Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Comments
What about all those times though the only pve player kills that PVP player in world combat. Where a “Easy Gank” Went wrong and the pve player took the day. It makes that guy feel 10 feet tall.
[/quote]
Yes! There is no feeling better than whooping someone that attacks you out of the blue, Sadly I only have one such tale but I hope to have more through AoC. For that matter, nothing in MMOs really gives a rush like ANY kind of PVP does. IMHO.
Monsters get figured out. How to deal with them becomes common knowledge. Not so with human opponents...
Um. So…
I write “one of the largest playstyles in the MMORPG community.”
You say I wrote, “the largest playstyle.” That’s not what I wrote. That’s what you wrote.
And then you want to refute that the PvE playstyle is one of the largest in the MMORPG community by asserting that competitive games are easily more popular than MMORPGs. ???
That is absurd.
[/quote]
yea, i'm sorry, i misrepresented a part of your argument but i think you missed the point of mine. I admit i was all over the place with my argument.
I'm trying to argue 2 things.
1. We don't know what people like. We don't have enough MMO games to compare and most people play more then one game. I was a lazy on my competitive game argument but I was trying to say most in your "pve" group probably play one of these competitive games. We have debated this several times before in eqn but if you really want me to pull up more then i can.
2. We don't know how most "pve" players will feel about the flagging system. The system is there for them and is made to address the biggest gripe pve'ers have. We also haven't played the game and don't know how it will play out.
[quote quote=18637]
I cringe a little bit when PVP is kinda thrust upon me in games so it does make me feel inherently ostracized. Generally it makes me shy away, just not my style of play. I do have reservations in AOC but am still highly intrigued to see the actual finished product and hope that it is different than the PVP style I abhor in games past.
[/quote]
The goal of the flagging system is to prevent pvp from being thrusted onto you.
@kaden
That was not my argument at all.
I’m trying to argue 2 things.
1. We don’t know what people like. We don’t have enough MMO games to compare and most people play more then one game. I was a lazy on my competitive game argument but I was trying to say most in your “pve” group probably play one of these competitive games. We have debated this several times before in eqn but if you really want me to pull up more then i can.
2. We don’t know how most “pve” players will feel about the flagging system. The system is there for them and is made to address the biggest gripe pve’ers have. We also haven’t played the game and don’t know how it will play out.[/quote]
Cooly-cool! Thanks for the clarification!
There's a major flaw in Steven's expectation of throwing everyone on one server.
As I've said on a different thread today...
In D&D, you don't throw a Lawful Good Paladin on the same party as a Chaotic Evil Necromancer and expect the to support each other's interests. You shouldn't even expect a Lawful Good Paladin to support the interests of a Chaotic Good Rogue.
A Lawful Good Paladin is not going to agree to buy thieves tools for a Chaotic Good Rogue just because they are in the same party.
"Oh, I'm going to teach the Rogue that stealing from people is immoral and that he should always abide by the law. He thank me for it."
We have a pretty good idea what MMORPG players like. it has been studied. There are a variety of ways to examine the common playstyles.
The Bartle score. My score of E87; S73; A47; K0 reflects that I'm probably going to clash with a group that includes a player who is a KASE - especialy if that player is the leader of the party.
I am a Casual Challenge/Hardcore Time player. That's going to clash with a group that includes a player who is Hardcore Challenge/Casual Time.
People who have diametrically opposed ideologies are not going to support each other's methodologies. Even when they share a common goal, like clearing out a dungeon. Somebody's going to get kicked from that group.
When I say I don't want to participate in PvP combat, it doesn't simply mean I don't want to fight other players, but it's OK if my friends kill other players to protect me. rather it means I don't want to be associated with PvP combat. I don't want Bounty hunter exacting revenge in my name. I don't want to craft gear so that other players can go kill other players.
It means I don't want my avatars supporting PvP combat in any way. And that I don't want to play near PvP players in the game either. Because their behavior disgusts me. Even the zeal with which they discuss PvP combat disgusts me.
At the time EQnext was announced, I considered myself to be a PvP combat hater.
No way in heck would I play on a PvP server ever again. Too many jerks.
But, through my interaction with EQNext twitch streamers I made friends with quite a few people who are PvP combat enthusiasts.
I quite liked the streamer, LockSixTime - he had some very thought-provoking perspectives on MMORPGs. But we clashed many time over his desire to not split the servers. he was the first I heard try to promote the concpet of non-combatants supporting PvP combatants and how glorious that would be. And I told him there was no way in hell I would support that players being jerks to other players. They can be jerks if they want. But I'm not going to support them doing it.
One weekend I was wracking my brain trying to understand why LockSixTime was so vehement about forcing people who hate PvP combat to play on the same servers as PvP fans. I found his vision of players being content to be reprehensibly offensive. NPCs are content. real people are not content for other players. It is immoral for someone else to force me to "be their content" without my consent. And, boy, the arguments we had over the concept of "consensual PvP".
I really felt like Lock just had a maniacal desire to gank PvEers, but I also knew that Lock is too sweet of a guy for that to be the case.
And, as I focused on his vision of not splitting the playerbase, I realized that yes... I have a lot of twitch friends who are PvP afficionados and I would like to be able to roleplay with them on the same server. I still, in no way, would support their PvP combat endeavors, but I would love to party with them in-game and, especially, check out their houses.
That's when I remembered that, back in the early days, I was a PvP-sometimes guy.
So, with the same passion you see me now trying to figure out how to get one PvE server for AoC, I started asking around on the EQNext forums for people to share their visions of the rules and mechanics that would need to be implemented in order for a a shared server for both PvP fans and PvP haters(and PvP-sometimes folks).
Those threads quickly became a ban trap as the PvP fans would share their visions of fair mechanics and royally piss of the pvP haters and then the PvP haters would share their visions of fair mechanics and send the PvP fans screaming at the rafters.
Each side would commonly be deeply offended by what the other considered fair game design.
After a few months, we finally got some fairly robust details about how the Storybricks system would drive the narrative.
I think that was during the 2014 SOE Live affair. I will try to share some vids.
That info really flipped my switch because it pushed my Exploration buttons rather than focusing direct PvP combat.
If I had to kill some dryads in order to siphon their Life magic and transform it into the Shadow magic that powers my Stealth skills - which I will use when I explore- Hell, yes, I might have to kill any players who tried to protect the dryads from me.
and I basically turned from a hippy, peacenik carebear into a ruthless PvP jerk who really doesn't care about how my actions affect the players controlling the avatars I may wantonly kill. if that's the only way for me to get my Shadow abilities and augment my Stealth, some player characters may have to get steamrolled.
That is the true promise of the Node system, that has been carried over to a great degree to AoC from EQNext.
And that is why I backed the kickstarter. Generating dynamic content via Node v Node conflict is what's going to ensure that we have a stead stream of new, procedurally generated content for us to consume. Along with the Building/Destruction pillar that is also a retread from EQNext...building cities over months of time and protecting them from destruction.
But...
PvP-Only people should have fun playing this as well. They way the interact with the features would be very different than on the normal servers. With PvP combat turned off, a lot of things might be broken. The Node v Node content generation might stagnate if those players just let every thing complete without direct conflict. If they never attack a caravan or never stage a siege.
But, turning of PvP combat doesn't mean that the Nodes won't still be fomenting PvP conflict, it just means that players won't be killing players to resolve those conflicts.
I was able to be swayed to the ruthless side of PvP combat (sometimes). but I wasn't truly a PvP hater.
I'm up for giving the normal servers a shot. i think it will be fun for me.
But it's still iffy if even I would be willing to support PvP combat fans in the way that Steven envisions.
Just last night as someone was telling me about how their motivation for potential PvP combat would be to disrupt the node in enemy territory. Suggesting that if he ran into me mining ore at a mine while he was in enemy territory, he would probably need to kill me or scare me away in order to achieve his goal of disrupting the node.
And I had a flare up of, "Yeah, I'm not going to be crafting stuff for people who will kill other player characters just to 'disrupt the node' of the enemy."
And I'm actually open to supporting people actively pursuing Node v Node conflict goals...but it has to be for the right reasons. And it's not going to be because I need or want PvPers protecting crafters.
The PvE-only folk... I think we'll find that there won't be reasons for them to support PvPers... in any other way besides subbing to a PvE-only server.
They seem to be very clear that they won't play the game if there is no PvE-only server.
Let's face the facts: <strong>there will be no PVE-only option</strong>. The designers have in no uncertain terms declared that <strong>having PVE-only would lead to nodes growing and growing with no change being done, and the key focus is on getting groups of players to compete with each other</strong>. PVE-only would completely contradict the kind of MMO they wanted to build in the first place.
Now that the facts have been established and it's clear that Intrepid's position on this is non-negotiable, it's about time we do away with this wishful thinking and move on with making the core concept work the best it can be. Indulging in entitled wishful thinking is only a waste of time.
In planning for the future, I extend the hand of invitation to players whose primary interest is in PVE: my organization needs you, and we will do everything in our power to guarantee your security, because we need your contributions more than most realize. It has been done in the prior games we have had extensive experience in, and we can reproduce the results - it is not impossible to do what you want even in a PVP environment.
You aren't lumping ALL PVPers in the same category as those PVPers that just kill players for the lulz are you? Isn't it NOBLE to hunt those kind of people? Isn't it LOYAL to defend your Node against player invasion? Those are PVP players. Trying to make sure that you have a safer place to play and to live in.
Why are you equating an MMO game to a TT D&D campaign? Listing out what things a Paladin would or wouldn't do around evil characters? An MMO just isn't some guys sitting around a table. It's 1000s of people with 1000s of different motivations and goals and playstyles. THe server is not your adventuring party and no MMO was ever made for servers to be one big adventuring band.
Why do feel that you would have to support PVP characters through crafting or whatever? Why couldn't you play on the server, which is a big, big world, as a non combatant pacifist and form a guild or group that wants to role the same way? I think that would be an awesome challenge.
Since it is crystal clear that there will not be PVE servers, why not take this energy and help PVP averse players get over their anxieties so they will give the game you are so looking forward to an actual shot?
[u]"A Non-Combatant who dies suffers normal penalties, which includes experience debt,[/u] durability loss, as well as dropping a portion of carried raw materials (which can then be looted). [u]A Combatant who dies suffers these same penalties, but at half the Non-Combatant rate.[/u] A character who has a Corruption Score on the other hand, suffers penalties at three times the rate of a Non-Combatant, and has a chance to drop *any* carried/equipped items based on their current Corruption Score."
"While a player is marked as Corrupt, they may be attacked by both Combatants and Non-Combatants. [u]If a non-combatant attacks a corrupt player, the non-combatant will not flag as a combatant."[/u]
OK, so why even have a non combatant flag? Even if you are so flagged, to hopefully send a message that you don't want to PVP, fighting back does not get you flagged to a "lower penalty state" . It seems like they want everyone to be flagged "combatant" at all times. They are laying down an almost certain larger penalty on those flagged "non combatant" as far as xp debt goes. You are being also punished, along with random PVP seekers for trying to advertise that you aren't interested in PVP "right now."
You aren’t lumping ALL PVPers in the same category as those PVPers that just kill players for the lulz are you? Isn’t it NOBLE to hunt those kind of people? Isn’t it LOYAL to defend your Node against player invasion? Those are PVP players. Trying to make sure that you have a safer place to play and to live in.
Why are you equating an MMO game to a TT D&D campaign? Listing out what things a Paladin would or wouldn’t do around evil characters? An MMO just isn’t some guys sitting around a table. It’s 1000s of people with 1000s of different motivations and goals and playstyles. THe server is not your adventuring party and no MMO was ever made for servers to be one big adventuring band.
Why do feel that you would have to support PVP characters through crafting or whatever? Why couldn’t you play on the server, which is a big, big world, as a non combatant pacifist and form a guild or group that wants to role the same way? I think that would be an awesome challenge.
Since it is crystal clear that there will not be PVE servers, why not take this energy and help PVP averse players get over their anxieties so they will give the game you are so looking forward to an actual shot?
[/quote]
While you're barking up the right tree, I'm afraid you're barking at the wrong cat. I have come to find that Dygz is only interested in using circular reasoning to confound you, so there is no effective way for you to respond. It's the same method philosopher Jacques Lacan employed and unfortunately, too many people today resort to Lacanian circular reasoning when they don't have much to stand on. You have laid out your arguments clearly, and I encourage you to move on. You have already proven your point, and further engagement with Dygz leads to nowhere.
You aren’t lumping ALL PVPers in the same category as those PVPers that just kill players for the lulz are you? Isn’t it NOBLE to hunt those kind of people? Isn’t it LOYAL to defend your Node against player invasion? Those are PVP players. Trying to make sure that you have a safer place to play and to live in.[/quote]
When I mean all, I will say all. That's the way the all qualifier works.
But, nope. It's not noble to hunt "those kinds of people". It's just another excuse that PvPers use to justify killing other players and making themselves feel "better than thou".
It's really just placing the PKers in the same category as the original victims.
Loyal is a valid word to describe defense of your node. You'll notice that's the type of PvP I traditionally take part in. But, people can be loyal to evil, too. Loyalty isn't always a a Good thing.
[quote]Why are you equating an MMO game to a D&D campaign? Listing out what things a Paladin would or wouldn’t do around evil characters? An MMO just isn’t some guys sitting around a table. It’s 1000s of people with 1000s of different motivations and goals and playstyles. THe server is not your adventuring party and no MMO was ever made for servers to be one big adventuring band.[/quote]
Sooo. You understand that D&D is an RPG - it's the core foundation of MMORPG.
I wonder why you would leave RPG off of the name of the genre.
People have philosophical archetypes - again, there are several ways to categorize RPG players and MMORPG players. People with opposing philosophies and outlooks and playstyles don't mesh well with each. They don't support the their opposition behaves.
In D&D, this is represented by alignments Lawful v Chaotic and Good v Evil.
"Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability."
"Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility."
That's not something just arbitrarily made up for a fantasy game. It mirrors real life human personality types. I didn't simply mention Paladin and Rogue as if the alignments were irrelevant.
The alignments are what's most important. Lawful Good Paladin and Chaotic Good Rogue are the polar opposites of the "Obey the law" spectrum.
I expected MMORPG players to understand the fundamentals of the RPG genre. Of course, what is really hurting the genre is that we now have a generation of MMORPG players who really only care about the "MMO" stuff and don't know enough about RPGs to know how much RPG fundamentals are missing from MMORPGs.
[quote]Why do feel that you would have to support PVP characters through crafting or whatever? Why couldn’t you play on the server, which is a big, big world, as a non combatant pacifist and form a guild or group that wants to role the same way? I think that would be an awesome challenge.[/quote]
Crafters supporting PvPers is Steven's vision. His dream of how non-combatants will want to support the endeavors of combatants and why having a PvE-only would undermine that dream. He thinks that if you make it so that there is only one server type, the PvE-only folk will be willing to craft for the PvPers in return for the PvPers protecting the PvE-only folk from PvP combat.
And I'm pointing out how Steven's dream is fundamentally flawed.
I didn't say I won't be playing on the normal servers. I will be.
I am not a PvE-only player. I'm a PvP sometimes player.
The pillars of the design are precisely what the MMORPG needs if it's going to survive.
Node v Node conflict and Building/Destruction being the most important pillars.
But, PvE-only people won't play unless they have their own server.
That's what is going to split the community...needlessly.
Forming a non-combatant guild is irrelevant when the game design allows PvPers to force non-combatants into PvP combat against their will. That's not a solution for anything.
Yeah, I am a casual challenge guy. And I am chaotic good in real life. I don't form guilds. I rarely join guilds.
I just hang out with people.
[quote]Since it is crystal clear that there will not be PVE servers, why not take this energy and help PVP averse players get over their anxieties so they will give the game you are so looking forward to an actual shot?[/quote]
It's not crystal clear to me that we won't have a PvE-only server.
It is as impossible to change the philosophical view of PvE-only folk as it is to convince PvPers that they shouldn't kill other players. The aversion that PvErs have to PvP combat is more reasonable and justified than PvP players wanting to force people to PvP against their will.
If I were going to use energy to try to help someone change their views I would focus it on changing the view of PvPers.
[/quote]
Because attacking a non-combatant is likely to flag you with corruption. Especially if you are in a large group of people...like the midst of a city during a siege... you're going to want to be able to easily tell whom you should attack if you want to avoid corruption and whom not to attack.
And, yes, the system basically pushes non-combatants to flag for PvP combat if a player hits them, so that they reduce any potential death penalties. Which is another reason why PvE-only players are not going to play on a normal server.
Fighting back cuts the death penalties in half.
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/please-dont-force-us-to-be-victims-of-pvpers/page/16/#post-18840" rel="nofollow">Bringslite wrote:</a></div>
@ Dygz
You aren’t lumping ALL PVPers in the same category as those PVPers that just kill players for the lulz are you? Isn’t it NOBLE to hunt those kind of people? Isn’t it LOYAL to defend your Node against player invasion? Those are PVP players. Trying to make sure that you have a safer place to play and to live in.
</blockquote>
When I mean all, I will say all. That’s the way the all qualifier works.
But, nope. It’s not noble to hunt “those kinds of people”. It’s just another excuse that PvPers use to justify killing other players and making themselves feel “better than thou”.
It’s really just placing the PKers in the same category as the original victims.
Loyal is a valid word to describe defense of your node. You’ll notice that’s the type of PvP I traditionally take part in. But, people can be loyal to evil, too. Loyalty isn’t always a a Good thing.
<blockquote>Why are you equating an MMO game to a D&D campaign? Listing out what things a Paladin would or wouldn’t do around evil characters? An MMO just isn’t some guys sitting around a table. It’s 1000s of people with 1000s of different motivations and goals and playstyles. THe server is not your adventuring party and no MMO was ever made for servers to be one big adventuring band.
</blockquote>
Sooo. You understand that D&D is an RPG – it’s the core foundation of MMORPG.
I wonder why you would leave RPG off of the name of the genre.
People have philosophical archetypes – again, there are several ways to categorize RPG players and MMORPG players. People with opposing philosophies and outlooks and playstyles don’t mesh well with each. They don’t support the their opposition behaves.
In D&D, this is represented by alignments Lawful v Chaotic and Good v Evil.
“Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability.”
“Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility.”
That’s not something just arbitrarily made up for a fantasy game. It mirrors real life human personality types. I didn’t simply mention Paladin and Rogue as if the alignments were irrelevant.
The alignments are what’s most important. Lawful Good Paladin and Chaotic Good Rogue are the polar opposites of the “Obey the law” spectrum.
I expected MMORPG players to understand the fundamentals of the RPG genre. Of course, what is really hurting the genre is that we now have a generation of MMORPG players who really only care about the “MMO” stuff and don’t know enough about RPGs to know how much RPG fundamentals are missing from MMORPGs.
<blockquote>Why do feel that you would have to support PVP characters through crafting or whatever? Why couldn’t you play on the server, which is a big, big world, as a non combatant pacifist and form a guild or group that wants to role the same way? I think that would be an awesome challenge.
</blockquote>
Crafters supporting PvPers is Steven’s vision. His dream of how non-combatants will want to support the endeavors of combatants and why having a PvE-only would undermine that dream. He thinks that if you make it so that there is only one server type, the PvE-only folk will be willing to craft for the PvPers in return for the PvPers protecting the PvE-only folk from PvP combat.
And I’m pointing out how Steven’s dream is fundamentally flawed.
I didn’t say I won’t be playing on the normal servers. I will be.
I am not a PvE-only player. I’m a PvP sometimes player.
The pillars of the design are precisely what the MMORPG needs if it’s going to survive.
Node v Node conflict and Building/Destruction being the most important pillars.
But, PvE-only people won’t play unless they have their own server.
That’s what is going to split the community…needlessly.
Forming a non-combatant guild is irrelevant when the game design allows PvPers to force non-combatants into PvP combat against their will. That’s not a solution for anything.
Yeah, I am a casual challenge guy. And I am chaotic good in real life. I don’t form guilds. I rarely join guilds.
I just hang out with people.
<blockquote>Since it is crystal clear that there will not be PVE servers, why not take this energy and help PVP averse players get over their anxieties so they will give the game you are so looking forward to an actual shot?
</blockquote>
It’s not crystal clear to me that we won’t have a PvE-only server.
It is as impossible to change the philosophical view of PvE-only folk as it is to convince PvPers that they shouldn’t kill other players. The aversion that PvErs have to PvP combat is more reasonable than players wanting to force people to PvP against their will.
If i were going to use energy to try to help someone change their views i would be focused on changing the view of PvPers.
[/quote]
Sigh.... I'll take some advice I recently received and bow out of this nightmare. It was fun for awhile but has become boring. You either misunderstand every single thing that I say or ask OR you are deliberately shaping points into something else that you can use.
Your response to my second paragraph illustrates this all to well.
Wishing You a Miracle! As I wrote earlier, I'm not against there being PVE servers as long as certain criteria are met.
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/please-dont-force-us-to-be-victims-of-pvpers/page/16/#post-18857" rel="nofollow">Bringslite wrote:</a></div>
OK, so why even have a non combatant flag? Even if you are so flagged, to hopefully send a message that you don’t want to PVP, fighting back does not get you flagged to a “lower penalty state” . It seems like they want everyone to be flagged “combatant” at all times. They are laying down an almost certain larger penalty on those flagged “non combatant” as far as xp debt goes. You are being also punished, along with random PVP seekers for trying to advertise that you aren’t interested in PVP “right now.”
</blockquote>
Because attacking a non-combatant is likely to flag you with corruption. Especially if you are in a large group of people…like the midst of a city during a siege… you’re going to want to be able to easily tell whom you should attack if you want to avoid corruption and whom not to attack.
[u]And, yes, the system basically pushes non-combatants to flag for PvP combat if a player hits them, so that they reduce any potential death penalties.[/u] Which is another reason why PvE-only players are not going to play on a normal server.
[u]Fighting back cuts the death penalties in half.[/u]
[/quote]
Different subject so I'll give you a chance. :D
If you read the Dev quotes, you can clearly see what I mean. Reading YOUR post, I can see clearly that YOU don't get what I am saying.
1. Character A is flagged "noncombatant"
2 Character B attacks character A and immediately gets a "corruption score". Character B is "corrupt".
3. Character A can attack character B now but does not become a "combatant" when he does.
4. No way to become a combatant from a non combatant state if you are attacked when you are starting as non combatant.
5. Ergo, if character A loses, he/she will take penalties as a non combatant.
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/please-dont-force-us-to-be-victims-of-pvpers/page/16/#post-18857" rel="nofollow">Bringslite wrote:</a></div>
OK, so why even have a non combatant flag? Even if you are so flagged, to hopefully send a message that you don’t want to PVP, fighting back does not get you flagged to a “lower penalty state” . It seems like they want everyone to be flagged “combatant” at all times. They are laying down an almost certain larger penalty on those flagged “non combatant” as far as xp debt goes. You are being also punished, along with random PVP seekers for trying to advertise that you aren’t interested in PVP “right now.”
</blockquote>
Because attacking a non-combatant is likely to flag you with corruption. Especially if you are in a large group of people…like the midst of a city during a siege… you’re going to want to be able to easily tell whom you should attack if you want to avoid corruption and whom not to attack.
And, yes, the system basically pushes non-combatants to flag for PvP combat if a player hits them, so that they reduce any potential death penalties. Which is another reason why PvE-only players are not going to play on a normal server.
Fighting back cuts the death penalties in half.
[/quote]
Did you read those posts that I quoted? A non combatant(say its you) can't gain a "combatant flag " by retaliating after he is attacked. The attacker will already have a corruption score as soon as he attacks you.
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/please-dont-force-us-to-be-victims-of-pvpers/page/16/#post-18893" rel="nofollow">Dygz wrote:</a></div>
<blockquote>
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/please-dont-force-us-to-be-victims-of-pvpers/page/16/#post-18857" rel="nofollow">Bringslite wrote:</a></div>
OK, so why even have a non combatant flag? Even if you are so flagged, to hopefully send a message that you don’t want to PVP, fighting back does not get you flagged to a “lower penalty state” . It seems like they want everyone to be flagged “combatant” at all times. They are laying down an almost certain larger penalty on those flagged “non combatant” as far as xp debt goes. You are being also punished, along with random PVP seekers for trying to advertise that you aren’t interested in PVP “right now.”
</blockquote>
Because attacking a non-combatant is likely to flag you with corruption. Especially if you are in a large group of people…like the midst of a city during a siege… you’re going to want to be able to easily tell whom you should attack if you want to avoid corruption and whom not to attack.
And, yes, the system basically pushes non-combatants to flag for PvP combat if a player hits them, so that they reduce any potential death penalties. Which is another reason why PvE-only players are not going to play on a normal server.
Fighting back cuts the death penalties in half.
</blockquote>
Did you read those posts that I quoted? A non combatant(say its you) can’t gain a “combatant flag ” by retaliating after he is attacked. The attacker will already have a corruption score as soon as he attacks you.
[/quote]
<a href="http://dev.null.org/postmodern/">Postmodernism Generator.</a>
Dygz is continuing to bamboozle you with incoherence, which isn't very different from the random incoherence of the Postmodernism Generator. Just let it be, man. :P
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/please-dont-force-us-to-be-victims-of-pvpers/page/17/#post-18938" rel="nofollow">Bringslite wrote:</a></div>
<blockquote>
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/please-dont-force-us-to-be-victims-of-pvpers/page/16/#post-18893" rel="nofollow">Dygz wrote:</a></div>
<blockquote>
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/please-dont-force-us-to-be-victims-of-pvpers/page/16/#post-18857" rel="nofollow">Bringslite wrote:</a></div>
OK, so why even have a non combatant flag? Even if you are so flagged, to hopefully send a message that you don’t want to PVP, fighting back does not get you flagged to a “lower penalty state” . It seems like they want everyone to be flagged “combatant” at all times. They are laying down an almost certain larger penalty on those flagged “non combatant” as far as xp debt goes. You are being also punished, along with random PVP seekers for trying to advertise that you aren’t interested in PVP “right now.”
</blockquote>
Because attacking a non-combatant is likely to flag you with corruption. Especially if you are in a large group of people…like the midst of a city during a siege… you’re going to want to be able to easily tell whom you should attack if you want to avoid corruption and whom not to attack.
And, yes, the system basically pushes non-combatants to flag for PvP combat if a player hits them, so that they reduce any potential death penalties. Which is another reason why PvE-only players are not going to play on a normal server.
Fighting back cuts the death penalties in half.
</blockquote>
Did you read those posts that I quoted? A non combatant(say its you) can’t gain a “combatant flag ” by retaliating after he is attacked. The attacker will already have a corruption score as soon as he attacks you.
</blockquote>
<a href="http://dev.null.org/postmodern/" rel="nofollow">Postmodernism Generator.</a>
Dygz is continuing to bamboozle you with incoherence, which isn’t very different from the random incoherence of the Postmodernism Generator. Just let it be, man. <img alt="" src="https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/2.2.1/svg/1f61b.svg" />
[/quote]
Perhaps he is. I was trying to give him a shot because the exact topic is different. lol I am an easy mark if you are right! ;)
First, join a scientific node with gateways or node of PVP corrupt friendlies to escape to. That is, a corrupt PVP node that band together to thump on PVP bounty hunters.
Second, get a small group of buds together to target equal to slightly lower level. Did you ever think ‘corrupt’ PVPers were going to take down a group better than they are?
Third, sneakily befriend a person or persons to assess their loot and capabilities.
Fourth, use surprise, take them down, loot, disband and log off.
Fifth, figure out a ‘low tide’ in players on-line and each log on at different times and escape to your safe area.
Sixth. Log-on, move around in terrain you are familiar with, and log off after a short while. Indeed, if in doubt log out immediately if faced with bounty hunters. That is, unless your hanging around corrupt bounty killer.
Seventh. Rinse, Spin, and Repeat. TA DA! Sound complicated. Never underestimate gaming the system and thumbing noses at the programmers – ha ha.
[/quote]
The core of the game is "meaningful" PvP that has purpose such as caravan raids or node sieges. Or rather, one of the cores anyway. PvE and PvP are equally important and a player is not going to really be able to focus on just one to the exclusion of the other.
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/please-dont-force-us-to-be-victims-of-pvpers/#post-16684" rel="nofollow">Stabby wrote:</a></div>
<blockquote>
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/please-dont-force-us-to-be-victims-of-pvpers/#post-16678" rel="nofollow">Kyrios_the_Hierophant wrote:</a></div>
<blockquote>
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/please-dont-force-us-to-be-victims-of-pvpers/#post-16672" rel="nofollow">Stabby wrote:</a></div>
I understand and appreciate everyones point of view on PvP. But there’s nothing I hate more than logging in with a plan and being killed while working on PVE stuff. I don’t want to be a victim anymore! ArcheAge and BDO sucked because I can’t play MY way. I want EverQuest 3. I want a game when I can do my thing and not be bothered by anyone. I want anonymity. I want to raid 4 hours every night. I want to blow up contested world bosses without looking over my shoulder to see if some guy is taking my health down to 1% so the boss kills me.
I want to spend a small fortune on a game that doesn’t make me some assholes victim.
</blockquote>
Pantheon Online , if you don’t know about it you should check it out, it offers exactly what you want.
</blockquote>
Pantheon looks like it was developed in 1995. It looks horrible. If I wanted that level of garbage graphics I would play EverQuest 1 again.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/please-dont-force-us-to-be-victims-of-pvpers/#post-16685" rel="nofollow">Stabby wrote:</a></div>
<blockquote>
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/please-dont-force-us-to-be-victims-of-pvpers/#post-16682" rel="nofollow">Whocando wrote:</a></div>
Just embrace the PVP
Learn to enjoy the risk. Understand that it can enrich the PVE experience and vice versa the PVP aspects for a greater overall game world
As long as corpse camping isn’t a thing or very hard to do and there are systems in place to manage it in a healthy way.
If you Split game preferences into segregated instances or servers all that ends up happening is a division in resources to the point where the core game suffers.
Look at GW2. 2 very vocal communities PVE/WVW where both game modes suffer, balancing/rewards/development only resulting in both sides complaining.
as a metaphor, think of it as milk and cookies…both are good individually but combined make a much better experience.
</blockquote>
My way of playing doesn’t effect PvPers, their way of playing effects me.
</blockquote>
LOL LOL Stabby is stabbing my laugh-box! Dude, you are TOO funny!
Yo, Kyrios has a point though, about Pantheon Online. I’ve been keeping an eye on it, though not to the degree that I have with AoC. That being said, the game is still in a pre alpha state, so I think the overall graphics/gameplay should improve, going forward. Not trying to shoo-shoo you away, by any means, but the style of play you’re looking for sounds more along the lines of what Pantheon is being designed around.
No need to worry about a “stray arrow” in your buttocks, that leads to your ill-timed death at a monsters hands, by a foul-minded comrade. <img alt="????" src="https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/2.2.1/svg/1f61b.svg" />
[/quote]
My nemesis Were two guys in Ultima Online. One was named Balls, the other Shaft (I kid you not). All I wanted was to chop some wood to make some arrows. That's all. My UO career lasted all of about two days and about 50 deaths.
One of the issues we're having discussing this topic is that most people don't realize how much more complex the systems in EQNext/AoC are.
People are trying to apply the same terms we've been using for 20 years to a revolutionary game design.
A siege is really node v node combat. The primary goal being to destroy a city.
People who don't enjoy killing other players will consider destroying a city PvE combat per the old terminology.
The crux of AoC is really node v node conflict. That may or may not flare up into node v node combat.
That would be indirect PvP conflict in EQNext terminology.
Player characters killing player characters is direct PvP combat in EQNext terminology.
When PvE folk ask for a PvE-only server with PvP combat turned off, they are asking to turn off the mechanics that allow player characters to kill each other.
The caravan raids and sieges are still fine.
Isn't it all PvP?? Matter of perspective.
--------------------------------
I think from your perspective there aren't many restrictions for any of it.
Direct PvP combat has some penalties depending on whether you attack a non-combatant, a combatant or a corrupted avatar.
But you can attack anyone you want...for the most part.
You are restricted from attacking people in your party, raid, guild or alliance.
And that's about it.
My nemesis Were two guys in Ultima Online. One was named Balls, the other Shaft (I kid you not). All I wanted was to chop some wood to make some arrows. That’s all. My UO career lasted all of about two days and about 50 deaths.
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/please-dont-force-us-to-be-victims-of-pvpers/page/2/#post-16739" rel="nofollow">Keth wrote:</a></div>
This was my experience in WoW. I am not saying AoC will be like WoW. At this point I believe the deterrent will be sufficient penalty for ganker wannabes, but time and gameplay will tell. I like the distinctions that Dygz stated in levels of PvP that will occur. I will defend a node and will participate in seiges, but I plan a majority of my play will be exploration and leveling PvE for the most part.
Did you read those posts that I quoted? A non combatant(say its you) can’t gain a “combatant flag ” by retaliating after he is attacked. The attacker will already have a corruption score as soon as he attacks you. [/quote]
Here is what I read:
https://errantpenman.com/2017/01/11/interview-ashes-of-creation-wants-to-bring-the-virtual-world-to-life/
<strong><em>There are three states that a player can find themselves in: Non-Combatant (Green), Combatant (Purple), and Corrupt (Red). Everyone is a Non-Combatant by default. If a Non-Combatant attacks a Combatant or another non-combatant, then they become a Combatant for a period of time. Similarly, if a Non-Combatant enters a PVP zone (which includes things like Castles, City Sieges and Caravans) they are automatically flagged a Combatant while in the zone, and for a period of time after leaving that zone.</em></strong>
My interpretation of that is that if I am a non-combatant and I am attacked, it behooves me to attack back, thereby flagging myself as a combatant. That encourages me to stay and fight so that I only get half the death penalty if I die. Because, if I simply flee and the attacker kills me, I'll receive the full death penalty. The system punishes me more for fleeing that it does for staying and fighting back. That also leaves me flagged as a combatant for several minutes if I survive. Which encourages other players to attack me since it appears I am interested in fighting and they will receive less penalties for attacking a combatant rather than a non-combatant.
This encourages a player who prefers to avoid combat to stay and fight, rather than to run away.
If a non-combatant remains a non-combat when they attack their attacker, they'd receive just as much of a death penalty if they stay and fight as they will if they are killed while they flee. If the non-combatant is not as well geared or is a lower level than their attacker, it doesn't really gain them much to stay and fight... just lost time in the end if they lose. It may be very likely they will lose, depending on how wicked the PKer might be. So, they might as well try to flee or just let the PKer kill them without fighting back.
Either way the non-combatant would receive the same death penalty, which is twice that of a combatant.
This would not encourage a non-combatant to fight. And it's not particularly fun for the "honorable combatant" wanting a fair fight - when they want a fair fight.
So... no... it makes more sense that, as stated in the link I've provided, a non-combatant auto flags as a combatant when they attack a combatant/corrupted or a non-combatant.
<strong><em>Players can kill Combatants without repercussions, and are encouraged to do so, since dying while a Combatant means you suffer reduced death penalties. Where this changes is when a Combatant kills a Non-Combatant. In this case, the Combatant is Corrupt, and acquires a Corruption Score (which is accrued based on a number of different parameters, including the level differential of their freshly slain victim).</em></strong>
This quote states if you are a purple/combatant when you attack the non-combatant, you don't won't yet have a corruption score. You gain the corruption score if you kill the non-combatant.
If my interpretation is in error, please deconstruct my analysis and correct my errors.
Did you read those posts that I quoted? A non combatant(say its you) can’t gain a “combatant flag ” by retaliating after he is attacked. The attacker will already have a corruption score as soon as he attacks you. [/quote]
Here is what I read:
https://errantpenman.com/2017/01/11/interview-ashes-of-creation-wants-to-bring-the-virtual-world-to-life/
<strong><em>There are three states that a player can find themselves in: Non-Combatant (Green), Combatant (Purple), and Corrupt (Red). Everyone is a Non-Combatant by default. If a Non-Combatant attacks a Combatant or another non-combatant, then they become a Combatant for a period of time. Similarly, if a Non-Combatant enters a PVP zone (which includes things like Castles, City Sieges and Caravans) they are automatically flagged a Combatant while in the zone, and for a period of time after leaving that zone.</em></strong>
My interpretation of that is that if I am a non-combatant and I am attacked, it behooves me to attack back, thereby flagging myself as a combatant. That encourages me to stay and fight so that I only get half the death penalty if I die. Because, if I simply flee and the attacker kills me, I'll receive the full death penalty. The system punishes me more for fleeing that it does for staying and fighting back. That also leaves me flagged as a combatant for several minutes if I survive. Which encourages other players to attack me since it appears I am interested in fighting and they will receive less penalties for attacking a combatant rather than a non-combatant.
This encourages a player who prefers to avoid combat to stay and fight, rather than to run away.
If a non-combatant remains a non-combat when they attack their attacker, they'd receive just as much of a death penalty if they stay and fight as they will if they are killed while they flee. If the non-combatant is not as well geared or is a lower level than their attacker, it doesn't really gain them much to stay and fight... just lost time in the end if they lose. It may be very likely they will lose, depending on how wicked the PKer might be. So, they might as well try to flee or just let the PKer kill them without fighting back.
Either way the non-combatant would receive the same death penalty, which is twice that of a combatant.
This would not encourage a non-combatant to fight. And it's not particularly fun for the "honorable combatant" wanting a fair fight - when they want a fair fight.
So... no... it makes more sense that, as stated in the link I've provided, a non-combatant auto flags as a combatant when they attack a combatant/corrupted or a non-combatant.
<strong><em>Players can kill Combatants without repercussions, and are encouraged to do so, since dying while a Combatant means you suffer reduced death penalties. Where this changes is when a Combatant kills a Non-Combatant. In this case, the Combatant is Corrupt, and acquires a Corruption Score (which is accrued based on a number of different parameters, including the level differential of their freshly slain victim).</em></strong>
This quote states if you are a purple/combatant when you attack the non-combatant, you don't won't yet have a corruption score. You gain the corruption score if you kill the non-combatant.
If my interpretation is in error, please deconstruct my analysis and correct my errors.
Did you read those posts that I quoted? A non combatant(say its you) can’t gain a “combatant flag ” by retaliating after he is attacked. The attacker will already have a corruption score as soon as he attacks you. [/quote]
Here is what I read:
https://errantpenman.com/2017/01/11/interview-ashes-of-creation-wants-to-bring-the-virtual-world-to-life/
<strong><em>There are three states that a player can find themselves in: Non-Combatant (Green), Combatant (Purple), and Corrupt (Red). Everyone is a Non-Combatant by default. If a Non-Combatant attacks a Combatant or another non-combatant, then they become a Combatant for a period of time. Similarly, if a Non-Combatant enters a PVP zone (which includes things like Castles, City Sieges and Caravans) they are automatically flagged a Combatant while in the zone, and for a period of time after leaving that zone.</em></strong>
My interpretation of that is that if I am a non-combatant and I am attacked, it behooves me to attack back, thereby flagging myself as a combatant. That encourages me to stay and fight so that I only get half the death penalty if I die. Because, if I simply flee and the attacker kills me, I'll receive the full death penalty. The system punishes me more for fleeing that it does for staying and fighting back. That also leaves me flagged as a combatant for several minutes if I survive. Which encourages other players to attack me since it appears I am interested in fighting and they will receive less penalties for attacking a combatant rather than a non-combatant.
This encourages a player who prefers to avoid combat to stay and fight, rather than to run away.
If a non-combatant remains a non-combat when they attack their attacker, they'd receive just as much of a death penalty if they stay and fight as they will if they are killed while they flee. If the non-combatant is not as well geared or is a lower level than their attacker, it doesn't really gain them much to stay and fight... just lost time in the end if they lose. It may be very likely they will lose, depending on how wicked the PKer might be. So, they might as well try to flee or just let the PKer kill them without fighting back.
Either way the non-combatant would receive the same death penalty, which is twice that of a combatant.
This would not encourage a non-combatant to fight. And it's not particularly fun for the "honorable combatant" wanting a fair fight - when they want a fair fight.
If my attacker was a non-combatant and attacks me while I'm a non-combatant, my attacker auto flags to combatant.
If my attacker kills me, I get the full death penalty if I don't auto-flag to combatant when I attack back.
If I kill my attacker, they get half the death penalty.
Does that sound fair?? ??
So... no... it makes more sense that, as stated in the link I've provided, a non-combatant auto flags as a combatant when they attack their attacker(s) (combatant/corrupted or non-combatant).
<strong><em>Players can kill Combatants without repercussions, and are encouraged to do so, since dying while a Combatant means you suffer reduced death penalties. Where this changes is when a Combatant kills a Non-Combatant. In this case, the Combatant is Corrupt, and acquires a Corruption Score (which is accrued based on a number of different parameters, including the level differential of their freshly slain victim).</em></strong>
This quote states if you are a purple/combatant when you attack the non-combatant, you don't won't yet have a corruption score. You gain the corruption score if you kill the non-combatant.
If my interpretation is in error, please deconstruct my analysis and correct my errors.
Thanks, in advance.
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/please-dont-force-us-to-be-victims-of-pvpers/#post-16672" rel="nofollow">Stabby wrote:</a></div>
I understand and appreciate everyones point of view on PvP. But there’s nothing I hate more than logging in with a plan and being killed while working on PVE stuff. I don’t want to be a victim anymore! ArcheAge and BDO sucked because I can’t play MY way. I want EverQuest 3. I want a game when I can do my thing and not be bothered by anyone. I want anonymity. I want to raid 4 hours every night. I want to blow up contested world bosses without looking over my shoulder to see if some guy is taking my health down to 1% so the boss kills me.
I want to spend a small fortune on a game that doesn’t make me some assholes victim.
</blockquote>
Pantheon Online , if you don’t know about it you should check it out, it offers exactly what you want.
[/quote]
^^^^^^
I plan to play both!