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

ArchivedUser

But again beyond the resource griefing issue


The open world pvp system with the Node system and Corruption in conjuction with the Bounties is the best iteration of meaningful pvp with the best approach to address griefers without sacrificing the true interactible open world feeling.

ArchivedUser

@Nelson_Rebel If I remember correctly you can't flag someone from the same Node as you, a guild member, a party member or a raid member

Friends will often belong to the same Node, so getting friends to kill you will perhaps be hard to do.

ArchivedUser

This discussion goes round and round with the same tired "I will use this loophole to make corruption a joke!" Until we get to test it early next year it is just another mental **** exercise. But have no fear, there are plenty out there that will be testing all the various loopholes, exploits, and workarounds, and kicking up reports to the powers that be for them to make decisions about where they want to take the system.

ArchivedUser

UnknownSystemError said:

This discussion goes round and round with the same tired "I will use this loophole to make corruption a joke!" Until we get to test it early next year it is just another mental **** exercise. But have no fear, there are plenty out there that will be testing all the various loopholes, exploits, and workarounds, and kicking up reports to the powers that be for them to make decisions about where they want to take the system.

Yup, give them a chance to SHOW us what it will be like before we use our past experiences to cloud our opinions and DECIDE (without evidence) what it will be like.

ArchivedUser

UnknownSystemError said:

This discussion goes round and round with the same tired "I will use this loophole to make corruption a joke!" Until we get to test it early next year it is just another mental **** exercise. But have no fear, there are plenty out there that will be testing all the various loopholes, exploits, and workarounds, and kicking up reports to the powers that be for them to make decisions about where they want to take the system.

Don't be a mental **** c***-blocker...

(Joking!, Sorry couldn't resist.. haha)

ArchivedUser

UnknownSystemError said:

This discussion goes round and round with the same tired "I will use this loophole to make corruption a joke!" Until we get to test it early next year it is just another mental **** exercise. But have no fear, there are plenty out there that will be testing all the various loopholes, exploits, and workarounds, and kicking up reports to the powers that be for them to make decisions about where they want to take the system.

Sorry I don't agree with this logic.

For the record you can look back through the pages that I 100% support the Open world pvp aspect.

What I do not support is the capacity of griefers to profit from griefing and Pking. And based off of the information so far, you do infact get a substantial resource drop from killing non combatants ingame.

I am a PvPer, and the real kind of pvper. Not the wannabe pvpers who suck so bad at actual pvp against real players interested in pvp. And then all that they do is clip themselves killing players who are just out questing.

If you want to PK people who are out questing, and just enjoing the game. Then the ONLY incentive you should game from the disruption of that persons time of gameplay is the Satisfaction that you killed them. And the fact you have succesfully disrupted their gameplay by signifigant time value since there will be little to no Fast travel in the game.

Any gains beyond that are 100% abusive griefing against NON combatant flagged individuals.


PvP should be incentivized for REAL pvp, meaning ingame pvpers flagged for it. And by flagging yourself you should gain more rewards for doing so and players who want a fight will not suffer consequences fighting people who are flagged for it. Doing so makes it more productive for the Node war system and more benificial for ingame progression. PvErs will still have issues here and there, but that will be more due to the fact they most likely pissed someone off and not to someone who realized they can profit from killing randoms who are exploring. Or to a node conflict ingame


And thats the way it should be

ArchivedUser

I think you, @Nelson_Rebel, do make valid points.

As for non-PVP-flagged players not dropping resources I think that is a bit odd. I think you should lose the same amount of resources in a non-contested PvP death that you would by being killed by a MOB. I think losing less because you engaged in PvP is a good way to add incentive to fighting back.

I see where this could be considered an incentive for non-contested PvP though, and how that strengthens your point. Imo, I would like to see the corruption gained be such a deterrent that killing another player over loot only is not popular. I like meaning, so defending a resource or offing a potential spy (since you won't know who they are) should be options. Since you are risking corruption you should be rewarded.

I do not think there should be any additional reasons to "seek" corruption or benefits given to those with corruption or locations available that can "harbor" corrupted players.

ArchivedUser

Nelson_Rebel said:

Again this is totally fine, and going out solo will still have this factor. And you will still want a guild and friends to go out in the wilds to get resources so that you dont get ganked

But you should not be losing your resources if you are just out in the wilds enjoying and exploring the games environment. Thats just ridiculous lol and I am a pvper myself.


The risk and danger remains, you can still be killed. The only difference is you shouldnt be punished and being griefed killed at the same time. That's largely unbalanced since Corruption CAN be removed, the Player killer can just drop his resources off, and then have a friend kill him (a fellow guild of pkers even) and then keep at it. Or the pker can simply hide then log out to avoid bounty killers. Then log back in to have his corruption removed by friends or a guild without losing his resources or items

You see where I'm going? 

I do see where you are going, but I do not agree with you. You are relying on an exploit of the system to support your point.

Banditry exists, and the corruption system is a fair representation of the larger world's response to the crimes being committed. But banditry that does not yield any loot doesn't make much sense.

I'd be okay with the bandit looting 10% of a victim's material harvest, so that killing an artisan with a full mule would grant the bandit a full load of supplies while the artisan respawns with 90% of his load. Any repeated murder by the original bandit at that point would be pointless since he would not be able to carry the goods (unless he is committing his banditry with his own mule). The bandit would be incurring a serious penalty for his banditry, but it would be a somewhat even trade-off assuming he chose his targets wisely.

What I would not be okay with is serial-murderers circumventing the corruption system with murder-exchanges. I'd suggest that some of the penalties associated with corruption be placed on an in-game timer, so that even if the player manages to get out of the corrupted state quickly, his penalties would stick around. Perhaps some penalties could include:

- can not gain XP for 'x' amount of minutes per player killed once corruption has ended

- regain 'x' amount of lost stats per 10 minutes (in-game time) regardless of one's state (corrupted or not).

With these penalties, a player would not be able to shrug aside corruption-accrued penalties by engaging in player-assisted suicide. But rather, the player would have to deal with the penalties for a period of time even after returning to non-combatant status.

We'll have a rather long alpha testing period to work out the details and eliminate the loop-holes in the current system.

ArchivedUser

I see the points too but I also see that they do somewhat conflict with risk vs reward. If all that gather/explorers have to risk in return for banking loads and loads of materials is some wear and tear on gear, it would likely lessen the value both of the materials and the value to have characters that go and get the materials.

ArchivedUser

Im super passionate about every kind of PvP content, though i never understood the thing behind griefing lol, is that even fun or just compensation for RL issues?

ArchivedUser

@Azathoth
@Nefelia

I have read both of your points and I agree to some extent with you both.

The only reason I was pointing out the resource drop issue was because I do believe it is an area to look at for potential griefing. 

As I said, I'm 100% behind the Open world pvp. The Node system is a beautiful way to incorporate the open world system and corruption and bounties are great.

But I do understand the PvErs concerns and want to make sure we all are on a fair footing. As thats generally how I prefer to pvp. I dont want incentive to kill people who are out there exploring, or other pvpers to do so. Pking should be an optional addition to the game I agree, but profiting from it (even with corruption) has me skeptical as a pvper.

But as @UnknownSystemError mentioned the Alpha 2 will provide more in depth testing of the system. And I agree with him that arguing it is somewhat semantics at this point. But I'd rather think of everything now so it doesn't become delayed issues later on and abused at launch. PvP and PvE will be very closely tied together in AoC so its good to pay attention to both

ArchivedUser

We're likely 8+ months away from A2 but one of the things I'd like to test for sure is farm unmolested for 1-3 hours and then have 2-3 people kills me 2-3 times each over a 4th hour.

See how much stuff I lose on top of my farming efficiency.

But there's no point is discussing something so far off.

But I think that once we're closer to the A2 launch we definitely need to talk about and plan such tests.

At that point I suggest we brainstorm a number of worse possible scenarios and we excel results and see what is acceptable.

ArchivedUser

RealDickMove said:

Dygz said:

What I have experienced is asshat PvPers who relentlessly follow me in order to force me into direct PvP combat when I'm not in the mood for that activity.

Then Kill Them.

Nothing stop's ganking quicker than the gankee teabagging them. If they come back do it again...Chances are they won't come back for a third.

If they escalate and bring friends, you do the same. Eventually, congratulations you created content. If you win repeatedly they go away. Nobody likes dying repeatedly.

TL;DR Git gud.

Has nothing to do with gitting gud.
Has to do with forcing me into an activity I'm not in the mood for.
Doesn't matter to me who wins the battle.
Corruption needs to be a strong enough deterrent - which remains to be seen. 
"I'm not in the mood to fight other players."
"Well, just fight and kill the other player(s)."
That's an absurd suggestion.

ArchivedUser

GEEZYPEE said:

They should add a pvp ENABLE-DISABLE button but everyone will have PVP disabled.
But the Answer to your question is to join a guild that does both. The reason i say this is because you love to do Pve and i love to do Pvp, but also pve so i will join you and we can do pve content and when people decide to attack us, i jump in front and begin to pvp while you assist or try to get away with our loot or whatever, and the reason this is great is because it wont just be me pvping, it will be a group of pvp'ers and pve'ers together in numbers.

PVPers typically seem to think this is a good solution. I never really understand why.
It's like asking pacifists to build bombs even though they will never have to be the ones to use them.
"I understand you are a pacifist, but if you make the bullets for me, I will shoot them for you."

ArchivedUser

Azathoth said:

In most of traditional D&D games I have ran or played a part in bandits are a thing. Historically bandits were a thing. For me the OWPVP is just part of the fantasy medieval package. If some players want to risk being bandits I think they should have that option as it now is with my current understanding of the flagging & corruption systems.

NPC bandits are good enough. I have no interest in dealing with player bandits.
In fact, player bandits as a routine thing would cause me to quit playing.

Well...
I'm probably OK with caravan bandits/raiders since I can choose not participate in a caravan run.

ArchivedUser

Soulkey said:

For example, in a organized guild you can gather what members of the guild requires to progress.  If you are obtaining an item from a guild work order and someone is griefing you, you can tell your guild what is going on and since they want to progress and need your abilities to gather efficiently they are going to smoosh that PKer.

With all of the negatives that come from corruption, I highly doubt that there will be any issues like in BDO.  But it adds to the danger and thrill of going out into a strange wilderness to gather items.  At least those are my opinions!

I'm not really interested in joining an organized guild - I'm too Chaotic for that.
I am very interested to see how people adventure together based on the villages and towns they belong to.
Based on common interests.

Different players enjoy different types of thrills.
I get my fill of thrills by stealth-exploring the frontier as far as I can go before encountering red-skulled mobs that can one-shot.
Being attacked by other players against my will doesn't add to any thrill - typically just ruins my play session and causes me to leave the game pissed-off.
If I've chosen to participate in a battlegrounds or duel or arena - it's fine.

ArchivedUser

One of my fav things about the mmorpg i played in the past was the OWPVP and the massive battles/guild wars that happened out in the middle of no where. Or sometimes in towns. Started with 1v1, or 1v2 etc then ended with 100+ ppl. and 100's of kills. Without much penalty. Basically all you got was pk points, and you just afk to let them go down. But beyond a certain amount of pk points you start dropping gear on the ground when you die, for anyone to grab, and its theirs. 
I really hope they have some... at least 1.. server with less penalties for ppl who enjoy the OWPVP and the enemies/allies/friends/drama/frustration/feeling of victory/excitement it gives. 
Also dont like the "flag up" mode or whatever, its more fun when no one knows if your in PK mode or not... Untill you attack. 

ArchivedUser

ArchivedUser

I am a PvE player, I've been ganked many a time... It's not that big of a deal provided the punishment for dying is not too extreme and there are consequences for ganking when not in a war. In most PvP games, getting ganked is just a minor time inconvenience, so I don't understand the fear of it.  This is not a linear game like WoW, so it's not like gankers can halt your progression, you can simply progress in a safer/less ganky area.
As long as the mechanics behind OWPvP is good, fair, and punishes toxic behavior, then there is nothing to worry about, just provide constructive feedback. But this game has been advertised as having OWPvP since the kickstarter... so I am confused why a PvE player who would not tolerate OWPvP would be at all interested?

ArchivedUser

Meh, I think that a major part of Dygz point is that the standard solutions/advice just aren't doing to work for all players that simply do not enjoy random PVP very much or at all. They've heard it all before... It's a valid and fair feeling as far as it goes.

ArchivedUser

Dygz said:

I get my fill of thrills by stealth-exploring the frontier as far as I can go before encountering red-skulled mobs that can one-shot.
Being attacked by other players against my will doesn't add to any thrill - typically just ruins my play session and causes me to leave the game pissed-off.
If I've chosen to participate in a battlegrounds or duel or arena - it's fine.

Well, if you are not dragging along a mule then I see very little reason for anyone to kills you. There is nothing to gain.

Of course, that does nothing for those that like to kill others for the sheer fun of being a complete dick, but hopefully the corruption system will be robust enough to drive them to move ganker-friendly games.

Greygoose said:

We're likely 8+ months away from A2 but one of the things I'd like to test for sure is farm unmolested for 1-3 hours and then have 2-3 people kills me 2-3 times each over a 4th hour.

See how much stuff I lose on top of my farming efficiency.

I wouldn't mind murdering you a few times for science! I'm planning on testing out the corruption system from the ganker point of view to see how well it functions and whether there are any loopholes in the system. Willing victims are far better than unwilling victims for this purpose.

ArchivedUser

Nelson_Rebel said:

What I do not support is the capacity of griefers to profit from griefing and Pking. And based off of the information so far, you do infact get a substantial resource drop from killing non combatants ingame.

I am a PvPer, and the real kind of pvper. Not the wannabe pvpers who suck so bad at actual pvp against real players interested in pvp. And then all that they do is clip themselves killing players who are just out questing.

If you want to PK people who are out questing, and just enjoing the game. Then the ONLY incentive you should game from the disruption of that persons time of gameplay is the Satisfaction that you killed them. And the fact you have succesfully disrupted their gameplay by signifigant time value since there will be little to no Fast travel in the game.

Any gains beyond that are 100% abusive griefing against NON combatant flagged individuals.


PvP should be incentivized for REAL pvp, meaning ingame pvpers flagged for it. And by flagging yourself you should gain more rewards for doing so and players who want a fight will not suffer consequences fighting people who are flagged for it. Doing so makes it more productive for the Node war system and more benificial for ingame progression. PvErs will still have issues here and there, but that will be more due to the fact they most likely pissed someone off and not to someone who realized they can profit from killing randoms who are exploring. Or to a node conflict ingame


And thats the way it should be

I must have missed this the first time.

I feel the ideal solution for this would be to only allow looting from players carting around a mule. People going on quests or just exploring would not have mules, could not be looted, and as such would be an unattractive target for bandits. Gatherers carting around a mule full of goods, on the other hand, would be a prime target.

ArchivedUser

Nefelia said:

Nelson_Rebel said:

What I do not support is the capacity of griefers to profit from griefing and Pking. And based off of the information so far, you do infact get a substantial resource drop from killing non combatants ingame.

I am a PvPer, and the real kind of pvper. Not the wannabe pvpers who suck so bad at actual pvp against real players interested in pvp. And then all that they do is clip themselves killing players who are just out questing.

If you want to PK people who are out questing, and just enjoing the game. Then the ONLY incentive you should game from the disruption of that persons time of gameplay is the Satisfaction that you killed them. And the fact you have succesfully disrupted their gameplay by signifigant time value since there will be little to no Fast travel in the game.

Any gains beyond that are 100% abusive griefing against NON combatant flagged individuals.


PvP should be incentivized for REAL pvp, meaning ingame pvpers flagged for it. And by flagging yourself you should gain more rewards for doing so and players who want a fight will not suffer consequences fighting people who are flagged for it. Doing so makes it more productive for the Node war system and more benificial for ingame progression. PvErs will still have issues here and there, but that will be more due to the fact they most likely pissed someone off and not to someone who realized they can profit from killing randoms who are exploring. Or to a node conflict ingame


And thats the way it should be

I must have missed this the first time.

I feel the ideal solution for this would be to only allow looting from players carting around a mule. People going on quests or just exploring would not have mules, could not be looted, and as such would be an unattractive target for bandits. Gatherers carting around a mule full of goods, on the other hand, would be a prime target.

I did suggest in an earlier post that leaving resource drops to caravans and ships would help incentivize the node conflict system and make PKing for the griefers less attractive. As at that point pvping for caravans and ships is less griefing than it is actual node conflict with meaningful value

I didn't get any feedback as of yet regarding that.

ArchivedUser

Bringslite said:

Meh, I think that a major part of Dygz point is that the standard solutions/advice just aren't going to work for all players that simply do not enjoy random PVP very much or at all. They've heard it all before... It's a valid and fair feeling as far as it goes.

Now that you mention that...
I had fun with Bless Online. (More fun than I'm currently having with WoW.)
My random PvP encounters there weren't disruptive because the battles and corpse runs were both quick, so... it only took about 3 or 4 minutes out of a 5+ hour play session.

So, that's also another factor I'll have to evaluate:
Ashes battles look comparatively quick.
And I'll have to see how far death takes me from my immediate goals.
I may very well be content with, "Yeah, go ahead and kill me."
And then happily explore where ever it is I end up after death.
(Also, might depend on how debilitating xp debt is)

ArchivedUser

Nefelia said:

Dygz said:

I get my fill of thrills by stealth-exploring the frontier as far as I can go before encountering red-skulled mobs that can one-shot.
Being attacked by other players against my will doesn't add to any thrill - typically just ruins my play session and causes me to leave the game pissed-off.
If I've chosen to participate in a battlegrounds or duel or arena - it's fine.

Well, if you are not dragging along a mule then I see very little reason for anyone to kills you. There is nothing to gain.

Of course, that does nothing for those that like to kill others for the sheer fun of being a complete dick, but hopefully the corruption system will be robust enough to drive them to move ganker-friendly games.

The incentives/motivations to kill other players should be more meaningful than looting individuals. Even looting individuals with mules.
Caravans should be more profitable and enticing.
The motivations for killing other players should be because they are doing something that is direct conflict with the goals/well-being of your Region, Religion or Social affiliation.
And that kind of conflict should also open up choices and negotiations that are more meaningful than, "You are KoS because I hate all xx." Or, "I'm roleplaying a bandit!" So that even what we might normally consider "random" PvP conflicts are actually still meaningful, objective-based PvP conflicts: Like, "I need to destroy this idol to XX and build an idol to YY in order to acquire the Religious augments I desire."
Where, obviously, the worshipers of XX are going to want to prevent their idol from being destroyed.

ArchivedUser

keep pvp it makes the game fun and exciting else no point for caravans lelelele

ArchivedUser

Nefelia said:

Nelson_Rebel said:

What I do not support is the capacity of griefers to profit from griefing and Pking. And based off of the information so far, you do infact get a substantial resource drop from killing non combatants ingame.

I am a PvPer, and the real kind of pvper. Not the wannabe pvpers who suck so bad at actual pvp against real players interested in pvp. And then all that they do is clip themselves killing players who are just out questing.

If you want to PK people who are out questing, and just enjoing the game. Then the ONLY incentive you should game from the disruption of that persons time of gameplay is the Satisfaction that you killed them. And the fact you have succesfully disrupted their gameplay by signifigant time value since there will be little to no Fast travel in the game.

Any gains beyond that are 100% abusive griefing against NON combatant flagged individuals.


PvP should be incentivized for REAL pvp, meaning ingame pvpers flagged for it. And by flagging yourself you should gain more rewards for doing so and players who want a fight will not suffer consequences fighting people who are flagged for it. Doing so makes it more productive for the Node war system and more benificial for ingame progression. PvErs will still have issues here and there, but that will be more due to the fact they most likely pissed someone off and not to someone who realized they can profit from killing randoms who are exploring. Or to a node conflict ingame


And thats the way it should be

I must have missed this the first time.

I feel the ideal solution for this would be to only allow looting from players carting around a mule. People going on quests or just exploring would not have mules, could not be looted, and as such would be an unattractive target for bandits. Gatherers carting around a mule full of goods, on the other hand, would be a prime target.

If a mule also acts as a mount, which it has been depicted as such, if you own one you would certainly be using it exploring and questing.  Good gatherers are always ready no matter what they are doing.

ArchivedUser

ArchivedUser

Corruption here I come! 
(Sorry couldn't resist )

ArchivedUser

Nelson_Rebel said:

I did suggest in an earlier post that leaving resource drops to caravans and ships would help incentivize the node conflict system and make PKing for the griefers less attractive. As at that point pvping for caravans and ships is less griefing than it is actual node conflict with meaningful value

I didn't get any feedback as of yet regarding that.

I feel that gatherers with mules (or anyone with a mule, really) should be fair game for looting. Economic warfare will be a thing, and looting from the gatherers or courriers of rival guilds/nodes should be one of the common elements of said warfare.

T-Elf said:

If a mule also acts as a mount, which it has been depicted as such, if you own one you would certainly be using it exploring and questing.  Good gatherers are always ready no matter what they are doing.

Well, that would present the player with an important choice, would it not? Mount a horse for fast travel and lower appeal to possible bandits, or mount a mule for the greater utility/storage at the cost of greater appeal to bandits.

Dygz said:

The incentives/motivations to kill other players should be more meaningful than looting individuals. Even looting individuals with mules.

There will be plenty of motivation to kill people with mules aside from simple plunder. For instance, I fully intent to murder rival gatherers at contested resource sites in order to secure those resources for my guild mates. I might even murder gatherers from rival nodes in order to halt their progress and give my home node an advantage. Why should I not get loot from the dead rivals and their dead mules?

Indeed,why should I not get every simple scrap of material that was on my victim's body and mule? That is the far more realistic scenario, is it not? The answer to those questions is that such a looting system would be way too harsh for the PvE-minded players. As such, looting will be limited to a small portion of carried goods (or so we speculate). That is a rather small price to pay, is it not?

AoC is designed to have an element of risk and strategic play. I made a suggestion that would benefit PvE players while still maintaining that element of risk and strategic choice in the belief that it would placate PvE players. Chances are that even this suggestion will not be noted or even approved, and all players will remain lootable. If my suggestion does not appease you, then chances are the actual game will please you even less.