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
Without PvP conflict the node system will become stale.
That is separate from PvP combat...player characters killing other player characters.
The PvP conflict is what's vital. It's not imperative that the PvP conflict is resolved by player characters fighting and killing other player characters.
Let's get real here. What do you think that the "Risk" part of the OWPVP and the "Reward" parts are? If "mule" type devices are not lootable, what is the use of OWPVP for more than just lulz? Loot/reward/node contestation/node advancement are the incentives for healthy PVP.
The lulz type of OWPVP is the very worst kind of PVP. That is plain and simple just wanting to have fun at the expense of other player's misery. Without rewards for PVP, you will have a higher % of "PVP just for lulz".
I had deleted the next point because I felt like it all should be obvious to you, but I can see that you are missing some fundamental truths about OWPVP. That or you are trying/hoping/believing strongly in getting more of unwanted PVP out of the game. Back up there your comments ran along the lines of "Destroying player built structures or places or whatever are not PVP actions worthy of becoming flagged PVP, since they don't involve attacking actual player character Avatars." Like with your example of taking out a player group's shrine.
That is also ALL part of aggressing other players. You are not going to find things like that which you can do and not be flagged for PVP in one way or another. It doesn't make sense.
PvE adventurers and casual PvP adventurers SHOULD be concerned about this because it is exactly why they will be sought out as targets for rival player groups that play OWPVP territory control games SERIOUSLY. Keeping your enemy away from gathering materials to craft is key to long term conflict.
Organized groups will even try to control local markets by DISCOURAGING outsiders from coming there and undercutting them.
If you are not concerned about this type of PVP, you should be. It can all lead to the same thing that you say they are concerned about: Being attacked when they aren't feeling like having to deal with PVP combat.
lol PVP combat is vital if you want to have any say in PVP conflict. That's how disagreements get settled.
How do you see PVP conflict being ultimately resolved without PVP combat? Some kind of RTS situation where I build as fast as I can while you tear down what I build as fast as you can but we aren't allowed to attack each other?
Its one way. It is, of course, the primary method that lovers of PvP combat will use to resolve conflicts. But it's far from the only way.
You think countries in the real world always solve conflicts by killing their rivals?
No, no, no. I play an OWPVP territory control game. I know all about resolving conflict with politics, political pressure, etc... We do it more often than we fight.
There are times that we DO FIGHT, however, and that is when many issues(conflicts) get resolved. No amount of discussion will keep you from shipping in 2hd swords to my local market and undercutting my price if you don't want to bargain. Last option is to attack and destroy your shipments. You, of course, are going to want to defend them with better than NPC guards? I bet you are!
I'll give another example in case you are being stubborn again. I can't imagine the odds on that... lol
You are digging ores and picking flowers in our area of Node influence. This is causing a shortage for me. I warn you but you keep coming in and keep picking. I need to resort to killing you on sight until you decide that it isn't worth it to dig my earth and pick my weeds...
The whole point is.... OWPVP. Territory Control. Resource Management, Protection and Domination.
That is why PVE and PVP Adventurer types , as you described them, really should be aware that what they do in some/many cases is PVP. They should not be surprised if serious Territory Control players turn PVP conflict into PVP combat to control the things that they want to control. Wherever that might be.
And of course, you WRONGLY assume that you will be the one killing me rather than me killing you.
I don't need to dig ore or pick flowers in your area of node influence if we set up a trade for your ore and your flowers. It will be very likely that there are resources in my node of influence that aren't available in your area.
That is fairly easily resolved.
As in the real world, a more common conflict will be the spread of different religions. Where I need to set up shrines/temples in order to gain the benefits from the god I worship while you need to set up shrines/temples in order to gain the benefits from the god you worship.
There is only one slot available for a shrine/temple at this node - which one of us gets to build the shrine/temple.
What do I have that I can offer to convince you to let us build the shrine/temple there instead of you??
Most likely that's going to have to be some form of ongoing tribute in order to compensate for the daily benefits you'd lose out on for not receiving your god's blessings.
Then what happens when we fail to deliver? What happens when we have a string of bad caravan runs and can't provide the promised resources?
Those are the kinds of tensions that Ashes' PvP conflict will engender.
Those tensions don't have to be resolved via player characters killing other player characters, but the game is designed to encourage PvP combat to be the common resolution.
In your OWPVP game, there are times that you do fight because PvP combat is possible, so the people who love PvP combat will fight - at least sometimes. That doesn't mean the conflicts can't be resolved without players characters killing other player characters.
The core of Ashes is OW PvP conflict; not player characters kiilling other player characters.
Territory control and resource management and competition.
Doesn't have to be about domination.
Domination will be a goal for hardcore players who are first and foremost Killer/Achievers. Domination probably won;t be a factor at al for casual players who are first and foremost casual Explorer/Socializers.
Players who don't want to participate in PvP combat - specifically player characters killing other player characters - where that isn't even possible - would happily turn the resolution into a competition of banding together to hire sufficient NPCs to protect caravans from player character attackers.
What will essentially be a PvE combat rather than PvP combat.
Get a grip.
Yeah, you're just being stubborn because your agenda isn't panning out how you want it too. I get it. No further need to devolve into circular argument.
I write: When you can't or are unwilling to make a deal...
You write: Here is a deal that could be possible
I write: examples with "you" and "I" terminology for brevity.
You write: I might beat you! <--which is still PVP combat, right?
Blah! Not worth the frustration.
Remember one thing Peoples: This isn't a themepark game. It probably would be best not to play it like a themepark "PVP is under consensual control" game. And lastly... We who play this are PVX players, neither strictly PVP or PVE.
PS Dygz
So many post because I am still getting disappeared when I edit.
Your example: "I don't need to pick your Node's flowers. I can pick my own stuff and trade for yours" Very true and very possible. In what way does that address my points though? That isn't directly PVP conflict. I never wrote that PVP conflict was ever the only way to go or that it ALWAYS has to be settled by PVP combat.
Don't you ever read my posts?
You are the one who is offering circular logic by then asserting that PvP combat is the only resolution when people can't make a deal.
Ignoring the lengths that casual players will be willing to go to compromise and cooperate to resolve conflicts in order to play with PvP combat disabled.
PVP combat is never "not an option" in AoC as far as they have defined it. I do agree that PVP conflict can be resolved between parties without combat. In MANY ways it can be avoided or diffused. I have always said that PVP combat, can be mitigated to almost nothing in these kinds of games. Even with most of the RPK population if you can find what they want and strike an agreement.
Both parties have to be willing, though, which just isn't always the case. This isn't a game where crafting gear is a useless job. Nor a game where resources are unlimited. Nor a game where you always have a say in how "the other guy behaves". Just about everything that any player does will affect another player or group of players in some small to large way. That is PVX.
All I've explained is why that statement is false. That's it.
"PVP combat is never "not an option" in AoC as far as they have defined it."
True. We agree. But actually has nothing too do with this subject.
You haven't explained how it is false. You have given some examples that can't be backed up in all circumstances.
PVE conflict can't always be resolved without PVP combat. If you are attacking my caravan, I want to be able to defend it with my character as well as my NPC guards. I think that just about everyone would.
If you are digging my herbs, I want to be able to stop you when we can't find any other way to make you stop.
If you are sieging my metropolis, I want to defend it with real characters since real characters built it.
If you are wrecking my shrine, I expect that to require you to be flagged in some way that I can try and stop you since my group built that shrine.
No one wants to play a game where their agency to either make deals OR their ability to say "No" and just fight is taken from them.
PvE adventurers don't want to kill other player characters.
Where PvP combat is not an option, players would defend their caravans by hiring NPCs. Caravan protection is not just about one trader shipping goods. It's about banding together enough traders willing to pool funds together to pay for sufficient defenses.
I understand what you want to do. This isn't about what you want to do.
You want to engage in PvP combat.
This is about people who don't want to engage in PvP combat.
It's absurd to state how "no one" wants to play when people are telling you they do want to be able to play that way.
No, Dygz. I'm not a big PVP player except as far as trading goes. I don't really like it too much but I recognize that it is important for a sandbox game like AoC.
So what is your alternative? You recognize that PVP combat is inevitable because players will find times that they do not agree or reach compromise? Or you believe that AoC will disable PVP combat?
PVP combat can't simply be "disabled" and every issue decided through PVE. Players will want to do some of their own defending of the tings they build. Players will want to do some of that attacking themselves of the things that they want to wreck.
There "might" be some way to design a game like what I think you are getting at. What would that really be though? Players controlling characters that control NPCs to do their fighting for them? Isn't that still just PVP combat? Why the extra step?
Yes, Digz, it is absurd for anyone to ever say "no one" in a declarative statement involving more than a few people.
My point here is a bit more close to the OP's. No one is a non PVP player in AoC. No one is a victim or we all are victims of both PVP and what is normally considered PVE in some games.
Cities/states can apply economic or physical force to achieve their goals and I have little to no problem with state-sanctioned zone-on-zone conflict for the greater good of larger zones. I *do* have issues with games where "I want to grind mobs in this spot, so I'll kill whomever is already here to keep it for myself/my party".
In a real-world equivalent, you become an outlaw and the state hunts you down/puts a bounty on you and you're F---ED. You get killed or imprisoned and there is real incentive to not partake in violently anti-social behavior.
In games, it's usually just too easy for griefing to occur. You're "flagged" for an hour or something that is a short duration inconvenience, not something you go out of your way to avoid.
I desperately look forward to the first game that gets it right. Hoping AoC can be it.
Decisions, decisions ............ oops sorry I took so long deciding!
CylverRayne
13. And thus the toons erected a great fire and danced. Then ate of the Legendary Moose Mousse recipe to regain their Stamina.
13. And thus the toons erected a great fire and danced. Then ate of the Legendary Moose Mousse recipe to regain their Stamina.