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.
Comments
1. Concensual PvP happens in conbat areas where you are automatically flagged for combat. You consent to PvP by being there.
2. The non concensual PvP areas are protected by corruption.
Entering a 'known' auto-PvP situation/area and then complaining it was non-consensual when you get attacked by PvP is ..well....illogical.
I think thats about as polite as I can be.
<strong>I’m asking for one fundamental change,</strong> allow me a mechanism that gives me the same control. Allow me to “taint” my gear, so it can diminish the pkers stats even more. Allow me to target players with trade sanctions, my own version of Pking. Not prohibitive to the pker and make it expensive if you want, casuals will eat it up and it will mitigate this community splintering argument (which it will be, it always is) for the long term.
That’s the only beef I have. I’m fine with PKing in a pvp game but I’ve always found systems to be flawed. As someone being killed the control mechanism are too little in compare. The PKer gets to dictate everything, assuming they win. Just give me a potion, a craft able item that lets me poison my gear who ever obtains it gets a degenerative effect. This way if I’m out gathering I can equip it in hot zones. I’m suffering for having it in my inventory; the PKer suffers when he gets it off my corpse.
You then have created an entire sub market of goods. Talismans/potions/gear sockets, something.
People in positions of power that offer a strategic reward are fair game.
Players that are not in positions of power are not.
ie you are not really targetting specific people for the hell of it.
That could work, but presents the problem, well 'everyone' is working for the strategic advancement of a node.
By killing players, you are preventing a nodes progress in the strategic sense.
I agree with the OP.
This is probably as fair as the system could really be.
-snips out the rest-
</blockquote>
so basically, all you want is the ability to choose when you pvp? Right, I suppose next you'll jump into wanting people to be forced to challenge you to a duel complete with fail-safes before you get killed. One thing after another, you can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people, all of the time.
People in positions of power that offer a strategic reward are fair game.
Players that are not in positions of power are not.
ie you are not really targetting specific people for the hell of it.
That could work, but presents the problem, well ‘everyone’ is working for the strategic advancement of a node.
By killing players, you are preventing a nodes progress in the strategic sense.
I agree with the OP.
This is probably as fair as the system could really be.
</blockquote>
Agreed, you can't please everyone all of the time. I honestly think from what little we've seen, the system is well thought out.
Explorers especially take issue with that assumption of consent. Even though hardcore PvPers will view that as a legit excuse.
That's not my personal concern, but it's a concern for lots of people.
My personal issue is being attacked while still flagged for PvP combat even after I've had my fill of PvP combat.
I'm not necessarily too concerned about that for Ashes -again I will have to play to know for sure- but, an Ashes example would be walking away from a siege and being attacked while still flagged as a combatant.
As Malic-Valon alludes to, the core aspect of non-consensual PvP combat is being forced to engage in avatar v avatar when you don't wish to. It's a lack of free agency whose control is in the hands of another player. Whenever they want to, another player decides for you when you have to make the choice to accept normal death penalties (that other player decides whether the risk of corruption is worth it to them) or flag for PvP combat.
In all the MMORPGs I've played, I have tactics to deal with unexpected mobs - like running pas t the length of their leash- which don't work on players. It really shouldn't be up to another player to decide I take a death penalty which adds hours to my play session simply because they want five minutes of fun - or that I will have to spend unwanted time as a combatant if I win.
Again, if I wanted to grief other players via PvP combat, I would just make a bunch of alt zombies. Doesn't matter if they gain corruption because the whole point would be to do as much damage as possible for as long as possible while gaining as much corruption as possible. Corruption -as far as has been shared about the mechanic so far- isn't much of a deterrent.
I typically avoid combat where possible in RPGs. For D&D 3+, I use social skills, like diplomacy, intimidation or bluff, to avoid combat. Seems likely that Ashes will have similar social skills. Like Malic-Valon, seems to me that combat should not be the only activity that players can be forced into against their wills. Maybe people who don't like physical combat would prefer to have a battle of wits that affects the reputations of player avatars. Especially if that's more the purview of Artisans rather than Adventurers. Not that I really want to add different methods of non-consensual griefing.
@Malic-Valon
Your gear can't be looted if you die as a combatant or non-combatant. Not even as a corrupted, AFAIK.
Loot is materials/resources.
My point here is the control aspect is 100% with the PKer. I'd like tools that enable me to equally impact players in a similar manner and I imagine every PK player out there would support that. I mean they could be hypocrites and not but being able to craft potions that taint mats gear (whatever drops), the ability to embargo players.
Lets expand the scope of the mechanic so its inclusive and not have one playstyle be able to dictate application. Im fine with the system going in as is, its not a deal breaker for me but since we are in pre alpha now is the time to put forward ideas. Ive yet to see an MMO put in counter plays to pking beyond justice systems AFTER the PK occurs, which thats what this is.
It's not so much about avatars dying, it's really about thwarting their tasks and quests. And blowing up various forms of infrastructure.
Destroying a caravan affects the progress of a node considerably more than killing avatars. Killing avatars will help you destroy a caravan, but if all you do is kill avatars but don't destroy the caravan... the node will get a significant boost.
And if you destroy the caravan without killing any player avatars, that will be a considerable blow against the progress of the node - more so than just killing avatars.
Yep. I'm not necessarily speaking for you, though.
Other people have also have concerns about PvP combat in Ashes. Some similar to your concerns and some different than yours.
The control aspect is at the core of consent.
If every PKer is a griefer then, sure, every griefer would probably love to have another method of griefing added to the game.
I'm not inherently opposed to expanding the scope so that it's not just physical combat that can force players into unwanted activities.
We're having pre-alpha discussions - a great time to explore possible solutions that could be added to alleviate the concerns of PvE Adventurers and casual PvP Adventures.
I feel ya.
</blockquote>
Hmm ok, I didn't consider level, I was assuming same level players fight flagged vs non flagged.
I guess for attacking underleveled players it would be ok for your stats to decrease. But for fighting vs equal level players, I still think in this case it would be lame.
If players are of equal level, one should rely on his own skill and tactics to defeat enemy, and not on enemy loosing it's stats.
1. Those who want to be able to kill randomly and anywhere they like, want NO penalties for doing so.
2. Those who want NO PVP to bother them at all, if they choose, are dead set against any kind.
You have the two extreme ends of a spectrum and a system satisfying to both has never been established inside one game. Both sides will give ideas for solutions, but all those ideas amount too are just nudges halfway back to their side of the debate.
You know why I am pretty sure that there ISN'T A Solution here? It makes sense that there isn't: You can't have an OWPVP game or even a STRUCTURED PVP only game without PVP. You can't have any "special snowflakes" on the pro PVP side or the anti PVP side. I suppose that you could add even more penalties for RPK, but you certainly can't penalize players for structured PVP activities.
@ Dygz
You certainly can't expect to engage in PVP only for as long as you like and then switch to Noncombatant instantly when you want to and be safe. That does not really seem to be a fair and balanced approach. Players that you have attacked during your PVP fun may not feel like they have had a chance to repay you in kind. Players would abuse the hell out of such mechanics even if you never did.
In Structured PVP there is usually a goal and/or a timer. There is usually an "area" that is the hot zone. Do not be in that area if you don't want to PVP. If you are in a guild or whatever group that is in a war, well there isn't any shutting off or switching to Noncombatant when you get tired of it anyway. You are Combatant to your current "enemies" until the structured conflict ends.
@ Malic-Valdon
I think it would be great to be able to affect any RPKers that I want with player controlled consequences. Both at my level and at the higher Node control level. If RPK was any more of a problem than very minor in Intrepid's viewpoint, maybe they will expand into that. Players could boycott RPKers and their guilds from using your shops and the shops of any others you could convince. Maybe a node could put an RPKer and/or his guild on a list that does not allow them to resurrect within the Nodes ZOI, making them pop in an area that might be far away. That would be fun stuff and send signals.
I am not sure that pre poisoning items or similar systems might not be too convoluted and too costly to code... but I don't know. One thing I do know, is that the more complicated the anti RPK system that you build, the more ways there are for these guys to get around, twist, or game it.
To the casual gamer though this is essentially an improved justice system from AA. It doesnt matter if you want to PVP, its not up to you. They should be fully aware before entering. At least its getting out there now so at release we shouldnt have any issues with people being butt hurt over PK's
To the casual gamer though this is essentially an improved justice system from AA. It doesnt matter if you want to PVP, its not up to you. They should be fully aware before entering. At least its getting out there now so at release we shouldnt have any issues with people being butt hurt over PK’s
</blockquote>
Agreed! I do see your point about there being no choice at times. That is a tough nut to crack if you design this way.
Question: Why would a "skilled" PvPer want to waste their time on PKs, hmmmm? Most of the time, those that say "Hey, don't wanna fight" are your more hardcore PvErs, and they're perfectly happy (or at least I will be) letting you be a jerk and kill me, just to get that skill loss & corruption on you.
There will be so many opportunities for "skilled" PvPers to test their skills against other like-minded PvPers that PK is just ... well? In this system, it's pretty stoopid.
Given the mechanics of the game, I see no way to fully avoid PvP. I'm not even going to engage in the "good" vs "bad" aspects of what Intrepid is attempting to do.
I am going to say that this argument, more than any other, is the biggest reason so many people will avoid games that don't allow you to completely avoid PvP. They do not wish their relaxation time, their leisure time, their fun time to be ruined by some arsehat being an arsehat.
That said, I'm also well aware that the average gankjerk is going to respond with "Well, good! You shouldn't be in <strong><em>my</strong></em> game! Go away!"
Problem is, especially with this game, that an amazingly rich world is being dangled before us, one where we can pursue so many different playstyles; as I've said in previous posts, the PvP/PvE controversy is actually a small part of what this game <em>consists</em> of; it's sad that it's such a decisive issue otherwise.
Devs, please read and reread the above argument. If you wanna create a game everyone can enjoy <em>at the same level, considering everyone is paying the same amount for said enjoyment of the game</em>, this can't be overlooked.
Again, I think IS is on the right path ... but it will still cause many to shy away from the game, simply because the opportunity for gankage is still so high.
Switching instantly from combatant to non-combatant would be problematic. Yes.
I leave PvP servers after getting ganked a good distance away from hot zones. It's literally a player v player issue rather than an avatar v avatar issue.
For me, it wouldn't be a problem if the solution were as simple as traveling to a location where the flag turns off rather than waiting a certain amount of time for a cool down. Although, in a game with basically no fast travel, that would might be problematic, too.
(I'm not really advocating that for Ashes)
But, we'll have to see how long the cooldown is in Ashes (just to start).
Also, problematic, though is that if I'm attacked during the cooldown period, if I don't fight back I'm stuck with full death penalties - if I win, the cooldown resets. That isn't fair either.
How problematic that will feel remains to be seen. We will have to play the game to get a clearer understanding, but the corruption mechanics is still far from being perfectly fine.
The corruption mechanic is a starting point. We will see how effective it actually is once we're able to play.
If I understand things, when you are flagged Combatant during structured PVP you are not flagged Combatant to anyone but your structured PVP(SPVP) enemies unless you are already flagged Combatant in a regular way. So what I mean is, you can be flagged NC to everyone else but you will show up as Combatant to the SPVP enemies only. Leave the area and if there are no SPVP enemies around, you should appear NC to everyone else.... No cooldown required.
The plain facts as I see them now are that it is better to just stay flagged Combatant at all times when outside any "relatively safe" areas. Combatant has the very least penalties for dying in PVP or PVE. Unless your want is to make sure any RPK takes penalties for attacking you against your will, why risk more personal penalty in PVE?
I do agree that there is much proving to be done because there are still lots of moving parts(numbers) to figure out and balance.
Wanting to convince IS to change the rules to suit your interests more is one thing, but it does not validate any of the above language.
I don't think you understand things correctly:
<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, <ul>and for a period of time after leaving that zone.</ul>"</em>
"Don't want to be a part of zones PVP. . . "
So, therefore:
"Walks around siege fire, others fighting killing gore guts everywhere, and in the middle of a huge and epic battle."
If I understand things, when you are flagged Combatant during structured PVP you are not flagged Combatant to anyone but your structured PVP(SPVP) enemies unless you are already flagged Combatant in a regular way. So what I mean is, you can be flagged NC to everyone else but you will show up as Combatant to the SPVP enemies only. Leave the area and if there are no SPVP enemies around, you should appear NC to everyone else…. No cooldown required.
I could have done better with this opening line: If I understand things, when you are AUTO flagged Combatant during structured PVP you are not flagged Combatant to anyone but your structured PVP(SPVP) enemies unless you are already flagged Combatant in a regular way.
Your own penalties are higher for death if you are flagged Noncombatant, are they not? If I am gathering and flagged Noncombatant, get jumped and killed, I take more xp debt and drop some of my flowers, right? Flagged Combatant I drop no flowers and take a regular xp debt, right? Same thing for PVE, right?
So if that is true, the only good reason to flag NC is if I want that RPK b8st*rd to take heavy penalties... That is a fine choice, to be sure, but it isn't the only logical way to look at things.
I'm not sure to whom you are replying, but...
In my case, I am a casual PvPer who enjoys PvP combat for about 60-90 minutes per day. But I play in the game world for about 8 hours per day. Once I am no longer in the mood for PvP combat - I am no longer in the mood for PvP combat. So, being flagged for PvP combat for some time after I leave a siege to get away from PvP combat is problematic.
Although, I am not in this particular sub-group - there are Explorers who feel compelled to explore all areas of a map - even those areas that auto-flag for PvP. And they do not agree that the auto-flagging in those situations equals consent.
We will have to see how the devs end up accommodating players overall after launch.
and for a period of time after leaving that zone."
They need to change that if they can. Structured PVP is NOT about opening yourself to combat the world. It is about specific enemies...
2: Even if it's true that we are only flagged as a combatant to those who have been participating in the PvP combat event - that is still problematic. My expectation -since that has been my experience- is that I will get ganked by the people who have been participating in the PvP event. I've told you repeatedly that i'm not particularly concerned by random PKers. The issues I've had with griefers are primarily with PvPers who think they have a legit reason to attack me.
You make it seem as though it's unlikely that participants of a siege/caravan won't follow people into another zone. I don't agree.
3: The part that you seem to be unable to comprehend is that when I am not in the mood to participate in PvP combat - I am not in the mood to participate in PvP combat. Period. Doesn't really matter that the death penalties are halved if I die as a combatant. Doesn't really matter if I win the battle. When I'm not in the mood to participate in PvP combat, I'm not in the mood to participate in PvP combat. it's really as simple as that.
4: Just because I'm sleeping in bed with my husband after having sex, doesn't mean it's OK for him to have sex with me again without my consent. Especially, if I wake up and tell him I'm no longer in the mood. No means no.
I understand that hardcore PvPers don't accept that. But, that really is the crux of the matter for those of us who do have issues with non-consensual PvP combat.
My guess is , they are thinking of people who are not flag who can interfere with what is going on in the battleground zone. As example a neutral ship gets in the way of a sea fight for a caravan helping the defenders escape the attackers by providing a blocking shield that cant be dealt with. In order to prevent outside forces from interfering in some way, everyone is flagged in the combat zone. I don't know how things will work tell alpha, just giving a opinion base on other mmos I have played where non-flag players can take advantage of a situation.
2: Even if it's true that we are only flagged as a combatant to those who have been participating in the PvP combat event - that is still problematic. My expectation -since that has been my experience- is that I will get ganked by the people who have been participating in the PvP event. I've told you repeatedly that i'm not particularly concerned by random PKers. The issues I've had with griefers are primarily with PvPers who think they have a legit reason to attack me.
You make it seem as though it's unlikely that participants of a siege/caravan won't follow people into another zone. I don't agree.
3: The part that you seem to be unable to comprehend is that when I am not in the mood to participate in PvP combat - I am not in the mood to participate in PvP combat. Period. Doesn't really matter that the death penalties are halved if I die as a combatant. Doesn't really matter if I win the battle. When I'm not in the mood to participate in PvP combat, I'm not in the mood to participate in PvP combat. It's really as simple as that.
The reason to be flagged as a non-combatant is because I am not in the mood to participate in PvP combat.
(@Bringslite - I've caught up. So, yes, we probably agree for the most part. Paragraph 3, we might still have some disconnect)
For instance: If I had my way, persons flagged Noncombatant would take NO xp debt for dying and drop ALL(not equipped) of their inventory on death. That is a pretty singular view, from what I can tell from these forums. It would be a nice compromise to some problems though, IMO.
Which is why it's common to have a separate PvE-only server.