Thank you to all who participated in our August 20 play test! If you joined in, please remember to leave your feedback and bug reports on the forums here: https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/categories/apoc-bug-reports

Content/Meta for players choosing to go red

I believe a sandbox mmorpg should have some sort of content/reason for a player to make a choice whatever that choice happens to be. The one thing I cannot wrap my head around in this game is the fact that the devs are allowing a flagging system in the open world, that is technically completely pointless to have. Why should we have a flagging system if there going to add in static PvP zones and server wide guild wars, and flagging up on a non flagged player is severely punishing. No one in the right mind will flag up if someone attacks you, I have seen it a thousand times in other mmos like Black Desert, and Archeage. Player A flags on Player B. Player B just takes the hit to whatever xp while player A takes major penalties. What is the honest point of having such a system? The only way I can see the flagging system to having any purpose is because players want to become bandits, maybe because they want to roleplay as one or like the extra challenge, hell maybe there so maxed out they have nothing left to do but go bandit. Whatever the reason may be the way the system is set up now no one will do it, mainly for the reason that STATS and GEAR LOSS is a thing, get rid of that and add content  severely limited for players choosing to go red. For example give them a bandit town, but every other town guards will kos, or maybe only allow them to be at sea were they can pirate trade ships. Just give a player some reason to go bandit. Now I'm sure all the WoW fanboys are going to troll me saying I just want to PK. NO that is not the case, I don't care for that kind of thing I just feel I should point this out for the fact that everyone is praising how punishing the system is as of right now. With so many other options you might as well scrap it out of the game all together. But then what kind of sandbox would that be? BOTTOM LINE: revamp the penalties for killing non flagged players so a player can look at going red as a potential option, NOT SAYING DON'T MAKE IT PUNISHING BY ANY MEANS. Btw if your going to join the thread I'll just ignore you if you going to freak out and accuse me of being a PKer that is immature and just plain ignorant.
«13

Comments

  • Artimus said:
    I believe a sandbox mmorpg should have some sort of content/reason for a player to make a choice whatever that choice happens to be. The one thing I cannot wrap my head around in this game is the fact that the devs are allowing a flagging system in the open world, that is technically completely pointless to have. Why should we have a flagging system if there going to add in static PvP zones and server wide guild wars, and flagging up on a non flagged player is severely punishing. No one in the right mind will flag up if someone attacks you, I have seen it a thousand times in other mmos like Black Desert, and Archeage. Player A flags on Player B. Player B just takes the hit to whatever xp while player A takes major penalties. What is the honest point of having such a system? The only way I can see the flagging system to having any purpose is because players want to become bandits, maybe because they want to roleplay as one or like the extra challenge, hell maybe there so maxed out they have nothing left to do but go bandit. Whatever the reason may be the way the system is set up now no one will do it, mainly for the reason that STATS and GEAR LOSS is a thing, get rid of that and add content  severely limited for players choosing to go red. For example give them a bandit town, but every other town guards will kos, or maybe only allow them to be at sea were they can pirate trade ships. Just give a player some reason to go bandit. Now I'm sure all the WoW fanboys are going to troll me saying I just want to PK. NO that is not the case, I don't care for that kind of thing I just feel I should point this out for the fact that everyone is praising how punishing the system is as of right now. With so many other options you might as well scrap it out of the game all together. But then what kind of sandbox would that be? BOTTOM LINE: revamp the penalties for killing non flagged players so a player can look at going red as a potential option, NOT SAYING DON'T MAKE IT PUNISHING BY ANY MEANS. Btw if your going to join the thread I'll just ignore you if you going to freak out and accuse me of being a PKer that is immature and just plain ignorant.
    There are PvP zones around caravans, during sieges and during guild wars. Outside of these events the flagging rules are there to deter people from PK griefing other players. The flagging system is pretty much identical to that in Lineage II. It works pretty well in that game. 
  • It's simple: just do killing where you're allowed to/encouraged to without penalty.
  • I think some evil player hideout would be a neat idea. Since theyre not abel to go anywhere without beeing hunted by bountyhunters at all times they would atleast need some area to recover. With multiple secret entrys so bounty hunters cant just camp the entrance with dozens of ppl...
    But it has to be very far away from any villages and citys to prevent them to kill everyone there and hide in their save zone immediately...
    @Artimus is right with its actual implementation, they could just change non pvp zones into no combat zones because noone would want to go red anyway.
    It would also prevent attacks that happen by accident through aoe or so.
    But large no combat zones would reduce the average players willingness to enter pvp zones. So that shouldn't happen.

    Btw somehow offtopic but since we're talking about guards and hostility: are players hostile to node guards if theyre not a citizen of that particular node?
    If no what prevents them from gathering inside the node at its main objective points just before a siege starts?
    If yes how do they trade with caravans if they're getting slaughtered when they reach their destination?
    My idea would be to be hostile by default but theres a option to buy a permission at the entrance of a city to visit legaly, however the permission disabels your weaponslot until you leave the city.
  • A bandit town in the middle of nowhere, maybe in a hard to reach mountain valley would be cool. And like Uao mentioned, it shouldn't be close to any places with high player density because of potential griefing.
  • Personally I hate open world pvp. Just because of greifers in general. That being said I have seen very few games that had a robust enough punishment system to make the trade off worth while.

    But I do agree if you put a heavy enough penalty system where being a PK needed to be an active choice with serious enough consequences to go with it for those who are caught / live that rp life. Then yes having a bandit city would become almost a must.

    And I would fully support a ganker haven.

    I actually don't have a problem with people who want to be a rogue element and have fun doing that. To each their own. I just have a huge problem that the trade off's never seem serious / harsh enough. And most gankers tend to cry when the game makes them as miserable as they seem to enjoy making everyone else.
  • Open world pvp with griefers becomes more fun if theres possibilitys to hide from said griefers.. Most (all) games so far dont provide you a serious option to escape griefers before he killed you. So i think everyone should have some temporaly invisibility skill/teleport that gives you 4-5 seconds to hide without the griefer seeing where your going. 
    That would also require griefers to be unabel to see nameplates, which is in my opinion a better penalty than stat reduction. (the world would need many objects to hide behind too)
    Maybe reduce the range at which red players are abel to see nameplates as corruption increases.
    The chance to loose gear should stay however, so its really important for red players to play carefully.
    Maybe prevent high corrupt players to use mounts aswell?

    In return they should be abel to:
    steal limited amounts of goods/money from vendors within citys if they manage to get into the shop without beeing noticed,
    buy things without taxes from shady vendors,
    manipulate votings (by small degree like 1-5%)in scientific nodes, (stealth play parkour+reputation with specific npc's)
    steal money from economic node votings, (difficult stealth play parkour)
    assasinate candidates who try to become king of a military node/divine node which if successful makes these candidates unabel to win the outcome for that month..

    So it isnt all about griefing players who farm stuff but more about stealth play and actual game conform stuff.
    Assasination is some kind of griefing, but
    1. it has to happen only once and
    2. the candidates know about that mechanic and can gather friends to protect them,
    3. A worthy leader should have friends that support/protect him anyway.
  • Every mechanic that makes red players more badass instead of a bad ass is good imo.
    Cuz every minute they spend doing fun but evil game related stuff, they dont spend griefing low lv players..
    If theres no evil stuff to do but griefing, noone needs to wonder why people dont stop doing so.
    The game is about killing after all, kill 10 pigs here kill that dragon over there, kill your arena oponents... So dont expect every player to be a innocent holy angel.
  • I have heard loot drop is a thing which would be at least one incentive to actually be willing to take a corruption hit. But as far as meta goes I like what some people are saying about non ganking content. Blackdesert and AA do a ganker safe heaven to a degree but I defitnely like the ideas of getting caught up in politics. From everything I have seen static PvP happens around caravans, sieges, and guild wars, with I'm sure more to come. The point I'm trying to drive that I'm thankful some are actually starting to notice is the flagging system almost becomes obsolete with so many other options to freely PvP without penalties, unless of course  content was created to facilitate that kind of gameplay for players choosing to go that route.

  • I dont like common safe heavens, it makes pve players think twice if they leave the safe locations and enter pvp areas. It would just fragment pvp and pve players even more.. Ashes is going to be pvx so mechanics should work in a way to get pvp and pve players closer.
    So the flagging system is still important even if they dont bother to implement further functions.

  • What's EVE's PvP flagging like?
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited September 2017
    •  If a player chooses to kill another player that does not attack back that is a choice only for the attacker and not the target. If the target does not attack back they are also being punished in their own way. 
    • The flagging system is there to encourage both parties to choose to participate in combat (and avoid grief)
    • If a player chooses to kill a non retaliating player they become corrupted
    • If the target does not retaliate they die, gain experience debt at two times the normal death rate and spawn randomly within the ZOI.
    • If the target fought back they would have a chance to win and keep their spot and are flagged as purple for a "tbc period of time".
    • If the target fought back but died, they recieve half the normal experience debt and spawns randomly within the ZOI which prevents further grief.
    • Both green and purple combatants on death suffer gear durability loss and a chance of dropping raw materials from your inventory (normal death penalties)
    • Red players suffer the same but in addition they have a chance of breaking a piece of gear. Death is how you rid of your corruption. If you have a low corruption score it's quick to clear. If you continually kill players that don't attack back then the score increases.
    • Ashes of Creation is about meaningful conflict and risk/reward player experiences help enhance this. The choice to kill a non retaliating player must have been worth it on a personal level for you to risk going corrupted and the reward would be "goal achieved" as to why you made that choice.
    Of course the system needs lots of testing etc but (as intrepid said in the latest stream) if something is tested and does not work then they are wanting to hear all feedback so that systems can be adapted for launch. This is why they are having open development so that our concerns (from the players) can be raised.

    Nobody has tested this system yet so it's difficult to make "true" arguments on it yet. For me it sounds fine but won't be able to tell until it's tested.

    I do understand that some players like to play darker characters and I think it would be better to have a social group for "darker" players that if they kill purple players and bounty hunters perhaps are rewarded through the social groups by earning points for cosmetics and what not. I suppose that's a faction but is also a player choice .-. I dunno the system needs tested out that's all I know.
  • Many people complain about griefing and ganking, and these 2 things should be penalized.

    1. ganking = killing of lower levels than yourself
    2. griefing = following same target around and repeatedly killing him


    That said, flagging up on someone who is green, and your level, and killing him once or twice IS NOT ganking and IS NOT griefing!

    So corruption system should only kick in once you killed a lower level player OR system detects that you are killing same target repeatedly and many times over.


    Asking for corruption to kick in whenever you kill a green player (your level) is just a care bears way of crying in forums.
  • @Gothix
    Your probably right (even if theres a huge load of people who share another opinion), thats one of the reasons why i wanted additional game mechanics that lead away from pure stereotype 'red player is someone u dont want to talk with'.
  • Diura said:
    •  If a player chooses to kill another player that does not attack back that is a choice only for the attacker and not the target. If the target does not attack back they are also being punished in their own way. 
    • The flagging system is there to encourage both parties to choose to participate in combat (and avoid grief)
    • If a player chooses to kill a non retaliating player they become corrupted
    • If the target does not retaliate they die, gain experience debt at two times the normal death rate and spawn randomly within the ZOI.
    • If the target fought back they would have a chance to win and keep their spot and are flagged as purple for a "tbc period of time".
    • If the target fought back but died, they recieve half the normal experience debt and spawns randomly within the ZOI which prevents further grief.
    • Both green and purple combatants on death suffer gear durability loss and a chance of dropping raw materials from your inventory (normal death penalties)
    • Red players suffer the same but in addition they have a chance of breaking a piece of gear. Death is how you rid of your corruption. If you have a low corruption score it's quick to clear. If you continually kill players that don't attack back then the score increases.
    • Ashes of Creation is about meaningful conflict and risk/reward player experiences help enhance this. The choice to kill a non retaliating player must have been worth it on a personal level for you to risk going corrupted and the reward would be "goal achieved" as to why you made that choice.
    Of course the system needs lots of testing etc but (as intrepid said in the latest stream) if something is tested and does not work then they are wanting to hear all feedback so that systems can be adapted for launch. This is why they are having open development so that our concerns (from the players) can be raised.

    Nobody has tested this system yet so it's difficult to make "true" arguments on it yet. For me it sounds fine but won't be able to tell until it's tested.
    I do agree with most everything you have said except the last point :)
    I do understand that some players like to play darker characters and I think it would be better to have a social group for "darker" players that if they kill purple players and bounty hunters perhaps are rewarded through the social groups by earning points for cosmetics and what not. I suppose that's a faction but is also a player choice .-. I dunno the system needs tested out that's all I know.
    This seems to echo classic misunderstanding of the meaning of "darker" characters. I'll give you an example. I like playing characters with a darker theme to them, Dark Knights, Necromancers, etc. I do so because I like the lore surrounding these types of characters and I also enjoy the aesthetics of how these characters look and fight. 

    That being said, I will definitely be a bounty hunter in Ashes, because even though I play dark characters, I detest PK griefing!

    Dark characters should not automatically be assumed to be PK griefers and vice versa. The idea of "corruption" in Ashes really needs to allow this distinction. If it doesn't then we are limiting this grand universe to naive "goodies" vs "baddies" storytelling that exists in mono-dimensional games.
  • @lexmax sorry for my choice of words was probably not best - when I mean darker I don't mean by Class theme but I'm aware that some players enjoy being "bad" in RP which involves initiating PvP simply because they are "bad". 
    Even though it's not my method of play I've spoken to several players that state that being "bad" is enjoyable. I don't agree with ganking or grieving and I personally like the sound of the flagging system and look forward to seeing it be tested out.
    I suppose I was just being daft ^^
    I understand meaningful conflict encouraged by the content of the world, social relationships and environment should provide enough reason to want to take the risks/rewards in PvP.
    Perhaps simply the rewards for the right kind of PvP should be highlighted better and will make more sense when specific details are released as to what loot % or quantities of drops you'll get by killing a combatant. Perhaps killing a purple or red will give you more loot as to killing a green? Some form of additional insentive to why killing a combatant is better other than "you'll be corrupted if you don't".

  • I personally have no problem with the concept of sieges, guild wars, battlegrounds, or even the proposed caravan system (meaningful PVP).  Where I start having issues as a civilized human being is non consensual pvp.  The ability to run around and ruining other players game time by killing them regardless of level or activity.  Someone who plays just for the reason to kill other players is unacceptable behavior. Defend this behavior how ever you want...it is still just wrong.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited September 2017
    Jubilum said:
    I personally have no problem with the concept of sieges, guild wars, battlegrounds, or even the proposed caravan system (meaningful PVP).  Where I start having issues as a civilized human being is non consensual pvp.  The ability to run around and ruining other players game time by killing them regardless of level or activity.  Someone who plays just for the reason to kill other players is unacceptable behavior. Defend this behavior how ever you want...it is still just wrong.
    Have you ever considered that you might be the one ruining someone elses game time by NOT fighting him? :)

    No, of course you didn't. Maybe you should consider it.

    A number of people come to game with desire to fight. Then they engage a lots of players who just stand there not fighting back, as target dummies, not only they are robbed of all the combat fun (for which they joined the game), but they also get punished for this (corruption).

    Their game time is definitely ruined, by you, among other such players. And in my opinion this behavior of players that do not fight back is just wrong.
  • Gothix said:
    Jubilum said:
    I personally have no problem with the concept of sieges, guild wars, battlegrounds, or even the proposed caravan system (meaningful PVP).  Where I start having issues as a civilized human being is non consensual pvp.  The ability to run around and ruining other players game time by killing them regardless of level or activity.  Someone who plays just for the reason to kill other players is unacceptable behavior. Defend this behavior how ever you want...it is still just wrong.
    Have you ever considered that you might be the one ruining someone elses game time by NOT fighting him? :)

    No, of course you didn't. Maybe you should consider it.

    A number of people come to game with desire to fight. Then they engage a lots of players who just stand there not fighting back, as target dummies, not only they are robbed of all the combat fun (for which they joined the game), but they also get punished for this (corruption).

    Their game time is definitely ruined, by you, among other such players. And in my opinion this behavior of players that do not fight back is just wrong.
    So you want to control my game time and what I do in game?  I also suppose you wouldn't want to go to a pvp only server because you don't want to play with people with the same play style as you.  You just want to bully the civilized players.
  • Jubilum said:

    So you want to control my game time and what I do in game?  I also suppose you wouldn't want to go to a pvp only server because you don't want to play with people with the same play style as you.  You just want to bully the civilized players.
    But it is you who wants to control my game time, and tell me what I can (can't) do in game.

    Also, In every MMO that offered PvP servers I played on PvP server. I actually enjoy the danger that PvP servers offer. Playing on PvP server is never boring.

    I love how people like you assume everyone to be a bully if he wish to PvP. That tells more about you than you think.
  • Dude, I know all about pvp, I have played Eve Online every day for the last 9 years, it is running in the back ground as we speak.  My problem with gankers is that I can not force you to chop down a tree, but you can force me to pvp.  You have the advantage in forcing your play style on me while there is no way to force my play style on you. 

    A question I have always had.  Do you as a admitted ganker ever felt bad about forcing non consensual pvp onto another players.  I personnal have tried this style of play but for some reason my values and ethics always to to keep me from pulling the trigger knowing that on the other side of that screen is a real human being with feelings and emotions.
  • Jubilum said:

    Do you as a "admitted ganker" ever ...
    Ok, apparently you are completely brainless...

    This is where our conversation ends.
  • My feeling on this is if you pvp outside of the multiple types of meaningful pvp they intend to implement into the system, then be prepared to face the consequences for your actions. Example you pvp with someone minding their own business not threatening you, not part of a caravan, not part of a guild war, not part of a siege, not part of an arena, well be prepared to be marked and hunted. Its a player's choice to play however they want, you want to be a bandit go for it, but don't expect the system to actively reward you for your decision.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited September 2017
    Camnesia said:
    but don't expect the system to actively reward you for your decision.
    You don't have to get rewarded, but you don't have to get punished also, unless you are ganking (killing lower levels), or griefing (following a target and repeatedly killing it).

    My point is if you kill you own level, once or twice, this shouldn't give you corruption, since that is not griefing, nor ganking. THIS (random kill of your own level) could be subject to bounty system, but should not be subject to corruption. Specially not to stat degradation.
  • Gothix said:
    You don't have to get rewarded, but you don't have to get punished also, unless you are ganking (killing lower levels), or griefing (following a target and repeatedly killing it).

    My point is if you kill you own level, once or twice, this shouldn't give you corruption, since that is not griefing, nor ganking. THIS (random kill of your own level) could be subject to bounty system, but should not be subject to corruption. Specially not to stat degradation.
    This is just my opinion but lack of consequence in your scenario would be a reward. The system is intended to be a deterrent of ganking/griefing, not an outright ban. If you instigate pvp in a scenario outside of the intended venues of pvp then be prepared to face the consequence of corruption. If you want to kill people of your own level without fear of corruption go to the arena, simple as that. Is there ever going to be a perfect system, no, but the corruption system, as intended, is meant to punish the instigator. 
  • Gothix said:
    Jubilum said:

    Do you as a "admitted ganker" ever ...
    Ok, apparently you are completely brainless...

    This is where our conversation ends.
    LMFAO. 

    Gothix said:
    Camnesia said:
    but don't expect the system to actively reward you for your decision.
    You don't have to get rewarded, but you don't have to get punished also, unless you are ganking (killing lower levels), or griefing (following a target and repeatedly killing it).

    My point is if you kill you own level, once or twice, this shouldn't give you corruption, since that is not griefing, nor ganking. THIS (random kill of your own level) could be subject to bounty system, but should not be subject to corruption. Specially not to stat degradation.

    If you don't want to be called a ganker, what do you want to be called?  Someone that forces non-consensual pvp on someone that has no interest in fighting other players is a_________.
  • Jubilum said:
    If you don't want to be called a ganker, what do you want to be called?  Someone that forces non-consensual pvp on someone that has no interest in fighting other players is a_________.
    Wanker?
  • Bajjer said:
    Jubilum said:
    If you don't want to be called a ganker, what do you want to be called?  Someone that forces non-consensual pvp on someone that has no interest in fighting other players is a_________.
    Wanker?
    Alot nicer than the answer I came up with  >:)
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited September 2017
    omg Jubilum forcing non consensual pvp onto another players is bad and you call your self a EvE online player but guess you live in Higsec :D
    Gate is Reeedddd!!!! poff um guys im back in staging yey for the life of a fleet scout
Sign In or Register to comment.