Nefelia said: I fully intend 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 your body and on your 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.
I expect that I will be looting you, should I choose to engage in battle with you. And, no, looting you would not be a worthwhile reward for being forced to battle you when I'm not in the mood. There is no worthwhile reward for that.
From what you say, gaining Corruption will, for you, be a price worth paying for killing non-combatant gatherers you deem are encroaching on your territory. To the extent you posit, it would mean that Corruption is not a sufficient deterrent.
I never said that people should not be able to loot players or their mules. I said that the incentives/motivations for killing other players should be more meaningful than just looting. Halting the progress of a rival node is more meaningful than looting individual players and their mules. That is an example I had in mind, yes. Contested resources is a meaningful incentive/motivation if the consequences of winning or losing the contest have more impact on the world than just, "I want to farm here, so you shouldn't be able to." There should be a wide variety of consequences that impact the world, rather than just one player.
I expect that I will be looting you, should I choose to engage in battle with you.
I'll be sure to watch out for you then.
Glib nonsense aside, I am a PvP player first and foremost. Getting killed by other players is a routine occurrence for me and my ilk.
From what you say, gaining Corruption will, for you, be a price
worth paying for killing non-combatant gatherers you deem are
encroaching on your territory. To the extent you posit, it would mean that Corruption is not a sufficient deterrent.
Personally, I have very little reason to kill others in the open world, and very little desire to become corrupted. However, for my guild I will do what is needed to secure an advantage, regardless of the corruption I have to take as a result.
I believe a fair amount of people have similar attitudes, since this is shaping up to be a game in which guild competition and node competition are core conflicts, as well as drivers of content.
Corruption will likely be a strong deterrent to meaningless random murder, a moderate deterrent to banditry, but not a significant deterrent to murder if the motivation is driven by guild/node competition.
I said that the incentives/motivations for killing other players should be more meaningful than just looting.
People are motivated by different things. Whether banditry is common or not will be determined by the drop rate and the harshness of the corruption system.
Given that Intrepid Studios envisions a more realistic world in which choices have consequences and danger lurks in the open world, I do not believe that they will tighten the screws on corruption tightly enough to discourage banditry (but hey, I may be way off on this one, who knows).
And, no, looting you would not be a worthwhile reward for being forced
to battle you when I'm not in the mood. There is no worthwhile reward
for that.
I believe the key for crouching is 'shift'. Perhaps you can tea-bag my cooling corpse and derive enough satisfaction from that to make the inconvenience of non-consensual PvP worthwhile.
This type of PvP makes consequences real. If you act like a douchebag, regardless of the in-game consequences, your reputation is going to get around and you'll end up on tons of player's "Kill on Sight" list. That's why I love this kind of open world PvP.
Just because you CAN kill someone, doesn't mean there won't be repercussions from doing it.
Here's a typical PvE scenario that happens ALL THE TIME in PvE only games:
You're out gathering and you have a pretty good rhythm down. You're bouncing between a half dozen nodes and they're respawning right as you come up on them. Things are going good and then some asshat jumps into your area and starts gathering them right in front of you even though you're obviously working those spots and even though there's ton more spots elsewhere, this person just decides that they have to have the spots where you've been working. Pretty soon they're running along side you, trying to grab nodes right before you do to stop you.
Now in a PvE world, you gripe about this. call them names but not be able to do anything about it. You'd leave your good spot and try to find another. In some cases, the asshat would follow you and continue to harrass.
In an OWPVP scenario, you mention in guild chat that some asshat is harrassing you. If you don't think you can take him on your own, you get some friends to come join you and turn the jerk into a greasy spot on the ground. If they return, you do it again until they get the hint.
Best of all, in the future, you recognize that guy's name when he's looking for a group for a dungeon, or wanting to buy something you may have. Let em know you're blackballing them because they were a jerk in the past.
Reputation is a very real and important thing in OWPVP worlds. There's no stat showing it on your character, but victims have long memories and the bigger an asshat you are to people, the more you'll have to constantly watch your back.
P.S. In an OWPVP sandbox game, something rare always seems to showup too, it's called "Manners" and surprisingly you'll find people saying things like "Oh, I'm sorry, didn't see you were gathering here, I'll move".
I was just thinking, these discussions have opened my eyes to the plight of our more PvE focused brethren.
I propose to help them out we create guilds that protect bridges for a small fee of course and when people come to pass our bridges we can let them pass unmolested once fees are payed.
Of course people can opt to fight us and we can then collect our pound of flesh from their corpses and then let them pass.
Nefelia said: I am a PvP player first and foremost. Getting killed by other players is a routine occurrence for me and my ilk.
Precisely why I expect it won't be you who is looting me.
Nefelia said: Personally, I have very little reason to kill others in the open world, and very little desire to become corrupted. However, for my guild I will do what is needed to secure an advantage, regardless of the corruption I have to take as a result.
I believe a fair amount of people have similar attitudes, since this is shaping up to be a game in which guild competition and node competition are core conflicts, as well as drivers of content.
Corruption will likely be a strong deterrent to meaningless random murder, a moderate deterrent to banditry, but not a significant deterrent to murder if the motivation is driven by guild/node competition.
Attacking others because your guild asks you, regardless of gaining Corruption is another indication that Corruption will not be a sufficient deterrent for "random" PvP combat.
Node competition is meaningful conflict, but that leaves room for negotiation which is different than killing folk just because you're in the mood for PvP.
It gives me the option to go gather in another spot rather than fight - if I'm not in the mood to fight other players.
Killing other players because your guild tells you to kill other players does not afford that option.
Nefelia said:Given that Intrepid Studios envisions a more realistic world in which choices have consequences and danger lurks in the open world, I do not believe that they will tighten the screws on corruption tightly enough to discourage banditry (but hey, I may be way off on this one, who knows).
Corruption is intended to discourage the banditry of individuals and their mules. Which is why people gathering are flagged as non-combatants by default.
Caravan banditry is not discouraged - which is why people escorting Caravans are auto-flagged as combatants.
Nefelia said:I believe the key for crouching is 'shift'. Perhaps you can tea-bag my cooling corpse and derive enough satisfaction from that to make the inconvenience of non-consensual PvP worthwhile.
I'm guessing you don't comprehend English very well?
My word, no need to get so hostile. Nor is there any need to belittle my PvP skills. It hardly furthers your argument.
You also seem to be of the opinion that guilds will be pushing members to commit random murder, which is likely not to be the case. Guild-directed violence is likely to have a greater purpose behind it. Guild and node competition and wars may very well paint a target on your back depending on your guild/node association. You always have the option to leave for more peaceful pastures if your guild or node becomes the target.
Corruption is intended to discourage the banditry of individuals and
their mules. Which is why people gathering are flagged as non-combatants
by default.
I don't believe I've ever seen anything to suggest that this is the case. I am well aware that Steven wishes to heavily discourage griefing and prevent the game from becoming a 'gank-box'. Simple banditry is far removed from griefing and serial-ganking.
Corruption will act to place a burden on bandits, however, and make their lives difficult via bounty hunters (and other systems that have yet to be revealed). This is - once again - a reflection of reality, in which criminals exist and are hunted down.
This is a deliberate system, and you are fooling yourself if you believe that IS does not support balanced banditry.
I'm guessing you don't comprehend English very well?
I was just thinking, these discussions have opened my eyes to the plight of our more PvE focused brethren.
I propose to help them out we create guilds that protect bridges for a small fee of course and when people come to pass our bridges we can let them pass unmolested once fees are payed.
Of course people can opt to fight us and we can then collect our pound of flesh from their corpses and then let them pass.
Oh no, not Trolls, the plan would be to stay on top of the Troll. But in seriousness did Jeff and Steven mention something about Freehold placement in regards to bridges? I think I recall something about not being able to place on caraven routes.
My word, no need to get so hostile. Nor is there any need to belittle my PvP skills. It hardly furthers your argument.
You also seem to be of the opinion that guilds will be pushing members to commit random murder, which is likely not to be the case. Guild-directed violence is likely to have a greater purpose behind it. Guild and node competition and wars may very well paint a target on your back depending on your guild/node association. You always have the option to leave for more peaceful pastures if your guild or node becomes the target.
Corruption is intended to discourage the banditry of individuals and
their mules. Which is why people gathering are flagged as non-combatants
by default.
I don't believe I've ever seen anything to suggest that this is the case. I am well aware that Steven wishes to heavily discourage griefing and prevent the game from becoming a 'gank-box'. Simple banditry is far removed from griefing and serial-ganking.
Corruption will act to place a burden on bandits, however, and make their lives difficult via bounty hunters (and other systems that have yet to be revealed). This is - once again - a reflection of reality, in which criminals exist and are hunted down.
This is a deliberate system, and you are fooling yourself if you believe that IS does not support balanced banditry.
I'm guessing you don't comprehend English very well?
Spot on! Have a great day.
LMAO I am in no way being hostile. You're the one who started the banter of who will be looting whom. I am just continuing to play with that concept.
Node competition is inherently objective-based. Official guild-wars are also systematically objective-based. Objective-based PvP combat is "meaningful". The hope (and promise) is that Ashes will have a plethora of PvP conflict and combat that is significantly more "meaningful" than "simple banditry".
It's not true that people always have the option to leave for more peaceful pastures. That may be mostly true with regard to your specific guild. Should be easy enough to avoid guild competition by not joining a guild. Same could be true for not becoming a citizen of a node. Although, again, there should be a variety of meaningful consequences for adventuring in a region that impacts the world in such a manner that people find themselves in a conflict likely to result in direct PvP combat... But, that should provide negotiation for options to avoid combat.
"Simple banditry" of individuals and mules is inherently discouraged by Corruption and only being able to loot resources, rather than full loot of gear and funds. You have now, for some reason, added "heavily" as a qualifier. But, yeah, that is also an aspect of heavily discouraging people turning Ashes into a gank-box. If the goal is banditry or the goal is to impede node progression, raiding caravans is the better path for that than mugging individual gatherers.
Short version on this thread. PvPers want the game to remain as-is. The PvE crowd has asked for PvE servers. Each crowd has offered feedback on alternatives or opposed the others view. Lots of toxicity. A push and pull with very little compromise.
That should save you a lot of reading.
Oh stfu, if you want baby world go and play world of warcraft, there are plenty of games for you.
There are almost NO games with the type of full free pvp, where you can also talk and trade with everyone you fight kind of world.
Like seriously I can't count how many MMO's there are already out there for you.
Go play ESO, WoW, GW2, Blade and Soul, Pantheon Online, ect, yadadada on and on and on and on.
The whole reason everyone is waiting for this mmo is so we can have the EXACT WORLD YOU DON'T WANT.
You dense idiot, like why aren't you playing one of those? There is literally like no MMOs anymore that didn't cash in and ruin the game by making it P2W that have a system like this.
Go and play one of those other MMOs and stop trying to change this one, this is what we are ALL here for.
Stop trying to change the world we all are hyped for, the full free pvp/talking/trading at once is why we all want this game, if you don't, then you are really here because you selfishly just want a change.
Us on the other hand have no where else to go, as no other game has these mechanics that isn't also P2W.
Stop trying to change the world we all are hyped for, the full free pvp/talking/trading at once is why we all want this game, if you don't, then you are really here because you selfishly just want a change.
Please grab and post a quote where I said I want something to change.
This is still a great thread. Over time, there actually is new information introduced to this thread because new info has been shared by the devs. And, not everyone is entrenched in the exact same position they were at the start of the thread.
Better to keep this one rather than have five new ones on this topic pop up because this one is closed.
This is still a great thread. Over time, there actually is new information introduced to this thread because new info has been shared by the devs. And, not everyone is entrenched in the exact same position they were at the start of the thread.
Better to keep this one rather than have five new ones on this topic pop up because this one is closed.
That is a valid point. still I wish there was a way to hide it
Stop trying to change the world we all are hyped for, the full free pvp/talking/trading at once is why we all want this game, if you don't, then you are really here because you selfishly just want a change.
Please grab and post a quote where I said I want something to change.
LMAO I am in no way being hostile. You're the one who started the banter of who will be looting whom. I am just continuing to play with that concept.
Ah, I see. I used the second person due to sloppy writing when discussing looting rather than the third person, and you mistook it for a barb.
Honestly, we are very unlikely to ever meet in game, as the chances of you playing in the same region (OCE), same server, or even adjacent nodes are extremely unlikely. Given your aversion to PvP, I highly doubt I will be meeting up with you in the arenas either.
I'll go back and edit the wording to keep it in line with the rest of the post.
"Simple banditry" of individuals and mules is inherently discouraged by
Corruption and only being able to loot resources, rather than full loot
of gear and funds.
Discouraged or perhaps balanced, but not outright restricted. If Intrepid Studios was truly against banditry, they would remove resource looting altogether except under certain conditions (like a war declaration effecting both bandit and victim).
Keep in mind that Ultima Online is one of the inspirations for this game. While IS certainly wants to reduce the frequency and severity of ganking within AoC, they still want to maintain a certain element of danger for the players and freedom for those who are prone to undertake a criminal path in their gaming.
If they balance it correctly, banditry will be an occasional hazard that gatherers must plan and prepare for, but not a constant disruption that drives the more pacifist players from the game.
You have now, for some reason, added "heavily" as a
qualifier.
Of course, my opinion and expression of said opinion is sure to change and evolve as I absorb and ponder new information. This is a dicsussion, not a debate. I can merrily change the goal posts as I please as I come to form a more nuanced opinion on the matter.
I thank you for providing me an opportunity to blather on and bloviate so frequently. I am rather entranced by the sight of my own written statements (the online version of loving the sound of my own voice), and am only to eager to inflict my meandering diatribes upon this lovely community.
Im not in the mood for leveling my char but want max benefits. Should they should remove leveling from game or should I just endure it so other people who like that aspect of the game can play?
Comments
And, no, looting you would not be a worthwhile reward for being forced to battle you when I'm not in the mood. There is no worthwhile reward for that.
From what you say, gaining Corruption will, for you, be a price worth paying for killing non-combatant gatherers you deem are encroaching on your territory.
To the extent you posit, it would mean that Corruption is not a sufficient deterrent.
I never said that people should not be able to loot players or their mules.
I said that the incentives/motivations for killing other players should be more meaningful than just looting.
Halting the progress of a rival node is more meaningful than looting individual players and their mules. That is an example I had in mind, yes.
Contested resources is a meaningful incentive/motivation if the consequences of winning or losing the contest have more impact on the world than just, "I want to farm here, so you shouldn't be able to."
There should be a wide variety of consequences that impact the world, rather than just one player.
From what you say, gaining Corruption will, for you, be a price worth paying for killing non-combatant gatherers you deem are encroaching on your territory.
To the extent you posit, it would mean that Corruption is not a sufficient deterrent.
Personally, I have very little reason to kill others in the open world, and very little desire to become corrupted. However, for my guild I will do what is needed to secure an advantage, regardless of the corruption I have to take as a result.
I believe a fair amount of people have similar attitudes, since this is shaping up to be a game in which guild competition and node competition are core conflicts, as well as drivers of content.
Corruption will likely be a strong deterrent to meaningless random murder, a moderate deterrent to banditry, but not a significant deterrent to murder if the motivation is driven by guild/node competition.
People are motivated by different things. Whether banditry is common or not will be determined by the drop rate and the harshness of the corruption system.
Given that Intrepid Studios envisions a more realistic world in which choices have consequences and danger lurks in the open world, I do not believe that they will tighten the screws on corruption tightly enough to discourage banditry (but hey, I may be way off on this one, who knows).
I believe the key for crouching is 'shift'. Perhaps you can tea-bag my cooling corpse and derive enough satisfaction from that to make the inconvenience of non-consensual PvP worthwhile.
Looking forward to it.
This type of PvP makes consequences real. If you act like a douchebag, regardless of the in-game consequences, your reputation is going to get around and you'll end up on tons of player's "Kill on Sight" list. That's why I love this kind of open world PvP.
Just because you CAN kill someone, doesn't mean there won't be repercussions from doing it.
Here's a typical PvE scenario that happens ALL THE TIME in PvE only games:
You're out gathering and you have a pretty good rhythm down. You're bouncing between a half dozen nodes and they're respawning right as you come up on them. Things are going good and then some asshat jumps into your area and starts gathering them right in front of you even though you're obviously working those spots and even though there's ton more spots elsewhere, this person just decides that they have to have the spots where you've been working. Pretty soon they're running along side you, trying to grab nodes right before you do to stop you.
Now in a PvE world, you gripe about this. call them names but not be able to do anything about it. You'd leave your good spot and try to find another. In some cases, the asshat would follow you and continue to harrass.
In an OWPVP scenario, you mention in guild chat that some asshat is harrassing you. If you don't think you can take him on your own, you get some friends to come join you and turn the jerk into a greasy spot on the ground. If they return, you do it again until they get the hint.
Best of all, in the future, you recognize that guy's name when he's looking for a group for a dungeon, or wanting to buy something you may have. Let em know you're blackballing them because they were a jerk in the past.
Reputation is a very real and important thing in OWPVP worlds. There's no stat showing it on your character, but victims have long memories and the bigger an asshat you are to people, the more you'll have to constantly watch your back.
P.S. In an OWPVP sandbox game, something rare always seems to showup too, it's called "Manners" and surprisingly you'll find people saying things like "Oh, I'm sorry, didn't see you were gathering here, I'll move".
I propose to help them out we create guilds that protect bridges for a small fee of course and when people come to pass our bridges we can let them pass unmolested once fees are payed.
Of course people can opt to fight us and we can then collect our pound of flesh from their corpses and then let them pass.
We need to be fair after all.
Attacking others because your guild asks you, regardless of gaining Corruption is another indication that Corruption will not be a sufficient deterrent for "random" PvP combat.
Node competition is meaningful conflict, but that leaves room for negotiation which is different than killing folk just because you're in the mood for PvP. It gives me the option to go gather in another spot rather than fight - if I'm not in the mood to fight other players.
Killing other players because your guild tells you to kill other players does not afford that option.
Corruption is intended to discourage the banditry of individuals and their mules. Which is why people gathering are flagged as non-combatants by default.
Caravan banditry is not discouraged - which is why people escorting Caravans are auto-flagged as combatants.
I'm guessing you don't comprehend English very well?
I don't believe I've ever seen anything to suggest that this is the case. I am well aware that Steven wishes to heavily discourage griefing and prevent the game from becoming a 'gank-box'. Simple banditry is far removed from griefing and serial-ganking.
Corruption will act to place a burden on bandits, however, and make their lives difficult via bounty hunters (and other systems that have yet to be revealed). This is - once again - a reflection of reality, in which criminals exist and are hunted down.
This is a deliberate system, and you are fooling yourself if you believe that IS does not support balanced banditry.Spot on! Have a great day.
I may.... Attempt to slaughter you once or twice.. but I'll buy you an ale afterwards.... When my corruption is gone
Also, we don't need a guild of bridge trolls.
I am in no way being hostile. You're the one who started the banter of who will be looting whom. I am just continuing to play with that concept.
Node competition is inherently objective-based.
Official guild-wars are also systematically objective-based.
Objective-based PvP combat is "meaningful".
The hope (and promise) is that Ashes will have a plethora of PvP conflict and combat that is significantly more "meaningful" than "simple banditry".
It's not true that people always have the option to leave for more peaceful pastures.
That may be mostly true with regard to your specific guild.
Should be easy enough to avoid guild competition by not joining a guild.
Same could be true for not becoming a citizen of a node.
Although, again, there should be a variety of meaningful consequences for adventuring in a region that impacts the world in such a manner that people find themselves in a conflict likely to result in direct PvP combat...
But, that should provide negotiation for options to avoid combat.
"Simple banditry" of individuals and mules is inherently discouraged by Corruption and only being able to loot resources, rather than full loot of gear and funds. You have now, for some reason, added "heavily" as a qualifier. But, yeah, that is also an aspect of heavily discouraging people turning Ashes into a gank-box.
If the goal is banditry or the goal is to impede node progression, raiding caravans is the better path for that than mugging individual gatherers.
Have Fun, my friend!!!
Stop trying to change the world we all are hyped for, the full free pvp/talking/trading at once is why we all want this game, if you don't, then you are really here because you selfishly just want a change.
Us on the other hand have no where else to go, as no other game has these mechanics that isn't also P2W.
Over time, there actually is new information introduced to this thread because new info has been shared by the devs.
And, not everyone is entrenched in the exact same position they were at the start of the thread.
Better to keep this one rather than have five new ones on this topic pop up because this one is closed.
Discouraged or perhaps balanced, but not outright restricted. If Intrepid Studios was truly against banditry, they would remove resource looting altogether except under certain conditions (like a war declaration effecting both bandit and victim).
Keep in mind that Ultima Online is one of the inspirations for this game. While IS certainly wants to reduce the frequency and severity of ganking within AoC, they still want to maintain a certain element of danger for the players and freedom for those who are prone to undertake a criminal path in their gaming.
If they balance it correctly, banditry will be an occasional hazard that gatherers must plan and prepare for, but not a constant disruption that drives the more pacifist players from the game.
Of course, my opinion and expression of said opinion is sure to change and evolve as I absorb and ponder new information. This is a dicsussion, not a debate. I can merrily change the goal posts as I please as I come to form a more nuanced opinion on the matter.
I thank you for providing me an opportunity to blather on and bloviate so frequently. I am rather entranced by the sight of my own written statements (the online version of loving the sound of my own voice), and am only to eager to inflict my meandering diatribes upon this lovely community.
Im not in the mood for leveling my char but want max benefits.
Should they should remove leveling from game or should I just endure it so other people who like that aspect of the game can play?