Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
What are your thoughts about the flagging system?
I personally love world pvp and finding out about the gear dropping and stat dropping chance when you die Is slightly upsetting. Why not insted when you die just give a debuff that gives you less stats and no chance to drop gear. So that people who like world pvp aren't taxed for playing the game how they like to play.
Everyone what are are your thoughts and ideas on a new system or in defending the current system?
Everyone what are are your thoughts and ideas on a new system or in defending the current system?
0
Comments
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/33075/information-world-pvp/p1
In this way players do not lose the gear, but there is still cost involved as consequence.
Also until players go to city to repair the gear it's useless, so it prevents camping as players would become less effective without certain gear pieces (specially if it's a weapon), and since there is no fast travel, it would take time to reach the city and repair it.
Having gear with a chance to become damaged, would also eliminate the need to reduce stats separately, since stats would practically become reduced by not having all gear pieces on you.
And since inventory would be limited, players couldn't just carry 5 spare sets of gear on them (inventory could have harsher limit for extra gear pieces, and higher capacity for consumables, materials and other stuff).
the term was "if you go red your dead" and that's just what it is! If you want to live life on the dangerous path and kill players that have A. no interest in PvP ( sounds crazy i know but they exist ). B. or low lvl and you are just griefing the hell out of them, well then you deserve a bit of "karma" don't you? ( funny going red in Lineage 2 actually gave you "karma" points, which you could only get rid of by killing mobs .. the more karma the more hours ..... or if you had been a real bad boy/girl days ... dare i say weeks
I'd imagine not ok zones will be towns, newbie tutorial zones and so forth. I'm hoping caravans are not on this list because they've mentioned a "zone" that follows the caravan.
There will be PvP zones and battlegrounds and I'm really hoping the open sea is PvP.
This will mean if people actually want to PvP, not just gank, they have options. There's a deincentive to just murdering lowbies or camping nodes. Also allows some people to opt in and out of PvP.
I hope what they plan to do is see how restrictive the system is during Alpha and scale it back if need be. I feel opponents to this system are gankers or people who think all PvP will be restricted this way. Even as is, it sounds like you need to accumulate a fair amount of corruption before gear starts to drop. I'm going to also assume there will be quests to help you lower it.
Ultimately, I'm going to reserve judgement until I actually see the system in action but as of right now, I'd rather they have a flagging system that has more teeth than less.
I agree that griefing shouldn't be encouraged, but occasional theft should be.
And occasional theft isn't griefing.
Made "going red" much more fun, risk and reward were well balanced.
Theft is an action of crime, crime causes corruption. Occasional theft might be "fine" because if you don't do it often, you might not ever get negative karma/become corrupt and risk your gear.
However, that still doesn't make it right and theft should also count towards corruption.
Killing a non-combatant causes Corruption.
If you want to be a thief, attack caravans.
You get way more looted resources from a successful caravan attack than you do from killing non-combatants.
You can also steal from combatants you kill.
(I'm an opponent of the system as a proponent of consensual PvP.)
People are saying how griefing is so bad (which I do agree).
HOWEVER then people go and claim that even a single kill = griefing, which is most definitely NOT. This is my issue with those people and some of their posts.
I agree that following a same player and killing him repeatedly (griefing) is bad. I do NOT agree that one or two kills of some player should be called griefing by people. I actually strongly despise that.
Occasional kills should NOT be punished with "debuff". Occasional kills add to danger in environment and to world dynamics, and are a GOOD thing.
Corruption "debuff" should only start be placed on you if you killed same person more then 2-3 times in certain period of time (fair amount of time is to be considered, I will not claim here what time period is fair for this).
Occasional single kills should be covered ONLY BY bounty system, which is why bounty system should be here for.
** Bounty system = interesting mechanics to deal with occasional murders.
** Corruption DEBUFF = PUNISHMENT... and if every single occasional kill would be PUNISHED by debuff, then this is not what I would call a PVP friendly game (not even close).
It will be up to IS to consider when it's fair to start "debuff punishment", depending on what they wish out of their game. This will not be on players (that yell "punish every single kill") to decide.
You oppose the system as a whole or just that it helps promote consensual PvP?
Also, as described, the system appears to be insufficient for adequately curbing unwanted PvP combat.
If I'm attacked and killed when I'm not in the mood for PvP combat, I'm not going to care that my killer gained Corruption. I'm still going to be pissed that another player forced me to deal with that attack against my wishes.
If I enjoyed PKing, I would just rely on creating alt zombies whose sole purpose is to gain as much Corruption as possible before being destroyed by other players.
That would be a fun side game. Not a deterrent at all.
1. The very point is that Ashes should NOT be a "consensual only" open world PvP. To have a fun and dynamic world of conflict, to REALLY have that working in practice, OCCASIONAL attacks (non consensual) should in fact BE ENCOURAGED, and not punished.
(This of course does not include griefing, that I already agreed should be discouraged, but ONLY griefing, and not OCCASIONAL non consesual PvP).
I'd even go as far as rewarding your first non consensual PK (of particular target) per 6-12 hour period, then ignoring next 2 PKs on this target, and only then starting to apply corruption slowly if it goes beyond that.
The fact that YOU wish open world PvP to be "ONLY consensual" is your own problem. I'm sorry to be blunt here.
2. And sorry to be blunt again but that's also your own problem. If you don't wish to be attacked against your wishes, then non PvE games aren't really the best fit for you.
You are like "The first should be encouraged, the next few kills should cause corruption, then the next few kills should be free again.." It will either cause corruption or be free, no if, when and how.
If you attack a player, that is minding his own business, without any reason, sorry, then that should be causing corruption. This is not consensual PvP, as the attacked player intended to do something else and was interrupted, most likely by an even much stronger player.
You will even get a much better fight and consensual pvp if you simply queue up for arena.
I know Open World PK will be part of the game, eg. attacking caravans etc., but that doesn't justify it not causing corruption. PvP doesn't have to be consensual, but if it isn't, you're paying the price.
Sorry to be blunt, but if you wish to PK without consequence, MMORPGs are no place for you. Play DOTA or LoL.
No, I am like "The first should be encouraged, the next 2 should be ignored, and then everything else after this should put corruption on you" (until reset that happens after fair period of time).
Try to put some effort in reading what other people actually write.
No it shouldn't be causing corruption if it's one of the first 2-3 kills that happened. Only if it turns to griefing it should.
And if he was just "minding his own business" in a conflict based MMO, that is his own problem.
If someone is attacked by bigger level, I already agreed this is ganking and corruptionable.
If player is simply not gearing up so others are better geared then him, this is again his own problem. This is a conflict MMO and not a charity.
1. You will not get attacked against your wishes if you simply go play Farmville. This is about open world attacks in a conflict based MMO.
2. (And also again, try to put some effort in reading with comprehension, and don't twist the context and put lies into peoples mouth simply because you don't have anything better to say.)
I do not wish to PK without consequence. I wish OCASSIONAL PK without consequence, to add an actual danger to the world of conflict, instead of only having danger "on paper". Consequence may come if occasional PK turns into griefing.
** I personally wouldn't have corruption at all, to have a real danger in the world, but I am kind enough and take into account that people wouldn't like to be griefed, so I vote ok on corruption for griefing. Problem in such requests like we see here is that some people wouldn't like unwanted attacks happening at all. Again, to such people: this is your own problem, this is CONFLICT BASED MMO, and not a Farmville.
You are just sounding like a child right now. "If you do not want nananan go play nenene".
There is danger even without PK consequences. If you attack someone that is just minding his own business and wants to gather or do something else, you are very likely not to get much PvP out of him. If he wanted to PvP, he'd queue for arena.
You might get that one kill, and the person will just look for a new gathering spot. So, if you want PvP, you would then follow the person or track him down, and that is passing the lines of griefing.
1. Typical reply. I didn't expect anything better. First twisting peoples words, then when people point this out, calling people triggered and children.
2. I don' care if he wanted to PvP or no. This is conflict based MMO and not farmville. I don't care if he is minding his own business, because this is not about consensus, this is about having "an actual danger in world" and not having it only "on paper" by implementing hard punishment for even occasional kills / thefts.
3. First kill would be encouraged, to add to danger in the world. And if you keep following this person around, and killing repeatedly same target, then YES it is griefing and corruption would happen.
I'm glad that you actually wrote this line. As you wrote yourself here, only if you keep following that player and keep killing him again, THEN it passes the line of griefing.
Quoting you one more time.
The system points to really wanting to dissuade pvp in certain zones. If we really don't want pvp that bad in certain zones then just unflag everyone and make it a safe zone.
But then they try to gameify the system by adding a "bounty hunter system", Who the hell is going to stick around for that?
"I killed some dudes, now the cops and robers part start. You'll never take me alive copper! Oh but I have 50% of my hp and I hit like a noodle, so I guess I'll just log off for now until you forget about me." Wasn't that satisfying?
If we really want to end PvP in certain zones, then just end it. Make it a safe zone, but don't create some overly punitive system and pretend like you the option of PvP is really there.
A system that flags murders to be bounty hunted is cool. Maybe even a jail system for when they die, but stealing gear or gimping them is for heavy handed.
(Mentioned in an early PodCast, might change)
You have:
Non-Combatant - Normal death penalty
Combatant - Less death penalty
Corrupt Player - 3 to 4 times the death penalty
You only become corrupt if you murder(kill) a Non-Combatant (Green).
You do not become corrupt if you kill a Combatant (Purple).
Link if you're interested.
Basically, killing innocent ppl makes you corrupt.
Being "currently" green does not mean they are "innocent people".