Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
[Suggestion] Idea for Servers Catering to PvE Players in a PvP-Driven Game
There's a number of threads about the state of PvP in this game, with the main crux of it being people who aren't interested in PvP but still wish to play in a game that demands PvP as a core concept (I'll stop myself from going into the details of why as it's been stated all over the place). I'm quite fond of open world PvP and am an avid PvPer, having done it since Everquest, but as someone who RPs a lot I also understand not wanting to have it forced on you all the time. On occasion random PvP has inspired some interesting RP, but I'll admit that more often than not it deters it.
That aside, the idea of PvE-only servers (or consensual-only PvP servers) has the strong potential to stagnate quickly without the threat of PvP changing the scene, given the game's design. The base game servers, on the other hand, don't provide truly safe areas for PvE-centric players.
It's not a perfect solution, but one idea could be a server-type where there are PvP "Hotspots" on an otherwise PvE-ruled server. These would be zones (or nodes, whichever), where PvP would be open like it is in the base game. These zones would persist in such a state for a set amount of time before moving to different zones/nodes/etc, wherein the old hotspots would return to PvE-rules. Furthermore, there could be incentives for drawing in non-PvPers to the zone, such as increased harvesting gains, exp bonuses, rare loot, and so on, keeping alive guard and bounty hunter type players and guilds to look after the PvE players willing to take the risks in these zones. Perhaps as well, a kill that would cause corruption on a normal server would come with far less penalties in such a zone, if any, truly promoting the need to work with PvP-oriented protectors.
Obviously there are a lot of factors involved in such a system; would all nodes/zones have a chance to become hotspots, how many hotspots would be active at one time, would they be truly random in placement or follow a tug-of-war style of movement, how long would hotspots remain so to name a few.
I only summarized the concept and it's far from complete, but at least on paper it seems to satisfy the core issue of giving PvE-oriented players a game where they don't need to be looking over their shoulders all the time while retaining (albeit somewhat less organically) the driving force of PvP-based change intact, along with the risk and excitement that comes with developing a zone that eventually will be a hotspot.
That aside, the idea of PvE-only servers (or consensual-only PvP servers) has the strong potential to stagnate quickly without the threat of PvP changing the scene, given the game's design. The base game servers, on the other hand, don't provide truly safe areas for PvE-centric players.
It's not a perfect solution, but one idea could be a server-type where there are PvP "Hotspots" on an otherwise PvE-ruled server. These would be zones (or nodes, whichever), where PvP would be open like it is in the base game. These zones would persist in such a state for a set amount of time before moving to different zones/nodes/etc, wherein the old hotspots would return to PvE-rules. Furthermore, there could be incentives for drawing in non-PvPers to the zone, such as increased harvesting gains, exp bonuses, rare loot, and so on, keeping alive guard and bounty hunter type players and guilds to look after the PvE players willing to take the risks in these zones. Perhaps as well, a kill that would cause corruption on a normal server would come with far less penalties in such a zone, if any, truly promoting the need to work with PvP-oriented protectors.
Obviously there are a lot of factors involved in such a system; would all nodes/zones have a chance to become hotspots, how many hotspots would be active at one time, would they be truly random in placement or follow a tug-of-war style of movement, how long would hotspots remain so to name a few.
I only summarized the concept and it's far from complete, but at least on paper it seems to satisfy the core issue of giving PvE-oriented players a game where they don't need to be looking over their shoulders all the time while retaining (albeit somewhat less organically) the driving force of PvP-based change intact, along with the risk and excitement that comes with developing a zone that eventually will be a hotspot.
0
Comments
corruption can be lost, I'd imagine through a tedious process.
well so chill, we can go on PvE without having to worry about anything.
corruption can be lost, I’d imagine through a tedious process.
well so chill, we can go on PvE without having to worry about anything.
[/quote]
PvP penalty systems are useless. Time and time again we've seen players bypass these systems. The system favors the murderer but not the victim. It does very little to prevent a PVE player from being killed 100 times a day by 100 different PVPers. There is no fun for these players. They end up unchecking the "subscription" box and we never see them again. The only true way to maximize a games potential is to launch with both PVE and PVP servers. End of story.
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/suggestion-idea-for-servers-catering-to-pve-players-in-a-pvp-driven-game/#post-17223" rel="nofollow">Irobot wrote:</a></div>
no worries, the devs have added a flagging system to strongly deter people from attacking non-PvPers. players are given 3 states, green, purple and red. green is the normal state, attacking another player turns you purple(including retaliating). if you kill a green player, you turn red. you will be considered corrupt, will have very high death penalty, combat effectiveness steadily drops with corruption level, and people who attack you won’t turn purple. and did I mention you could drop your gear too if you are red?
corruption can be lost, I’d imagine through a tedious process.
well so chill, we can go on PvE without having to worry about anything.
</blockquote>
PvP penalty systems are useless. Time and time again we’ve seen players bypass these systems. The system favors the murderer but not the victim. It does very little to prevent a PVE player from being killed 100 times a day by 100 different PVPers. There is no fun for these players. They end up unchecking the “subscription” box and we never see them again. The only true way to maximize a games potential is to launch with both PVE and PVP servers. End of story.
[/quote]
the system is made to spite these murderers. I don't know about you, but tripled death penalty is quite savage, and getting killed 100 times a day... that's only because punishment in games with both PvE and PvP is negligible at best. besides, you get bonuses for PvP 'wins' so it's technically rewarding to PK in such games. not here. anyways, Steven said that the difference between max and min quality gear is small, so you could fight back.
trust me, PKers will have a very bad time.
don't be so closed minded
What I think would be nice is some kind of a little follow up message when a corrupted player that killed you, get's killed himself. So you actually know, he got what he deserved. I think that would help a bit elevate the pain of having been ganked and not feel too helpless.
What systems are you refering to anyway, I haven't seen a single one that could be called a pvp penalty. Karma systems are just lazy ass solutions to say, "yeah we do something against it" but it never was a solution.
PvE servers don't make sense for Ashes it's just how it is, it's a balanced game that has it's pvp and it's pve part working together, they aim to have both equally established. If you take away on one side, the other will crumble too.
It will be really easy to just pick the game up for a month with little cost and try it out, if you don't like it the way it is, well then you aren't part of the target audience and should try your luck elsewhere.
Nice idea. Maybe it would help stop rage quiting if they could hang around and see if the pker got what he deserved.
Little early in the discussion to call an end of discussion. I think it's important to remember that PVP is <em>required</em> economically. Caravans running at 100% efficiency would be detrimental to the economy. It would throw risk/reward heavily out of balance favoring merchants. Inefficiency is the key for creating a self-regulating, and dynamic economy. PVPer's provide that inefficiency by: a) stealing the occasional caravan, b) destroying some of the materials they're carrying, and c) creating the fear of capture so merchants will hire guards to protect the caravan, even if no one raids it.
<blockquote>The only true way to maximize a games potential is to launch with both PVE and PVP servers. </blockquote>
See, I take issue with this. EVE online boasts a large subscriber base. "In February 2013 they had over 500,000 subscribers but currently you will find around 50,000 players online worldwide at any given time." <a href="http://igcritic.com/blog/2016/03/17/most-played-mmorpg-games-of-2016/3/">(source)</a> That's more than SWTOR, which is successful in it's own right.
Look man, I'm not a PVPer either. I've rarely done it in any MMO I've ever played, and so far, I've sucked at it. Still, I see the benefits of PVP. I think you're blowing this way out of proportion. The game is still in pre-alpha. We still don't know how corruption works, or if dying multiple times yields diminishing returns for those accosting you. Maybe there'll be bounty hunter quest to encourage people to help you out if you're getting ganked. Who knows? Certainly not me or you.
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/suggestion-idea-for-servers-catering-to-pve-players-in-a-pvp-driven-game/#post-17233" rel="nofollow">Stabby wrote:</a></div>
<blockquote>
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/suggestion-idea-for-servers-catering-to-pve-players-in-a-pvp-driven-game/#post-17223" rel="nofollow">Irobot wrote:</a></div>
no worries, the devs have added a flagging system to strongly deter people from attacking non-PvPers. players are given 3 states, green, purple and red. green is the normal state, attacking another player turns you purple(including retaliating). if you kill a green player, you turn red. you will be considered corrupt, will have very high death penalty, combat effectiveness steadily drops with corruption level, and people who attack you won’t turn purple. and did I mention you could drop your gear too if you are red?
corruption can be lost, I’d imagine through a tedious process.
well so chill, we can go on PvE without having to worry about anything.
</blockquote>
PvP penalty systems are useless. Time and time again we’ve seen players bypass these systems. The system favors the murderer but not the victim. It does very little to prevent a PVE player from being killed 100 times a day by 100 different PVPers. There is no fun for these players. They end up unchecking the “subscription” box and we never see them again. The only true way to maximize a games potential is to launch with both PVE and PVP servers. End of story.
</blockquote>
the system is made to spite these murderers. I don’t know about you, but tripled death penalty is quite savage, and getting killed 100 times a day… that’s only because punishment in games with both PvE and PvP is negligible at best. besides, you get bonuses for PvP ‘wins’ so it’s technically rewarding to PK in such games. not here. anyways, Steven said that the difference between max and min quality gear is small, so you could fight back.
trust me, PKers will have a very bad time.
don’t be so closed minded
[/quote]
To add on to this is the fact that the more corruption the person gets the less combat effectiveness the player will suffer from. This effect will last several deaths and the player will be rezzed around the world in random locations. So the chance of abusing the death system is not likely. If the player can rez in 100 different spots and no quick travel they are going to have a tough time because they themselves will get killed over and over again a lot of times not able to fight back until their corruption is completely wiped.
Yes the occasional PKer will be around that will attack people. But if there is a small gap between high end gear and low end gear then players who PK will really limit themselves.
Stabby you need to see that this game will not be for everyone. They are not going to chance their core game to suit an unintended market. They have the game they want to build and that is the right path. Trying to force them to change does you no good.
1. Gear. Even if you've reached level cap, let alone being a new player, someone who's played longer and has better gear typically annihilates anyone of lower gear score regardless of skill - simply because the gear is better. One way MMOs deal with this is to give everyone the same gear, or access to the same level of gear for PVP (e.g. GW2, you can customize your entire gear setup in the loading area).
2. Stats/Level. In virtually all MMOs, the stats your character has, combined with level of your character, essentially define your character's power. In a number of MMOs, you can kill mobs/other players while naked because of your stats/level. In that case, the durability hit that's supposed to provide a large deterrence to PKing becomes moot and just becomes a way for PKers to "get away with it." One way MMOs deal with this is having most/all PVP occur inside "max level/upleveling/stat balanced/power scaling" systems, so everyone is on a relatively even playing field (e.g. ESO has non-CP PVP available so the extra 600 "levels" of advantage players can obtain after max level is removed).
3. True class balance (which has probably never existed). Is it possible for a cleric to ever win a fight since they may not have enough dps to kill another class in 1v1? Will a Rogue/Summoner always win because the pets kill players while the Rogue is in stealth? Do classes that have CC have any kind of counters/diminishing returns from all the other classes who don't have CC and/or can't break CC efficiently? No one likes being one-shot from stealth or some other abusive mechanic. This will especially be exacerbated by the lack of fast travel, which means being ganked may cost you a lot of time to try and return to where you were gathering/questing/exploring.
3. Role balance (which has basically never occurred, though some games do better than others). Can a healer truly expect to survive a 1v1? Can they legitimately expect to *win* a 1v1? Same for tanks. In Warhammer Online, tanks provided a vital service to their teammates (something ESO is now going to borrow in their upcoming expansion). They could dramatically lower the damage output of their targets. Almost every class, if played well, could win a 1v1. If healers have to spend all their time just healing themselves, there's no point in having them in PVP since they can't help their teammates. At that point, they're really just damage absorption , which should be the tank's job.
I'm eager to see how these issues are managed in AoC. I'd prefer a flagging system where I can go gather and explore and not worry about another player intentionally trying to negatively impact my gameplay because my PVP flag is off. A simple on/off flag will allow those of us who opt out to not be fodder, but still contribute to the node's progress. However, IF I had a legitimate chance at being able to successfully defend myself from a PKer, I'd be much more inclined to leave my flag on.
</blockquote>
Little early in the discussion to call an end of discussion. I think it’s important to remember that PVP is <em>required</em> economically. Caravans running at 100% efficiency would be detrimental to the economy. It would throw risk/reward heavily out of balance favoring merchants. Inefficiency is the key for creating a self-regulating, and dynamic economy. PVPer’s provide that inefficiency by: a) stealing the occasional caravan, b) destroying some of the materials they’re carrying, and c) creating the fear of capture so merchants will hire guards to protect the caravan, even if no one raids it.
<blockquote>The only true way to maximize a games potential is to launch with both PVE and PVP servers.
</blockquote>
See, I take issue with this. EVE online boasts a large subscriber base. “In February 2013 they had over 500,000 subscribers but currently you will find around 50,000 players online worldwide at any given time.” <a href="http://igcritic.com/blog/2016/03/17/most-played-mmorpg-games-of-2016/3/" rel="nofollow">(source)</a> That’s more than SWTOR, which is successful in it’s own right.
Look man, I’m not a PVPer either. I’ve rarely done it in any MMO I’ve ever played, and so far, I’ve sucked at it. Still, I see the benefits of PVP. I think you’re blowing this way out of proportion. The game is still in pre-alpha. We still don’t know how corruption works, or if dying multiple times yields diminishing returns for those accosting you. Maybe there’ll be bounty hunter quest to encourage people to help you out if you’re getting ganked. Who knows? Certainly not me or you.
[/quote]
This Here. Have to keep reminding antiPVP players that AoC simply won't be the game they are designing on any kind of PVE only server. Not even the same or make sense on a PVP "with only" wars and caravans server. I am NOT a big PVP guy but I do know that PVP is both useful for risk vs reward AND is essential here because of the way that the game is being put together.
PVP is one of the main elements of CHANGE and how PLAYERS shape the world in a game with these sorts of features.
Maybe they could do something along the lines of creating sub nodes in a zone where fortifications could be built. Like the Caravans those sites would need to be protected while under construction. If successfully completed the fort would provide a temporary protection buff making a small radius in that area PvE only for an hour roughly. More PvE oriented folks or those who prefer their PvE and PvP to be a bit more separate could have a smallish window to achieve a few things without getting run over by a zerg, forced to be in a wolf pack to do anything, or constantly looking over their back for opportunistic gankers.
There'd of course be limitations on how often those forts could be constructed, significant material and crafted item requirements, building time limits, possible local zone announcements on starting construction or reaching a certain point in construction, etc.
That would require quite a bit of cooperation and coordination between crafters, PvE players, PvP players, probably nearby Node and/or alliance leaders. It would effectively just create more of the gameplay already proposed in the described design. Along with the short PvE windows it would obviously generate more PvP to protect or stop their construction.
Perhaps something like that might even be used as a start to a siege camp for a nearby Node or beginning an assault on a generated Raid event.
To be clear, this isn't at a theoretical, "let's discuss it" stage. They know what they want.
I would love for you to explain why you think the game demands players to kill players as a core concept to the degree that a PvE-only server would stagnate. I haven't seen any valid explanations for why a PvE server would stagnate without PvP combat.
PvE server with PvP combat toggled off is an easy fix requiring almost no extra work for the devs.
The devs shouldn't waste time designing mechanics that ren'tt already part of the current design.
I don't care at all about the economy, but I don't understand why it's imperative to kill players in order to disable the caravans.
PvE players can decide together to disrupt the caravans if they want to fix the economy. No need to kill players to accomplish that.
Players can steal the occasional caravan and destroy some of the materials - if that helps keep the economy in line... without killing other players. Hire guards for caravans because it's likey that the nodes will be sending NPC bandits and other mobs after the caravans, too. Or hire guards as props or actors when you stage that great train robbery for a movie. It's the ultimate movie experience with none of the actors killed.
The players could decide to destroy the roads the caravans use - without killing any players.
And, seems to me that establishing fast travel network nearby could destabilize trade via caravans.
Again, without player killing players.
...</blockquote>
I would love for you to explain why you think the game demands players to kill players as a core concept to the degree that a PvE-only server would stagnate. I haven’t seen any valid explanations for why a PvE server would stagnate without PvP combat.
PvE server with PvP combat toggled off is an easy fix requiring almost no extra work for the devs.
The devs shouldn’t waste time designing mechanics that ren’tt already part of the current design.
[/quote]Say the players want to open up more real estate on beach front property, but nobody is willing to sell for a low enough price. On top of that the ruler has placed a high tax on the land. A siege on the city node that the house is connected to would allow these plots of land to open up and eliminate the ruler. The other option would be to wait everything out and hopefully somebody doesn't pay their taxes. What do you do?
1.) Be part of a siege. Free the land and remove the leader from power by force.
2.) Wait for the high taxes to take effect and knock somebody out of their land. Those high taxes belong to you!
3.) Find someplace else to live. You don't like the beach anyways. *kicks sand.*
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/suggestion-idea-for-servers-catering-to-pve-players-in-a-pvp-driven-game/#post-17249" rel="nofollow">Ashergi wrote:</a></div>
I think it’s important to remember that PVP is <em>required</em> economically. Caravans running at 100% efficiency would be detrimental to the economy. It would throw risk/reward heavily out of balance favoring merchants. Inefficiency is the key for creating a self-regulating, and dynamic economy. PVPer’s provide that inefficiency by: a) stealing the occasional caravan, b) destroying some of the materials they’re carrying, and c) creating the fear of capture so merchants will hire guards to protect the caravan, even if no one raids it.
</blockquote>
I don’t care at all about the economy, but I don’t understand why it’s imperative to kill players in order to disable the caravans.
PvE players can decide together to disrupt the caravans if they want to fix the economy. No need to kill players to accomplish that.
Players can steal the occasional caravan and destroy some of the materials – if that helps keep the economy in line… without killing other players. Hire guards for caravans because it’s likey that the nodes will be sending NPC bandits and other mobs after the caravans, too. Or hire guards as props or actors when you stage that great train robbery for a movie. It’s the ultimate movie experience with none of the actors killed.
The players could decide to destroy the roads the caravans use – without killing any players.
And, seems to me that establishing fast travel network nearby could destabilize trade via caravans.
Again, without player killing players.
[/quote]
It's not easy to debate from the point of view of what is health or realistic for an MMO, or even just this MMO, with someone who puts "I don't like" "I don't care about" and "I don't want" in so many of his points. I realize that you are also playing Devil's Advocate, as are a few others here, but those phrases are not really discussion at the same level.
And NO, you can't just turn a PVP switch off for a game designed and balanced to be OWPVP and have it work right. Not unless you have started design with that option in mind. MMOs are incredibly complicated equations. Even when they are still mostly just design documents.
Your PVE caravan example. Some players want to attack a caravan right? And it works on a PVE server because the caravan's guards are all NPC, right? Well what if I want to escort my caravan too, as if it has some of my wealth or a friend's "stuff" he needs in it? I can't defend the caravan because players are attacking it? I guess how caravans work has to be changed for a PVE server...
It's going to be a server of cooperative players rather than competitive players.
Much like a hippy commune. And i really envision the server would be more like a giant theater community where the players work together to stage events, so all of that stuff can be scheduled.
1: A siege can occur to "free the land" without killing other players if the players cooperate. I think it's more likely that the ruler decided to stage the siege on his own city (in alliance with players from another region) than that the ruler of the city would place a high tax.
2: Your taxes scenario makes no sense to me.
3: Yeah, I'd probably find some place else to live from the start. This wouldn't even be a thing.
In kind regards,
Similarin Roche
It’s going to be a server of cooperative players rather than competitive players.
Much like a hippy commune. And i really envision the server would be more like a giant theater community where the players work together to stage events, so all of that stuff can be scheduled.
1: A siege can occur to “free the land” without killing other players if the players cooperate. I think it’s more likely that the ruler decided to stage the siege on his own city (in alliance with players from another region) than that the ruler of the city would place a high tax.
2: Your taxes scenario makes no sense to me.
3: Yeah, I’d probably find some place else to live from the start. This wouldn’t even be a thing.
[/quote]
1.) The dilemma for besieging your own city is that you could degrade the city during the siege. I believe I've heard that things like having property destroyed increases the amount of tax money needed to keep up a city.
While this would be a reason to argue against PvP enabled realms, I doubt the developers would want PvE only realms to have imbalanced taxes. Just switching off PvP combat wouldn't be enough for the developers to be satisfied if things came down to PvE only realms. They'd have to go into more detail with the mechanics.
2.) If taxes are high from a leader that chooses to tax high, then you won't be able to live in the area if you can't afford it. What was wrong with the scenario?
3.) Y U NO LIKE BEACH?!
Allow one of the Node City types to have a feature which disallows all PVP except caravan attacks and actual Node warfare.
[u]Server[/u]
*It keeps more servers populated instead of breaking the populations up.
*It is a compromise that only prevents random PVP in a small area of the map(just a node).
*It just might help ease the concerns of a goodly number of the anti PVP players.
[u]Meaningful Choices[/u]
*A node has to be leveled to a certain place so there is work involved.
*The Node's population has to provide either coin or materials or both to have the feature operational(maintenance cost). *This "cost" should be balanced against the advantages of harvesting materials without risk from within that Node.
*It is also a meaningful choice because the Node's Citizens are also not allowed to attack outsiders within their own Node even if those outsiders are picking all the good flowers or digging all the good metal.
[u]Not a PVP game changer[/u]
*It only locks down a single and usually most troubling type of PVP.
*It is only in the area of a node rather than "world wide".
It’s not easy to debate from the point of view of what is health or realistic for an MMO, or even just this MMO, with someone who puts “I don’t like” “I don’t care about” and “I don’t want” in so many of his points. I realize that you are also playing Devil’s Advocate, as are a few others here, but those phrases are not really discussion at the same level.[/quote]
But, this has nothing to do with the health of an MMO. This has to do with the "health" of one server.
If the server becomes too "unhealthy" such that the population deserts the server, just sunset it and replace it with a normal server.
I don't know that I'm playing Devil's Advocate. I'm just sharing my perspective.
PvE players don't play MMORPGs for the same reasons PvP players play.
Casual players don't play MMORPGs for the same reasons that hardcore players play.
So, while PvP players who want to feel the thrill of and risk of fighting players or have challenging competition on the trade front...
I get that. But, casual carebears tend not to care about that stuff.
[quote]And NO, you can’t just turn a PVP switch off for a game designed and balanced to be OWPVP and have it work right. Not unless you have started design with that option in mind. MMOs are incredibly complicated equations. Even when they are still mostly just design documents.[/quote]
Yes. You can just turn a PvP switch off for a server that is designed and balanced to be OWPVP.
That server doesn't have to "work right".
You tell the PvEers, "The game isn't balanced for PvE-only. You can play on the server if you want to, but we aren't going to rebalance anything caused by a lack of PvP. You aren't going to like it. We are going to sunset the server once the population drops to xxx."
And then you sit back and wait for the population to drop to xxx and say, "Sorry, there aren't enough of you playing here for us to support this server any longer, we're going to replace it with a normal server."
If enough players enjoy playing there even when it doesn't "work right" that the pop stays above xxx, let it run. If it drops below, replace it.
[quote]Your PVE caravan example. Some players want to attack a caravan right? And it works on a PVE server because the caravan’s guards are all NPC, right? Well what if I want to escort my caravan too, as if it has some of my wealth or a friend’s “stuff” he needs in it? I can’t defend the caravan because players are attacking it? I guess how caravans work has to be changed for a PVE server…[/quote]
It works on a PvE only if the players there value cooperation and compromise over competition and PvP combat.
But, casual carebears tend to value cooperation and cooperation over competition and PvP combat.
We just have to see if there is a large enough pop willing to muddle through the challenges that arise from having PvP turned off to warrant maintaining that server as PvE-only.
So, first we have to know why the players want to play on a PvE-only. And how that desire influences their attachment to the content. If I'm playing on a PvE-only server that I can change dynamically based on my actions, then that's really one big giant movie set, in my view. I'm basically an actor/director willing to work with the other players to create a story.
So...why do the players want to attack the caravan? According to the scenario originally presented, the players want to attack the caravan because it's so efficient that the economy was thrown out of whack. Attacking the caravan is a good way to fix that, so we schedule and stage a player driven event where we attack the caravan.
We place a message on the server forum and other social media announcing the date and time of the event days in advance.
If you want to escort your caravan, do so before or after we attack it.
Makes no sense for someone who wants to avoid PvP combat to choose to try to defend the caravan while a player event to attack the caravan is being staged.
Assuming you missed the message, just ask if we can wait until your portion of the caravan has passed.
If the caravan is already destroyed or whatever ask people for help moving your stuff where you want it to be.
If you don't like the way that tends to go - you decide that this F-ing PvE-only server doesn't work right. Start a character on a normal server.
In kind regards,
Similarin Roche
[/quote]
Yes they have talked about how they will use a Corruption system to penalize gankers. First you will get Corruption which will lower your combat effectiveness. (This was in their latest video) The more corruption you get the more your combat effectiveness will degrade. You will also end up dropping your gear when you are a corrupt player. And bounty hunters will know where you are on the map to kill you. Also you will respawn anywhere in the world after you get killed so the risk of not being able to defend yourself an taking hours just to get home to get your gear after you lost it to being killing. Also killing low players will raise your corruption faster the lower level they are to you.
The Corruption system is very hard on PKers. So ganking will not be a thing except with some people who are really nuts.
Allow one of the Node City types to have a feature which disallows all PVP except caravan attacks and actual Node warfare.
<span class="d4pbbc-underline" style="text-decoration: underline;">Server</span>
*It keeps more servers populated instead of breaking the populations up.
*It is a compromise that only prevents random PVP in a small area of the map(just a node).
*It just might help ease the concerns of a goodly number of the anti PVP players.
<span class="d4pbbc-underline" style="text-decoration: underline;">Meaningful Choices</span>
*A node has to be leveled to a certain place so there is work involved.
*The Node’s population has to provide either coin or materials or both to have the feature operational(maintenance cost). *This “cost” should be balanced against the advantages of harvesting materials without risk from within that Node.
*It is also a meaningful choice because the Node’s Citizens are also not allowed to attack outsiders within their own Node even if those outsiders are picking all the good flowers or digging all the good metal.
<span class="d4pbbc-underline" style="text-decoration: underline;">Not a PVP game changer</span>
*It only locks down a single and usually most troubling type of PVP.
*It is only in the area of a node rather than “world wide”.
[/quote]
Please read my comment above about Corruption. It will be very punishing. Heck they will likely make it more punishing than it already is.
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/suggestion-idea-for-servers-catering-to-pve-players-in-a-pvp-driven-game/page/2/#post-17428" rel="nofollow">Bringslite wrote:</a></div>
Here is an off the wall compromise that does not call for separate server types. It includes “meaningful choices” for players to make. It does not interfere with what Intrepid seems to feel is the most important types of PVP.
Allow one of the Node City types to have a feature which disallows all PVP except caravan attacks and actual Node warfare.
<span class=”d4pbbc-underline” style=”text-decoration: underline;”>Server</span>
*It keeps more servers populated instead of breaking the populations up.
*It is a compromise that only prevents random PVP in a small area of the map(just a node).
*It just might help ease the concerns of a goodly number of the anti PVP players.
<span class=”d4pbbc-underline” style=”text-decoration: underline;”>Meaningful Choices</span>
*A node has to be leveled to a certain place so there is work involved.
*The Node’s population has to provide either coin or materials or both to have the feature operational(maintenance cost). *This “cost” should be balanced against the advantages of harvesting materials without risk from within that Node.
*It is also a meaningful choice because the Node’s Citizens are also not allowed to attack outsiders within their own Node even if those outsiders are picking all the good flowers or digging all the good metal.
<span class=”d4pbbc-underline” style=”text-decoration: underline;”>Not a PVP game changer</span>
*It only locks down a single and usually most troubling type of PVP.
*It is only in the area of a node rather than “world wide”.
</blockquote>
Please read my comment above about Corruption. It will be very punishing. Heck they will likely make it more punishing than it already is.
[/quote]
They can't make it more punishing than reasonable players can accept. Not if they really want small time banditry PVP to be a thing. I suppose that they probably also want just a small touch of "Psycopathic PVP" as well. Why design corruption and bunty hunting if not... I haven't given them a chance to show it off yet but c'mon! How can they make such a system so severe but still want a certain amount of the play they are punishing? You will scare away all the "reasonable" players that want to play bandits and only the most "unreasonable" players will endulge in it.
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/suggestion-idea-for-servers-catering-to-pve-players-in-a-pvp-driven-game/page/2/#post-17433" rel="nofollow">Helzbelz wrote:</a></div>
<blockquote>
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/suggestion-idea-for-servers-catering-to-pve-players-in-a-pvp-driven-game/page/2/#post-17428" rel="nofollow">Bringslite wrote:</a></div>
Here is an off the wall compromise that does not call for separate server types. It includes “meaningful choices” for players to make. It does not interfere with what Intrepid seems to feel is the most important types of PVP.
Allow one of the Node City types to have a feature which disallows all PVP except caravan attacks and actual Node warfare.
<span class=”d4pbbc-underline” style=”text-decoration: underline;”>Server</span>
*It keeps more servers populated instead of breaking the populations up.
*It is a compromise that only prevents random PVP in a small area of the map(just a node).
*It just might help ease the concerns of a goodly number of the anti PVP players.
<span class=”d4pbbc-underline” style=”text-decoration: underline;”>Meaningful Choices</span>
*A node has to be leveled to a certain place so there is work involved.
*The Node’s population has to provide either coin or materials or both to have the feature operational(maintenance cost). *This “cost” should be balanced against the advantages of harvesting materials without risk from within that Node.
*It is also a meaningful choice because the Node’s Citizens are also not allowed to attack outsiders within their own Node even if those outsiders are picking all the good flowers or digging all the good metal.
<span class=”d4pbbc-underline” style=”text-decoration: underline;”>Not a PVP game changer</span>
*It only locks down a single and usually most troubling type of PVP.
*It is only in the area of a node rather than “world wide”.
</blockquote>
Please read my comment above about Corruption. It will be very punishing. Heck they will likely make it more punishing than it already is.
</blockquote>
They can’t make it more punishing than reasonable players can accept. Not if they really want small time banditry PVP to be a thing. I suppose that they probably also want just a small touch of “Psycopathic PVP” as well. Why design corruption and bunty hunting if not… I haven’t given them a chance to show it off yet but c’mon! How can they make such a system so severe but still want a certain amount of the play they are punishing? You will scare away all the “reasonable” players that want to play bandits and only the most “unreasonable” players will endulge in it.
[/quote]
It depends how much harder it is. For example if you are max level and kill a new player maybe you max out you corruption right after that kill. That would be very punishing. The real question is how will XP losses affect max level characters if you are not de-leveling players. Here is a better option instead of an XP loss for every time they die they lose 10% of their gold on their account. This way they cannot hint gold on their other characters. That could be a good deterrent.
They can make the corruption system very punishing especially towards gankers or players who kill low level players. It will not stop people from killing the random player. What will do that is the loss of combat effectiveness. This raises the risk for PKers so the PKers will want to focus on reward if they are taking a risk.
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/suggestion-idea-for-servers-catering-to-pve-players-in-a-pvp-driven-game/page/2/#post-17439" rel="nofollow">Bringslite wrote:</a></div>
<blockquote>
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/suggestion-idea-for-servers-catering-to-pve-players-in-a-pvp-driven-game/page/2/#post-17433" rel="nofollow">Helzbelz wrote:</a></div>
<blockquote>
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/suggestion-idea-for-servers-catering-to-pve-players-in-a-pvp-driven-game/page/2/#post-17428" rel="nofollow">Bringslite wrote:</a></div>
Here is an off the wall compromise that does not call for separate server types. It includes “meaningful choices” for players to make. It does not interfere with what Intrepid seems to feel is the most important types of PVP.
Allow one of the Node City types to have a feature which disallows all PVP except caravan attacks and actual Node warfare.
<span class=”d4pbbc-underline” style=”text-decoration: underline;”>Server</span>
*It keeps more servers populated instead of breaking the populations up.
*It is a compromise that only prevents random PVP in a small area of the map(just a node).
*It just might help ease the concerns of a goodly number of the anti PVP players.
<span class=”d4pbbc-underline” style=”text-decoration: underline;”>Meaningful Choices</span>
*A node has to be leveled to a certain place so there is work involved.
*The Node’s population has to provide either coin or materials or both to have the feature operational(maintenance cost). *This “cost” should be balanced against the advantages of harvesting materials without risk from within that Node.
*It is also a meaningful choice because the Node’s Citizens are also not allowed to attack outsiders within their own Node even if those outsiders are picking all the good flowers or digging all the good metal.
<span class=”d4pbbc-underline” style=”text-decoration: underline;”>Not a PVP game changer</span>
*It only locks down a single and usually most troubling type of PVP.
*It is only in the area of a node rather than “world wide”.
</blockquote>
Please read my comment above about Corruption. It will be very punishing. Heck they will likely make it more punishing than it already is.
</blockquote>
They can’t make it more punishing than reasonable players can accept. Not if they really want small time banditry PVP to be a thing. I suppose that they probably also want just a small touch of “Psycopathic PVP” as well. Why design corruption and bunty hunting if not… I haven’t given them a chance to show it off yet but c’mon! How can they make such a system so severe but still want a certain amount of the play they are punishing? You will scare away all the “reasonable” players that want to play bandits and only the most “unreasonable” players will endulge in it.
</blockquote>
It depends how much harder it is. For example if you are max level and kill a new player maybe you max out you corruption right after that kill. That would be very punishing. The real question is how will XP losses affect max level characters if you are not de-leveling players. Here is a better option instead of an XP loss for every time they die they lose 10% of their gold on their account. This way they cannot hint gold on their other characters. That could be a good deterrent.
They can make the corruption system very punishing especially towards gankers or players who kill low level players. It will not stop people from killing the random player. What will do that is the loss of combat effectiveness. This raises the risk for PKers so the PKers will want to focus on reward if they are taking a risk.
[/quote]
Good points and I like the ideas about level differences putting the greatest amount of "Hurt" on a guy/gal.
Just an idea I threw out there on a mad whim to actually pay attention to the OP's thread title. Not something I do often. lol ;)
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/suggestion-idea-for-servers-catering-to-pve-players-in-a-pvp-driven-game/page/2/#post-17426" rel="nofollow">xXBeloXx wrote:</a></div>
So has Intrepid gone very deep into how they will be penalizing gankers? I dont thing they have. They have mentioned systems that are going to be in place but only gave general descriptions. Before the PvErs of the world get to wrapped up in PvE only servers and this system dosent work, why dont we give them a chance to explain how they will do this.
In kind regards,
Similarin Roche
</blockquote>
Yes they have talked about how they will use a Corruption system to penalize gankers. First you will get Corruption which will lower your combat effectiveness. (This was in their latest video) The more corruption you get the more your combat effectiveness will degrade. You will also end up dropping your gear when you are a corrupt player. And bounty hunters will know where you are on the map to kill you. Also you will respawn anywhere in the world after you get killed so the risk of not being able to defend yourself an taking hours just to get home to get your gear after you lost it to being killing. Also killing low players will raise your corruption faster the lower level they are to you.
The Corruption system is very hard on PKers. So ganking will not be a thing except with some people who are really nuts.
[/quote]
Fair enough. Even as a PvE player, this works for me. We will need to see it in action in alpha to really get a feel. But this is a good start.
1.) The dilemma for besieging your own city is that you could degrade the city during the siege. I believe I’ve heard that things like having property destroyed increases the amount of tax money needed to keep up a city. While this would be a reason to argue against PvP enabled realms, I doubt the developers would want PvE only realms to have imbalanced taxes. Just switching off PvP combat wouldn’t be enough for the developers to be satisfied if things came down to PvE only realms. They’d have to go into more detail with the mechanics.[/quote]
That's not a dilemma. That's the expectation.
We would have to see how many players in the city are ready to tear the city down.
In my scenarios, I consider it likely that the players on the server would set time limits on how long a city exists before they tear it down and make a new... to help ensure that the "catalysts for world change" continue to flow.
So, for one thing the players who want the beach front property could just wait for the time limit expire.
Or the players of the city could decide it's close enough to the time limit - starting the siege a few weeks earlier than expected is OK.
Or the players in the city could decide that nothing new has been happening recently - the world hasn't changed because it's not being driven by PvP, so they're ready to stage a siege even though it's a couple months before schedule.
Why would the devs care if the PvE server has imbalanced taxes?
If the players there enjoy that, they keep paying their sub - that's a win for them.
If so many players hate it that they abandon the server, the devs just wait for the population to drop to xxx players, sunset it and replace it with a normal server.
[quote]2.) If taxes are high from a leader that chooses to tax high, then you won’t be able to live in the area if you can’t afford it. What was wrong with the scenario?[/quote]
Nothing is wrong with that scenario - though it was phrased in a manner I didn't understand.
But, yeah, I wouldn't care about that. I would just pick up stakes and move.
I mean I probably wouldn't be living in a city like that anyways. That sounds like it would have to be a Military Metropolis where the leadership is whoever is best in combat. And, I imagine on a carebear server that style of node isn't going to be popular.
Most likely I would be in a city with a democratic leadership so we would just vote people in who will lower the taxes.
I will be playing AoC with a community of twitch streamers and followers, so, the leader of our city... if there is only one... would be the the streamer that the rest of us like to watch and hang out with. Doesn't really make sense that he would choose to raise taxes high unless his stream followers were OK with that. More likely, the leadership would be made up of several followers of the stream - again, unlikely that the would raise taxes too high. And most likely that decisions would still be made with the good of the followers in mind. We're likely to be highly cooperative and willing to compromise.
But, if the the taxes were too high for me and I no longer want to pay them and the leader(s) didn't want to lower the taxes. Yes. I would stop paying the taxes. And we'd figure out how we want to get rid of the house.
[quote]3.) Y U NO LIKE BEACH?![/quote]
I'm a casual, hippy carebear.
As long as asshat PvPers aren't ganking me when I'm not in the mood, I really don't care... it's all fun from there.
As long as there continues to be new stuff to do.
And, again, if I really hate playing on the PvE server because it doesn't "work right"... it's easy enough to start playing on the normal servers.
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/suggestion-idea-for-servers-catering-to-pve-players-in-a-pvp-driven-game/page/2/#post-17431" rel="nofollow">Helzbelz wrote:</a></div>
<blockquote>
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/suggestion-idea-for-servers-catering-to-pve-players-in-a-pvp-driven-game/page/2/#post-17426" rel="nofollow">xXBeloXx wrote:</a></div>
So has Intrepid gone very deep into how they will be penalizing gankers? I dont thing they have. They have mentioned systems that are going to be in place but only gave general descriptions. Before the PvErs of the world get to wrapped up in PvE only servers and this system dosent work, why dont we give them a chance to explain how they will do this.
In kind regards,
Similarin Roche
</blockquote>
Yes they have talked about how they will use a Corruption system to penalize gankers. First you will get Corruption which will lower your combat effectiveness. (This was in their latest video) The more corruption you get the more your combat effectiveness will degrade. You will also end up dropping your gear when you are a corrupt player. And bounty hunters will know where you are on the map to kill you. Also you will respawn anywhere in the world after you get killed so the risk of not being able to defend yourself an taking hours just to get home to get your gear after you lost it to being killing. Also killing low players will raise your corruption faster the lower level they are to you.
The Corruption system is very hard on PKers. So ganking will not be a thing except with some people who are really nuts.
</blockquote>
Fair enough. Even as a PvE player, this works for me. We will need to see it in action in alpha to really get a feel. But this is a good start.
[/quote]
Yes we do. We just need to make sure 1 type of game play is so punishing that most players will not do that and that is ganking. Going to low level areas and killing players should be very punshing, and killing players over and over just because should be punishing. The rest of the PVP in the game is gravy.
One of two things may be seen when alpha comes around, low level gathering alts (to increase corruption loss on pk so as to dissuade people from trying to take gathering supplies) or high level characters who will fight back to lower loss of items that are dropped upon death due to combatant reduction of death penalties.
These two scenarios much like the entire corruption debate is all semantics now because no numbers are released or known
If anything on alpha everything may change, as heavy handed penalties on pking such as reduction in combat potential AND dropping of equipment on death may decrease the population so much as to make bounty hunting a waste of time.
A better system would be removal of combat potential reduction until killed by a bounty hunter (make it a timed debuff) and increase the reward for those who hunt pks. Basically make the reward so much more enticing to other pvp players to PROTECT low levels and pvers. Bam, guilds running safe havens and combat mercenary guilds/bounty hunters have jobs and overworld pvp can occur for all groups
[/quote]
Group of gankers let one guy attack, he ganks on and on
Guy gets the red flag
Guy gets naked
His friends kill him over and over
Problem solved!