

Everquest pigeon holed PvP into specific servers and those weren't as popular as the PvE servers.  I think that held true because the CONTENT in EQ was already difficult enough and 40 man raids were hard enough to manage against tough mechanics without throwing PvP into the mix.  Then again, EQ wasn't a sandbox MMO either.

Star Wars Galaxies, (with a heavy design from Raph Koster who also had a lot of input into UO's design) was another global PvP MMO that broke it into factions, Rebels and Empire.   That game was also a blast and very little ganking went on there.

Dark Age of Camelot broke it into THREE factions instead of just two and the PvP was also a lot of fun in that one.

Even WoW *started* out with global PvP but then there were enough whiny newbies that it got removed.  (though it's available again now with the latest release via a switch)

So no, MMO does not equal PvE.    Many of the best MMOs that have come before had some great PvP in their design.

ArchivedUser

Khaler said:

I'm not sure where some of you have picked up this conceived definition of "MMO" meaning NO PvP.   I guess we can blame WoW for that as they're all that a lot of players have seen.

The first big example of an MMO (not counting Meridian 59) was Ultima Online.  It was an open sandbox allowing global PVP with zero controls over that.   While that turned out to be a mess and their subsequent attempts to control ganking didn't work very well (Trammel? Ugh), it was a hell of a lot of fun to play, with that added knowledge that someone might try and whack you at any time.   Players actually had to WORK to build reputations as a good or bad guy and that meant something in the community.

Everquest pigeon holed PvP into specific servers and those weren't as popular as the PvE servers.  I think that held true because the CONTENT in EQ was already difficult enough and 40 man raids were hard enough to manage against tough mechanics without throwing PvP into the mix.  Then again, EQ wasn't a sandbox MMO either.

Star Wars Galaxies, (with a heavy design from Raph Koster who also had a lot of input into UO's design) was another global PvP MMO that broke it into factions, Rebels and Empire.   That game was also a blast and very little ganking went on there.

Dark Age of Camelot broke it into THREE factions instead of just two and the PvP was also a lot of fun in that one.

Even WoW *started* out with global PvP but then there were enough whiny newbies that it got removed.  (though it's available again now with the latest release via a switch)

So no, MMO does not equal PvE.    Many of the best MMOs that have come before had some great PvP in their design.

These are all good examples as well ^^


The people who are scared of being victims need to realize that this game isnt about that. The pvp players (by nature of the game) are incentivized to experience pve by also doing meaningful pvp.

There are no positives to just player killing,but there are direct and multiple negatives for killing players.

Now of course if someone has switched on their flags for pvp everything is good. If you are unflagged for pvp, sure you'll die. But there are
3 different negative permanent effects to the player. And also possibly losing their gear

ArchivedUser

Nelson_Rebel said:

Khaler said:

I'm not sure where some of you have picked up this conceived definition of "MMO" meaning NO PvP.   I guess we can blame WoW for that as they're all that a lot of players have seen.

The first big example of an MMO (not counting Meridian 59) was Ultima Online.  It was an open sandbox allowing global PVP with zero controls over that.   While that turned out to be a mess and their subsequent attempts to control ganking didn't work very well (Trammel? Ugh), it was a hell of a lot of fun to play, with that added knowledge that someone might try and whack you at any time.   Players actually had to WORK to build reputations as a good or bad guy and that meant something in the community.

Everquest pigeon holed PvP into specific servers and those weren't as popular as the PvE servers.  I think that held true because the CONTENT in EQ was already difficult enough and 40 man raids were hard enough to manage against tough mechanics without throwing PvP into the mix.  Then again, EQ wasn't a sandbox MMO either.

Star Wars Galaxies, (with a heavy design from Raph Koster who also had a lot of input into UO's design) was another global PvP MMO that broke it into factions, Rebels and Empire.   That game was also a blast and very little ganking went on there.

Dark Age of Camelot broke it into THREE factions instead of just two and the PvP was also a lot of fun in that one.

Even WoW *started* out with global PvP but then there were enough whiny newbies that it got removed.  (though it's available again now with the latest release via a switch)

So no, MMO does not equal PvE.    Many of the best MMOs that have come before had some great PvP in their design.

These are all good examples as well ^^


The people who are scared of being victims need to realize that this game isnt about that. The pvp players (by nature of the game) are incentivized to experience pve by also doing meaningful pvp.

There are no positives to just player killing,but there are direct and multiple negatives for killing players.

Now of course if someone has switched on their flags for pvp everything is good. If you are unflagged for pvp, sure you'll die. But there are
3 different negative permanent effects to the player. And also possibly losing their gear

This is exactly why you might get up to 10% of the player base griefing potentially much less. 10% if you didn't have any negative effects but with the negative effects in place plus having the monthly fee barrier I'd be surprised to see more then 3-5% of the player base going extreme and even then they might even stop once they lose one of their good peices of gear.

ArchivedUser

Greygoose said:

Nelson_Rebel said:

Khaler said:

I'm not sure where some of you have picked up this conceived definition of "MMO" meaning NO PvP.   I guess we can blame WoW for that as they're all that a lot of players have seen.

The first big example of an MMO (not counting Meridian 59) was Ultima Online.  It was an open sandbox allowing global PVP with zero controls over that.   While that turned out to be a mess and their subsequent attempts to control ganking didn't work very well (Trammel? Ugh), it was a hell of a lot of fun to play, with that added knowledge that someone might try and whack you at any time.   Players actually had to WORK to build reputations as a good or bad guy and that meant something in the community.

Everquest pigeon holed PvP into specific servers and those weren't as popular as the PvE servers.  I think that held true because the CONTENT in EQ was already difficult enough and 40 man raids were hard enough to manage against tough mechanics without throwing PvP into the mix.  Then again, EQ wasn't a sandbox MMO either.

Star Wars Galaxies, (with a heavy design from Raph Koster who also had a lot of input into UO's design) was another global PvP MMO that broke it into factions, Rebels and Empire.   That game was also a blast and very little ganking went on there.

Dark Age of Camelot broke it into THREE factions instead of just two and the PvP was also a lot of fun in that one.

Even WoW *started* out with global PvP but then there were enough whiny newbies that it got removed.  (though it's available again now with the latest release via a switch)

So no, MMO does not equal PvE.    Many of the best MMOs that have come before had some great PvP in their design.

These are all good examples as well ^^


The people who are scared of being victims need to realize that this game isnt about that. The pvp players (by nature of the game) are incentivized to experience pve by also doing meaningful pvp.

There are no positives to just player killing,but there are direct and multiple negatives for killing players.

Now of course if someone has switched on their flags for pvp everything is good. If you are unflagged for pvp, sure you'll die. But there are
3 different negative permanent effects to the player. And also possibly losing their gear

This is exactly why you might get up to 10% of the player base griefing potentially much less. 10% if you didn't have any negative effects but with the negative effects in place plus having the monthly fee barrier I'd be surprised to see more then 3-5% of the player base going extreme and even then they might even stop once they lose one of their good peices of gear.

You hit it on the nail. 👍🏻

The system that steven and Intrepid has designed is subtle but (in theory) practically almost seamlessly thought out.

I dont see anyone enjoying having corruption for 1 kill and then being roflstomped by a weaker player because their stats get dropped by quite a lot. And then losing your gear on top of it? Lol nah even if there are some loop holey ways around it we'll find then in Alpha two and fix it. Your name still gets flagged to the server as well and bounty hunters get your exact location.

For every player killer there is, there are at least 3 or more white knight players who will jump at the chance to kill them lol and be at a huge advantage

ArchivedUser

Khaler said:

So no, MMO does not equal PvE.    Many of the best MMOs that have come before had some great PvP in their design.

I agree. I think it depends how organic that PvP is. In WoW now it's a PvE game with optional PvP elements. AoC bills itself as a game where PvP naturally plays a role in the game, that it is something you will encounter and something that can be masterered like other elements of the game.

The real issue is how beginner friendly is PvP? How well does the system protect players that aren't looking to PvP whilst still giving them the opportunity to commit when they feel like it? Ultimately the game must ensure that any player can enter PvP in the world and not feel like dying is a faliure, that they can be competative no matter their ability, and the rewards for getting better at it organically build into their characters development.

I imagine no-one would like a situation where players inexperienced and uninterested in PvP, just happily doing their quests, are being attacked by players more powerful players who are bored. On the flip side players who don't PvP can still gain enjoyment from the threat of player engagement when performing some risky PvE events - like caravans.

As in most things, balance, handicaps, and a carefully designed system will play a part. However I think casual PvP is a very natural part of AoC and won't be a daunting task when players are protected properly.

ArchivedUser

Unless I've been gone to long and things have changed iirc the penalties for killing green flag players who didn't fight back was pretty steep. Stat penalties, increased xp loss and potential to drop equipment wasn't it? That seema like it would discourage non consensual PvP a lot.

ArchivedUser

DevonMeep said:

Unless I've been gone to long and things have changed iirc the penalties for killing green flag players who didn't fight back was pretty steep. Stat penalties, increased xp loss and potential to drop equipment wasn't it? That seema like it would discourage non consensual PvP a lot.

Nope you are exactly right.

There are additional consequences to killing green flagged (non pvp) players. Having your location flagged on the map to everyone and a notice sent out on the server identifying you as under corruption. Plus the visual purple flag marking you.

And a nice bounty reward on you as well

ArchivedUser

And as Discussed, with all of these limitation is place corruption will be uncommon enough that when a Bounty goes up people will take notice. The 10% I mentioned will go up to something like 30-40% of the player base will be interested in collecting these bounties.

ArchivedUser

If this game didn't have PvP and incentives toward PvP I wouln't play.  So for every PvE purist out there there that refuses to play a game with PvP theres just as many if not more that refuse to play an mmo without. 

ArchivedUser

@loanWolf Like I mentioned it's a bell curve, and to dispel some illusions how interested will you be to go out and look to grief people? Especially with all of the real PvP options. One aspect I'm looking forward to is defending a caravan and not knowing whether or not it will be attacked.

I honestly believe that people who just want to PvE will be able to for the most part, one of the biggest things I want to do is explore the whole world and I don't foresee much opposition to doing that.

ArchivedUser

Heyho,
idea: all you have to do is think, you're on a non pvp server and the enemies you have are only smart npc's - and you're happy too. 😊
It`s maybe a  question of attitude.^^

ArchivedUser

Just putting this out there @GMSteven has stated that once the pker begins to grief there will be steps in place to help the victims (lol) like he said once it becomes pointless greifing then it’s impacting on people’s play time. I feel it’s pretty common sense what counts as greifing.

Also agree with others who have said that the amount of meaningful pvp will be huge so only the proper sad, fed up with their pointless lives types of guy will go around griefing pve/rp/crafting types. 

Sorry as this has no doubt been stated to death !! This thread has been around soooo long. Can’t we all just get along 😉  

ArchivedUser

Knxguy said:

people have been saying there NEEDS to be player that destroy pve created things to create "new" things or for the economy to work?

if i grind my way to get myself a house/land finally, can some guild just come and wreck it? exactly what 'options' are there for OPEN WORLD pvp (bane of mmos imho, but thats me) avoiding?

i dont want to pay them money every month to have my hard earned player house/land wrecked while im gone...

don't say join a massive guild, or hire some other player to protect it... why would anyone want to even bother building a house if some rando can come and wreck it, and only get a debuff for a day or till they're dead...

debuff < lost months worth of grinding and gold ..

i still stand by my statement that PVP FOCUSSED mmo games NEVER succeed... ever.

We will always know weeks in advance when a siege will take place and be able to plan accordingly to defend our homes. A wrecked home isn't necessarily too difficult to rebuild and, it will be more weeks before another siege can take place.

Ashes is PvX rather than PvP-focused.
Still might be too PvP-centric for you to enjoy.
We'll have to play the game with Corruption implemented to truly know.

ArchivedUser

Who necroed this thread... @nagash you running around forum posts again? Your skeletal horse is being beaten. 

ArchivedUser

Should have tried cremation it would be better than this shallow grave of a thread

ArchivedUser

c0ug4r said:

UnknownSystemError said:

To flag on a player and attack them you have to "force flag" on them. This means that you have to target them with a single target attack and actively push a button to start the flagging mechanic.

Do you happen to have a source for that information? It's not that I don't believe you, it's just the first time I hear of it. AoE flagging is often a point of criticism towards the flagging/corruption system and I'd love to know how to counter it 

In addition to the discord quotes above he has also gone into detail on the corruption system in quite a few interviews. While some of it may change over time, the only real change from the beginning is that they are adding a lengthy quest chain that will allow you to reduce corruption instead of the pvp death only mechanic. This one is a great interview with focus on corruption mechanics for even more information how Steven envisions the system working.  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Fvr9KYT104i8WYppCup1v6SUTZFJTobVz8uRHDas4YM/edit

ArchivedUser

Even that wasn't a real change - just a more detailed explanation.

ArchivedUser

You know, I'm curious. No one has answered Knxguy's question. Just what do you think the appeal of this game is for PVE'ers?

I got excited by the Node concept in this game, then saw that it was OWPVP and walked away. But now I am seriously curious. What do you think is the appeal to PVE players?

It looks absolutely true that both PVE and PVP is vital to the game, first to build up, then to tear down. So what are the fantastic and fun resource gathering elements in this game? What is the deep and meaningful crafting system? What are the advantages to spending resources for building? Why would merchants risk weeks of work on a very risky caravan system?

Just what are you offering PVE players that offsets the fact that they can't concentrate on PVE because they have to look over their shoulder and that they can be attacked at any time by PVP players? "You probably won't get killed" does not address the PVE mindset at all.

So just what do you PVP players intend to do if there are very few PVE players and none of your towns can get past level 2 or 3? If no one is crafting? Or gathering resouces?

Maybe there truly are enough people who love PVX that there will be people playing both sides. But that doesn't jive with my experience. People tend to want one or the other primarily and quit games where they have to do a lot of stuff that they don't want to do.

ArchivedUser

Needlehawk said:

You know, I'm curious. No one has answered Knxguy's question. Just what do you think the appeal of this game is for PVE'ers?

I got excited by the Node concept in this game, then saw that it was OWPVP and walked away. But now I am seriously curious. What do you think is the appeal to PVE players?

It looks absolutely true that both PVE and PVP is vital to the game, first to build up, then to tear down. So what are the fantastic and fun resource gathering elements in this game? What is the deep and meaningful crafting system? What are the advantages to spending resources for building? Why would merchants risk weeks of work on a very risky caravan system?

Just what are you offering PVE players that offsets the fact that they can't concentrate on PVE because they have to look over their shoulder and that they can be attacked at any time by PVP players? "You probably won't get killed" does not address the PVE mindset at all.

So just what do you PVP players intend to do if there are very few PVE players and none of your towns can get past level 2 or 3? If no one is crafting? Or gathering resouces?

Maybe there truly are enough people who love PVX that there will be people playing both sides. But that doesn't jive with my experience. People tend to want one or the other primarily and quit games where they have to do a lot of stuff that they don't want to do.

Well.. looking at Archeage that system did work fine. Open world pvp combined with pve crafting/transporting.
Do realise that in Archeage people had a reason to catch traders... in this game less because the downside can be bigger than the profit
It was easier to combat than you think. Aside from the "hope you dont get caught" or "take a lesser used route".. there is also the option. Either be in a guild that hires/or hire yourself some bodyguards.
In archeage i was part of a guild that hired themselves to traders.
So basically another guild has like 2 trading ships, then we sailed next to them with a galleon with some of our people (mostly dedicated PvPers) on it. In exchange the trading vessels transported some of our goods to. 
Same goes for land-transport.
Win/win

ArchivedUser

@Needlehawk Nothing, Ashes has been from the beginning billed as a PVX themebox. The intention was never to cater to either group, but to cater to a niche. Steven can be quoted as saying in interviews that he realizes the game won't be for everyone and he can't please everyone, so he will concentrate on making Ashes what he wants, and if it turns out niche, so be it. Those that are PVE players see the potential of what we want to build from stuff told so far. Those that are purely PVP will also find themselves having to adapt since it isn't just run around and burn shit down for shits and giggles like Conan or full loot gankfests like Albion. Those that are looking for what Ashes has billed itself to be from the beginning will find a home. The rest can press their grubby, tear-streaked faces against the window and bemoan the fact that they weren't catered to.

ArchivedUser

UnknownSystemError said:

@Needlehawk Nothing, Ashes has been from the beginning billed as a PVX themebox. The intention was never to cater to either group, but to cater to a niche. Steven can be quoted as saying in interviews that he realizes the game won't be for everyone and he can't please everyone, so he will concentrate on making Ashes what he wants, and if it turns out niche, so be it. Those that are PVE players see the potential of what we want to build from stuff told so far. Those that are purely PVP will also find themselves having to adapt since it isn't just run around and burn shit down for shits and giggles like Conan or full loot gankfests like Albion. Those that are looking for what Ashes has billed itself to be from the beginning will find a home. The rest can press their grubby, tear-streaked faces against the window and bemoan the fact that they weren't catered to.

just want to point out that I, for one, did not get that impression that this was a PVX (and i don't even know what that meant) from the marketing and info i had received BEFORE i came to the forums...

and how many people, MAINSTREAM people, actually come to the forums to get wiki links and finding that out?

ArchivedUser

Knxguy said:

.

just want to point out that I, for one, did not get that impression that this was a PVX (and i don't even know what that meant) from the marketing and info i had received BEFORE i came to the forums...

and how many people, MAINSTREAM people, actually come to the forums to get wiki links and finding that out?

Don't know. The About tab on the website pretty much breaks down what the game is about. Goes into detail about pvp and how it reacts with the world, sieges, caravans, and more. Then if you go to the FAQ page there are two separate answers for PVE and PVP. Don't know where this "marketing and info i had received BEFORE i came to the forums..." you got came from. But since Intrepid has done almost no traditional marketing itself, I would guess you heard about it from some website or content creator with a title like "New MMORPGs coming out in 2018!" with a blurb from one of the people out there that have not really followed the development and are looking for clicks. There are a bunch of them. I really don't know, but it worked to get you here, reading the forums, and now you have the resources you need. Will there always be the uneducated masses that hear about it, or see something and join before they really do the background info to find out if what they are signing up for is really for them. Sure. Just like we have people who bought testing access thinking they were getting some early access Steam game or didn't bother to find out when testing phases actually start before spending money, then pitch a bitch when they find out that for many of them their particular phase won't start till a later, to be determined date.

ArchivedUser

Just a couple things, we know corruption will negatively effect stats we just don't know how much. I was under the impression 1 kill of a roughly equal player would be minimal. So you would have to PK several players at your level before a newb could own you. Killing players much below your level should get you there faster.

As for @Knxguy asking what entices a PvE?

I love Skyrim, Fallout, etc. so very much as I am a solo RPG'r at my core. I would still be playing those games if Bethesda was still producing updated maps for those games. For me, a huge draw to Ashes is the thought that after walking about for a few weeks, when I return to a place I have been before it could have changed (node atrophy/leveling, boss monsters, siege, etc). So instead of getting bored with the same map after many months, I have the option of finding new things and have a reason to go back to places I have visited (in theory at least).

I believe Ashes is more PvE than PvP, but that's just me. I mean, besides fighting each other Ashes has tons of things to do and the fighting is designed to be meaningful and give corruption when it's not.

ArchivedUser

@Knxguy @Needlehawk From the little we know of Gathering/Crafting professions they sound great, in the Steams they've mentioned they want more paths open to players other then purely the adventuring class.

If you don't want to Caravan you can sell your stuff on the cheap to someone who takes on the risk.

You can explore, can you imagine find something equivalent to the dead sea scrolls in the game.

Yes there's a chance you get killed while outside in the world and if thats not a thing that will change, it will be in the game. If its a dealbreaker for people well there's a lot of games out there. But I'll take the risk.

ArchivedUser

TL:DR all 41 pages, read enough to determine the main focus of the post though.  I don't like to have to look over my shoulder for gankers and get grieved by them for the next hour so please make the punishment for flagging and killing players harsh enough that it deters them from doing it. 

That... that right there is the reason why Open World PvP died in Black Desert Online for the most part. With how **** their enhancement system was( Not as bad as ArcheAge But still pretty ****)  Due to how harshly players were punished for Flagging and PKing they literally stopped playing. Because the PVE players wanted to get rid of the PVP players from their spot they deliberately began karma bombing.  Did ya see them getting punished for doing so? For deliberately forcing PVP players into the negative? Nope, they got off scot-free! So free in fact, that some of the PVE community went to such lengths as to post on the OFFICIAL Forums how to Karma Bomb players and didn't get in trouble for it! 

Now add to the stack the fact that The Developers nerfed CCs in PvP all so that THEY COULD PLAY THEIR OWN GAME.  And you have an unwanted scenario right there. I love PvE and also love PVP.  I get where you are coming from but all the old MMOs are about to peaceably be retired. WoW released its final expansion, LOTRO did its last one, hopefully they stop beating the dead horses that are ArcheAge, EQ, EQ2, and BDO soon.  

We have TWO potentially amazing games on the horizon for 2019/2020 release whenever they decide to bring them out. That are both claiming to restore the glory days of the MMORPG. Each one caters to a particular audience. Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen to the EQ 1 Classic MMO player with a fresh look and feel  added to it and PVE content focus; And Ashes of Creation where you are creating the content AS A COMMUNITY and bringing the world to fruition or ruin through your decisions not just as an individual but as a community. The latter has PVE as well but the progression of the world has some PVP dependencies to it which is most welcome.  

 To the OP who said Pantheon graphics are crappy like EQ1, look again my friend. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9-RuR7mVfc  They've already improved on them and are only getting started. 

As a PVE player I intend to give Ashes a shot over Pantheon. I like the idea of creating a world over entering a pre-built world with already existing civilizations and so forth. And as a PVP player I don't mind a bit of punishment but I don't want to see it so harsh.  Finish the bounty hunter system and incentivize it for those interested in doing the system to get rewarded for finding the players. You're talking as if there are only going to be three Playstyles here; PVE/PVP/PVX.  What you may or may not realize is that there are very likely already many sub-playstyles out there such as Mercenary Factions, Corruption Factions, Dedicated Trade-skillers, Dedicated Shopkeepers/RPers.   Anything is possible in a game such as this. 

TL:DR Version of my post :  Some punishment is fine for PVPers like myself but make it too harsh and you lose a significant portion of your potential player-base before this game gets through the gate. 

ArchivedUser

@Stormspirit There is no punishment for PvP, only for griefing. There are so many legit avenues for world PvP and minimal incentive to kill a random person in the wild.

If people want to be able to grief they will get punished accordingly, do it once and get a little corruption but do it more and you might lose gear.

But honestly I'd think getting a dozen like minded folk to raid a caravan would be a lot more exciting.

ArchivedUser

Greygoose said:

@Stormspirit There is no punishment for PvP, only for griefing. There are so many legit avenues for world PvP and minimal incentive to kill a random person in the wild.

If people want to be able to grief they will get punished accordingly, do it once and get a little corruption but do it more and you might lose gear.

But honestly I'd think getting a dozen like minded folk to raid a caravan would be a lot more exciting.

I completely agree with this statement entirely.  In EQ2 the way they eliminated griefing was by putting each PC you killed on a 15 minute grief timer. Meaning sure you could kill them but you would gain no experience and that kill would not count towards your PVP Bounty quest at all. I intend to be a goody in the end but I want to take out a caravan or two here and there. It's not theft and murder if it's for the good of my node I belong to, right!? xD