@Argentdawn, I am not sure where you are pulling your numbers, but to me what you proposed is the current system. Is the only difference purples don't lose xp?
I think any death should come with xp loss and some material drops. I do agree that if purple players would not lose xp that might encourage more "greens" to engage, but I don't know if it would stop or deter PK more than the current system.
I don't think PvP is punishing because if two players engage in the act of killing each others avatars the loser experiences a death penalty. That might or might not be equivalent to a PvE death.
I consider PK versus a "green" (PKvG?) punishing because both parties will lose more than a PvP death or PvE death.
I guess I am considering PvE/PvP death the base line.
@Azathoth That was my intention to be pretty much the same as current. I think its pretty good the way it is but what i was proposing was to:
-Remove the exp debt gained while dying to PvP combat as a purple -Add a stat debuff (health, damage, mana, gathering speed/quantity/quality, etc.) to any character with exp debt regardless of combat state (even if you die to PvE this would apply).
By adding those additional effects people will be motivated to remain in a purple state rather than green or red. As it stands the only downside of staying green is you drop a little more resources and take 2x exp debt, which lets face it at level cap that doesn't matter. It was already stated it wouldn't delevel you.
By adding a stat debuff (Minor) to the exp debt if you die while green until you clear the debt (2x a pve death exp debt) you will remain in the debuffed (Minor) state until its cleared. This would also apply to anyone who dies as Corrupt starting at twice the rate of a green death. So while you are corrupt you get the stacking stat debuff (Major) and will get a lesser stat debuff (Minor) after being killed as corrupt until your exp debt is cleared.
We will see in three weeks, but I think everyone is in for a shock when it comes to "states." Basically if you listen to what was said during the 11/18 livestream about drive-by buffs he says that a purple state would be someone "in combat". So this idea of being able to choose whether you are green or purple at any given time may be moot. You might be default green, unless in combat. Even PVE may turn you "purple", since the next comment was that buffing or healing someone in PVE would also change your "state" based on their "hate table." Going to be interesting if all the breast beating and teeth gnashing over the issue as people understand it turns out to be wrong.
We will see in three weeks, but I think everyone is in for a shock when it comes to "states." Basically if you listen to what was said during the 11/18 livestream about drive-by buffs he says that a purple state would be someone "in combat". So this idea of being able to choose whether you are green or purple at any given time may be moot. You might be default green, unless in combat. Even PVE may turn you "purple", since the next comment was that buffing or healing someone in PVE would also change your "state" based on their "hate table." Going to be interesting if all the breast beating and teeth gnashing over the issue as people understand it turns out to be wrong.
Which is why I have barely made comment in these threads that have raged for weeks. Steven has an idea of what pvp will be in his game, there will be a system put in place to bring his vision to life. Then we the community can provide constructive feedback on said system, getting into heated forum debates over the pvp flagging system when we truly don't know how it works to my way of thinking is kind of pointless.
But then I guess most of the post on this forum are pointless speculation at this point, but then what else is there to do when the game is in development.
@Gothix, I can't tell if you were trying to be funny/silly or if you were asking me something other than a rhetorical question. :sigh:
I would not consider attacking and then killing an avatar that does not fight back PvP, since you're not "versus" a player, as it's just an avatar. PvA - player versus avatar? I really don't care about what it would be called, but PvF (player versus furniture) would be the equivalent I guess.
I thought PvP was suppose to be better and more challenging than PvE for those who prefer PvP. Fighting AI is different than fighting a real person. Real people are more random and adaptable and so forth.
I don't think you believe that attacking something that doesn't fight back is challenging, I think your skill set at these games is probably better than that (although I have never seen you play) based on your proclaimed enjoyment of PvP.
What's the risk of attacking someone who doesn't fight back? Corruption. Because an avatar just standing there while being attacked isn't going to cause your avatar any HP damage or be able to loot you when they die.
But, I like the way the system is heading as it has currently been described and would enjoy some iteration of this. I have not, imo, read any comment in any of the conversations involving corruption for PK that convinces me it's not a good thing. To me, PK versus a non-combatant is not PvP.
I know others don't want corruption, some want it toned down, and I do understand open world PvP is an enjoyable playstyle, just not mine. I am going against my usual deterrents with Ashes, I am trying to adapt to the game as opposed to wishing the game would adapt to me.
I think killing greens is suppose to be in the game for meaningful conflict moments. For example; when someone decides that gaining corruption to safeguard or otherwise act in their characters best interest is the only way out.
I don't think corruption was added just to punish for no reason. Perhaps it is seen as murder and in Verra murder brings rot and corruption. IDK, but the more these threads roll on the more I really want to know. Yes, I know it could be years before we have a final answer, just part of the hype train for me. Also, I like the back-n-forth of the more civilized aspect of this topic, even if some/most of it is theory-craft.
"Basically if you listen to what was said during the 11/18 livestream
about drive-by buffs he says that a purple state would be someone "in
combat". "
This basically means that however long combatant state lasts, it matters for flagging for healing or buffing random people. You don't have to see them fighting or attacking, even if they flee after and are purple, healing them counts as healing a combatant, and thus makes you one.
"So this idea of being able to choose whether you are green or purple at
any given time may be moot. You might be default green, unless in
combat. Even PVE may turn you "purple", since the next comment was that
buffing or healing someone in PVE would also change your "state" based
on their "hate table.""
It would make the enemy that is attacking the healed/buffed character add you to their hate table, and if you did a sufficient degree of healing/buffing, you'll draw the enemy on to you (and temporarily off the previous target). It won't flag you as combatant if they weren't. And normal pve won't flag you, or them, as combatant.
So no, you won't turn purple just from fighting AI mobs, you won't turn purple just from healing someone fighting AI mobs, unless they were purple (or red) to start with. That was pretty clear to me.
When you go to work do you go in bands of 10 people? When you go to the grocery store? Maybe when you go buy a game or a shovel? Because if it feels that way in a game, this isn't normal.
That's a very sheltered and naive way of arguing your point, and using this comparison is silly because the life you lead in everyday society has security guaranteed by the government of the country you live in. The military and police have a monopoly of violence over other citizens in your society, and you're free to go about your everyday business unmolested without fear of someone coming to harm you because of that monopoly of violence.
That safety will not exist in Ashes by default. Compared to everyday life in society, there is no security guarantee unless the node you live in has an active group of PVPers who will come save you when PVPers from another node attempt to attack you. If the friendly PVPers of your node are so powerful that they dissuade others from invading your node in the future, then they've achieved deterrence against future threats and you'll get to enjoy your solo life. Read Leviathan by Hobbes, or War Making and State Making as Organized Crime by Charles Tilly to understand more.
Living in the world of Ashes will be no different from the state of nature described by Hobbes, and you need to discard what you perceive to be "normal" when it comes to understanding what this game will be about.
That's a very sheltered and naive way of arguing your point, and using this comparison is silly because the life you lead in everyday society has security guaranteed by the government of the country you live in. The military and police have a monopoly of violence over other citizens in your society, and you're free to go about your everyday business unmolested without fear of someone coming to harm you because of that monopoly of violence.
That safety will not exist in Ashes by default. Compared to everyday life in society, there is no security guarantee unless the node you live in has an active group of PVPers who will come save you when PVPers from another node attempt to attack you. If the friendly PVPers of your node are so powerful that they dissuade others from invading your node in the future, then they've achieved deterrence against future threats and you'll get to enjoy your solo life. Read Leviathan by Hobbes, or War Making and State Making as Organized Crime by Charles Tilly to understand more.
Living in the world of Ashes will be no different from the state of nature described by Hobbes, and you need to discard what you perceive to be "normal" when it comes to understanding what this game will be about.
Don't pretend to understand the game's systems before we have a stable build. Nothing you stated was accurate and was, in fact, a complete assumption. You can't assume to know what protection the corruption system would provide with the information we have currently.
Don't pretend to understand the game's systems before we have a stable build. Nothing you stated was accurate and was, in fact, a complete assumption. You can't assume to know what protection the corruption system would provide with the information we have currently.
Your attempt at tossing a red herring in here contributes nothing to what I have to say about SchalaZeal's faulty comparisons to everyday life, and the kind of Hobbesian state of nature which Intrepid have taken pains to describe Verra to be. I disagree with the fundamental philosophy which insists on refusing to group up with other players. This shtick of being too solo-friendly is part of the malaise inflicting the MMORPG genre, and this attitude of "Why must I group up with other players" while playing a MMO is part of the problem.
It was mainly pointing out the cold reality that like it or not, players will come under unprovoked aggression in the game, regardless of whether the corruption mechanic will come into play. Like it or not, that's part of human nature and it will manifest itself in a MMO whenever the opportunity presents itself.
Your attempt at tossing a red herring in here contributes nothing to what I have to say about SchalaZeal's faulty comparisons to everyday life, and the kind of Hobbesian state of nature which Intrepid have taken pains to describe Verra to be. I disagree with the fundamental philosophy which insists on refusing to group up with other players. This shtick of being too solo-friendly is part of the malaise inflicting the MMORPG genre, and this attitude of "Why must I group up with other players" while playing a MMO is part of the problem.
I think you're using the phrase red herring wrong, I wasn't attempting to distract anyone from some greater truth, I was simply correcting your unjustified assumptions.
I don't care what your personal opinions are, or what you're currently discussing. You presented your opinion as fact and I corrected you. That's all I came here to do.
I understand it dosen't feel great to be corrected but there's no need to get defensive, we're all friends here.
It's not meaningful conflict to me, and I wouldn't play a game that allowed undeterred PKing just to hinder others. I never got into Eve Online, I never even installed it, due to this.
I largely solo because I tend to explore and do solo activities (farm, craft, quest). But in a PK-friendly game where there is little consequences for murder, I would need to have 5-6 friends with me at all times, and it might not be a big deterrent if I meet another group of 5-6 hostile people.
I'm already hard to convince to go in raids with good resource incentives and promise of quick finish - solely because it's time being around lots of people (and at the mercy of them being stupid). This would simply make this game a bad fit for my playstyle. I don't mind doing group stuff sometimes, but this is making every single thing into group stuff.
Heck I thought FF14 was a bad fit largely because I felt forced to run weekly gear token dungeons, often with randoms - but I was still allowed and able to solo explore, solo gather, solo craft and solo quest, without a 5 player escort everywhere. Trying to schedule stuff with friends or a guild every time I do anything at all, would be a pain.
So... Why are you playing MMO's at all? You sound incredibly introverted and easily annoyed, which doesn't sound like a good fit for an MMO in the first place. I can understand your issues with EVE, that game is a mess, but attempting to dumb-down AoC because you don't believe "PK" is justifiable at all (this is an assumption from this and many other posts you've made.) unless done in a duel format is utter bullshit. If you don't like the idea of being attacked or "PK'ed", you shouldn't play this game, and remember it's still marketed as an open-world PvP game so expect it to happen. Overall I think far too many people here see any form of PvP outside of Sieges, Dueling or Guild Wars etc, as game breaking because it ruins their luxury time. I don't want PvP "griefing" to be incentivized at all, but I think the corruption system as it stands isn't going to do anything more than dumb the game down/burn the playerbase.
I think you're using the phrase red herring wrong, I wasn't attempting to distract anyone from some greater truth, I was simply correcting your unjustified assumptions.
The burden of proof lies on you elaborating on how the corruption mechanic has any relevance in the scenarios which I outlined. This game was pitched and marketed as an open world PVP MMO, and all I did was to describe scenarios which are common to any open world PVP MMO with substantive consequences.
I don't care what your personal opinions are, or what you're currently discussing. You presented your opinion as fact and I corrected you. That's all I came here to do.
Don't be disingenuous. If you really didn't care, you wouldn't have posted at all.
I understand it dosen't feel great to be corrected but there's no need to get defensive, we're all friends here.
I will stand corrected if I am provided with a well-reasoned argument, and will change my mind if given sufficient evidence. So far, your sophistry has provided none. And no, I'm not your mate, friendo.
@Davlos What are you talking about? you haven't even addressed my point, not once.
I get you're probably fuming but you're arguing for the sake of arguing, just chill out.
The corruption mechanic obviously has an impact on creating a safe environment for Ashes.
I don't care what your opinions are but I do care if you present them as fact, but thanks for nitpicking. You must be running out of things to argue about.
All I'm saying is you assumed to know what the world in Ashes is going to be like without providing any evidence to support your claims. You're just guessing and now you're getting mad someone called you out on it, It's either that or you get off on arguing.
Now here's my challenge to you, friend, instead of going through and magically finding something wrong with every word I say can you respond to the following only.
Do you think you were misrepresenting your opinion as fact?
Edit: If for some reason you want to keep this going I suggest we do it over DM, this is getting off topic.
I am still having flashbacks to UO, back when they had PKer wars. Mainly it's why they made two realms only you had open PvP, and one you couldn't attack someone without consent. I was ok with it at 1st, but just didn't feel the same after awhile.
Ashes, although marketed as open world PvP (and equally other things), is has been stated by IS that solo play is an option, just one that limits content. Even though IS believes that solo-play will still be MMO play because of the node leveling system. Ashes was not marketed solely as an Open World PvP, there are lot's of other things IS is planning on bringing to the table which has attracted non-PvP fans.
Open World PvP - you in fact can attack anyone almost anywhere as far as I know. Taking corruption for killing a player that doesn't fight back does not some how make this a non-Open World PvP. It's a deterrent, a deterrent only prevents you from doing something if you are deterred by it. Not everyone will be, so why relax the potential system to allow them more access?
Since the deterrent seems to be deterring players prior to release, I think it is working well. I am under the impression, by reading threads similar to this, many games already exist that are non-deterred Open World PvP. Why should this be another?
Ashes, although marketed as open world PvP (and equally other things), is has been stated by IS that solo play is an option, just one that limits content. Even though IS believes that solo-play will still be MMO play because of the node leveling system. Ashes was not marketed solely as an Open World PvP, there are lot's of other things IS is planning on bringing to the table which has attracted non-PvP fans.
Open World PvP - you in fact can attack anyone almost anywhere as far as I know. Taking corruption for killing a player that doesn't fight back does not some how make this a non-Open World PvP. It's a deterrent, a deterrent only prevents you from doing something if you are deterred by it. Not everyone will be, so why relax the potential system to allow them more access?
Since the deterrent seems to be deterring players prior to release, I think it is working well. I am under the impression, by reading threads similar to this, many games already exist that are non-deterred Open World PvP. Why should this be another?
It's deterring the big bad griefers, totally not normal players who think the system can be heavily abused. People that share your mindset are the same ones that ruin MMO's, it boils down to "If they don't agree with (insert "deterrent" mechanic), they must be a griefer, troll or big bad PK'er!" which is absolutely **** and 99% of the time incorrect. And of course Ashes wasn't marketed solely as an Open World PvP MMO but what do you think they tag onto the name, and, what do you think people are most likely to be attracted to in the MMO market? Definitely not "Open World Crafting MMO" or "Open World Horse Taming MMO", they sound like Farm Simulator clones.
@Davlos What are you talking about? you haven't even addressed my point, not once.
I get you're probably fuming but you're arguing for the sake of arguing, just chill out.
The corruption mechanic obviously has an impact on creating a safe environment for Ashes.
I don't care what your opinions are but I do care if you present them as fact, but thanks for nitpicking. You must be running out of things to argue about.
All I'm saying is you assumed to know what the world in Ashes is going to be like without providing any evidence to support your claims. You're just guessing and now you're getting mad someone called you out on it, It's either that or you get off on arguing.
Now here's my challenge to you, friend, instead of going through and magically finding something wrong with every word I say can you respond to the following only.
Do you think you were misrepresenting your opinion as fact?
Edit: If for some reason you want to keep this going I suggest we do it over DM, this is getting off topic.
Just going by your post history alone, you're an irrelevant sophist who goes around stirring up trouble even in intro threads - and it's not gone unnoticed by others. You're the one who decided to bring this off-topic, and the only interaction I will have with you henceforth is the pleasure of grinding you into in-game irrelevance in the years to come.
Ashes, although marketed as open world PvP (and equally other things), is has been stated by IS that solo play is an option, just one that limits content. Even though IS believes that solo-play will still be MMO play because of the node leveling system. Ashes was not marketed solely as an Open World PvP, there are lot's of other things IS is planning on bringing to the table which has attracted non-PvP fans.
Open World PvP - you in fact can attack anyone almost anywhere as far as I know. Taking corruption for killing a player that doesn't fight back does not some how make this a non-Open World PvP. It's a deterrent, a deterrent only prevents you from doing something if you are deterred by it. Not everyone will be, so why relax the potential system to allow them more access?
Since the deterrent seems to be deterring players prior to release, I think it is working well. I am under the impression, by reading threads similar to this, many games already exist that are non-deterred Open World PvP. Why should this be another?
It's deterring the big bad griefers, totally not normal players who think the system can be heavily abused. People that share your mindset are the same ones that ruin MMO's, it boils down to "If they don't agree with (insert "deterrent" mechanic), they must be a griefer, troll or big bad PK'er!" which is absolutely **** and 99% of the time incorrect. And of course Ashes wasn't marketed solely as an Open World PvP MMO but what do you think they tag onto the name, and, what do you think people are most likely to be attracted to in the MMO market? Definitely not "Open World Crafting MMO" or "Open World Horse Taming MMO", they sound like Farm Simulator clones.
Not sure what your point was, you just kinda came off as whiney and rude. Not saying you are, just that you're coming off the wrong way.
That's a very sheltered and naive way of arguing your point, and using this comparison is silly because the life you lead in everyday society has security guaranteed by the government of the country you live in. The military and police have a monopoly of violence over other citizens in your society, and you're free to go about your everyday business unmolested without fear of someone coming to harm you because of that monopoly of violence.
That safety will not exist in Ashes by default. Compared to everyday life in society, there is no security guarantee unless the node you live in has an active group of PVPers who will come save you when PVPers from another node attempt to attack you. If the friendly PVPers of your node are so powerful that they dissuade others from invading your node in the future, then they've achieved deterrence against future threats and you'll get to enjoy your solo life. Read Leviathan by Hobbes, or War Making and State Making as Organized Crime by Charles Tilly to understand more.
Living in the world of Ashes will be no different from the state of nature described by Hobbes, and you need to discard what you perceive to be "normal" when it comes to understanding what this game will be about.
Don't pretend to understand the game's systems before we have a stable build. Nothing you stated was accurate and was, in fact, a complete assumption. You can't assume to know what protection the corruption system would provide with the information we have currently.
You was comparing Ashes to every day life on Earth, and he gave you a valid reason why you are wrong.
He does not assume anything. It is known that Verra is a world abandoned by thousands of years, world filled with chaos and corruption and no organized civilization.
You are going back through portal as PIONEER to a dangerous world full of unexpected. So you can definitely not compare it to Earth, and going to job.
Ashes, although marketed as open world PvP (and equally other things), is has been stated by IS that solo play is an option, just one that limits content. Even though IS believes that solo-play will still be MMO play because of the node leveling system. Ashes was not marketed solely as an Open World PvP, there are lot's of other things IS is planning on bringing to the table which has attracted non-PvP fans.
Solo play style is not opposed to pvp. You can solo play AND PvP in same time.
@Gothix He didn't prove me wrong about anything because I wasn't even talking to him? I didn't way in on the discussion, I was just saying he described the world of Verra inaccurately. There's no way to tell yet how it's going to play out so you can't go around saying "this is how it is".
I think you have me confused with someone else, I wasn't comparing anything. That was another person.
@Gothix He didn't prove me wrong about anything because I wasn't even talking to him? I didn't way in on the discussion, I was just saying he described the world of Verra inaccurately. There's no way to tell yet how it's going to play out so you can't go around saying "this is how it is".
I think you have me confused with someone else, I wasn't comparing anything. That was another person.
Ah yes I see now, another person compared Ashes to life on Earth. Alright, but he was still correct in claiming that you can not compare life on Earth with life on Verra.
Ah yes I see now, another person compared Ashes to life on Earth. Alright, but he was still correct in claiming that you can not compare life on Earth with life on Verra.
I completely agree with what he was saying about comparing Real life and a video game, it's ridiculous. I was simply trying to tell him he can't go around assuming his opinion is fact. This is one example, we just don't know what kinda of safety towns and the corruption system can actually provide people yet.
"That safety will not exist in Ashes by default."
Edit: It wasn't a big deal, I'm not sure why it had to be blown out of proportion.
Ashes, although marketed as open world PvP (and equally other things), is has been stated by IS that solo play is an option, just one that limits content. Even though IS believes that solo-play will still be MMO play because of the node leveling system. Ashes was not marketed solely as an Open World PvP, there are lot's of other things IS is planning on bringing to the table which has attracted non-PvP fans.
Open World PvP - you in fact can attack anyone almost anywhere as far as I know. Taking corruption for killing a player that doesn't fight back does not some how make this a non-Open World PvP. It's a deterrent, a deterrent only prevents you from doing something if you are deterred by it. Not everyone will be, so why relax the potential system to allow them more access?
Since the deterrent seems to be deterring players prior to release, I think it is working well. I am under the impression, by reading threads similar to this, many games already exist that are non-deterred Open World PvP. Why should this be another?
It's deterring the big bad griefers, totally not normal players who think the system can be heavily abused. People that share your mindset are the same ones that ruin MMO's, it boils down to "If they don't agree with (insert "deterrent" mechanic), they must be a griefer, troll or big bad PK'er!" which is absolutely **** and 99% of the time incorrect. And of course Ashes wasn't marketed solely as an Open World PvP MMO but what do you think they tag onto the name, and, what do you think people are most likely to be attracted to in the MMO market? Definitely not "Open World Crafting MMO" or "Open World Horse Taming MMO", they sound like Farm Simulator clones.
Not sure what your point was, you just kinda came off as whiney and rude. Not saying you are, just that you're coming off the wrong way.
For a Guild Leader, you're one of the most insufferable people I've come across on the Forums yet. And I'm making this statement based off of the last two pages of this Thread. Anyway, half of my post was just making fun of the way Azathoth thinks about the corruption system and the people who dislike it.
For the simple-minded, a tl;dr of my post.-
A large portion of the community believe that the people getting annoyed at the Corruption system are simply looking for ways to get free kills on other players, when that's incorrect 99% of the time.
That safety will not exist in Ashes by default. Compared to everyday life in society, there is no security guarantee unless the node you live in has an active group of PVPers who will come save you when PVPers from another node attempt to attack you.
Well, given the penalty for PKing, I assume I won't be killed 5 times just walking to the forest, unless my guild declared war on another guild who just happens to hang out in this area. You're free to always move in posses of 10 people, I'm going to fish and do my solo quests without a huge escort.
I disagree with the fundamental philosophy which insists on refusing to group up with other players.
I can group when I want to do a dungeon, or a raid, or a gathering party and lots of gatherers I know happen to be on. But not every time I login and go to a city or a forest to do something soloable.
Maybe you're one of those who logs in, does the dungeon/raid, stays on for roughly 1 hour, then logs out. But I'm the kind who logs in, does 12 hours worth of stuff with random pauses where I want them (eat, bathroom breaks, naps - on my schedule), with varying content, but most of it soloable. And in the guilds I have been in, there wasn't others who did what I did (gather and craft intensively), and not much people outside peak times.
Gathering might be more risky in this game, for valuable resources, but I don't expect to never be able to gather because trolls hang around those spots 24/7, just waiting to PK. I think corruption would deter them most of the time (and yes, I won't fight back when solo, I will run or die). Not everything is super rare and thus worth PKing for.
This shtick of being too solo-friendly is part of the malaise inflicting
the MMORPG genre, and this attitude of "Why must I group up with other
players" while playing a MMO is part of the problem.
Except most games are not solo-friendly. They're get-a-pick-up-group-from-party-finder friendly. But that's not solo. In FF14 I can walk around and do solo quests all I want, but if I want bis gear, I must raid. Or wait a couple months later towards the end of the patch cycle when its accessible through easy dungeons tokens, still not solo. Craft makes intermediary gear and costs an arm and a leg, and has RNG.
A good point of Ashes is that crafting is supposed to be on par with bis drops, so I won't have to do 25 or 40-man raids just to be able to get a bis piece. It might take work and time and (in-game) money, and finding buyers or sellers, but that's fine with me.
It was mainly pointing out the cold reality that like it or not, players will
come under unprovoked aggression in the game, regardless of whether the
corruption mechanic will come into play. Like it or not, that's part of
human nature and it will manifest itself in a MMO whenever the
opportunity presents itself.
Yes, they will come under unprovoked aggression in the game. No it won't be "whenever the opportunity presents itself", you know there is no safe zone except potentially your own apartment, or your own freehold? That means a city is not a safe zone, technically an opportunity. And I doubt outside of guild feuds, that people will PK in town much. I also doubt PKs will just be everyone everywhere just doing it for the lol. Or you're underestimating the corruption mechanic, thinking you can work out the corruption with a little pve exp, or by logging out, well no, you can't.
So... Why are you playing MMO's at all? You sound incredibly introverted and easily annoyed, which doesn't sound like a good fit for an MMO in the first place.
MMOs have lots of content, have crafting and gathering to levels not found in even big offline games like Skyrim, have social aspects that DO NOT require grouping every 5 minutes (like guild community stuff), and those games keep being updated. In offline games, I mostly avoid games like Elder Scrolls, in favor of games like Kingdom Hearts. In online games, I like crafting, at least when what you make is not simply a matter of money that no one cares about because supplanted by mob drops.
but attempting to dumb-down AoC because you don't believe "PK" is
justifiable at all (this is an assumption from this and many other posts
you've made.) unless done in a duel format is utter bullshit.
It's not dumbing down, this is the actual advertised mechanics. I think PK can be justified when the attacked party is likely to want to fight back (to defend whatever is worth value, for guild, for world boss), just not for trolling reasons. Even if the defending party doesn't fight back, when it's reasonable to assume they would (so there must be a reason), it's justifiable pvp combat.
If you don't like the idea of being attacked or "PK'ed", you shouldn't
play this game, and remember it's still marketed as an open-world PvP
game so expect it to happen.
This is marketed as a PvX game. Where people who mostly pve and aren't interested in pvping, and soloers are supposed to be able to thrive, not just rage quit.
This game was pitched and marketed as an open world PVP MMO
See above, it's marketed as PvX, with PvE player-friendly content.
Even though IS believes that solo-play will still be MMO play because of the node leveling system.
Also because husbandry and crafting are not party content. They could be done with multiple people and it might involve socializing to find buyers, find materials, etc. But it's not something you have to be 5 online to be able to do. You can also do non-dungeon pve probably without risking PKing much. World bosses might be an exception.
Comments
I think any death should come with xp loss and some material drops. I do agree that if purple players would not lose xp that might encourage more "greens" to engage, but I don't know if it would stop or deter PK more than the current system.
I don't think PvP is punishing because if two players engage in the act of killing each others avatars the loser experiences a death penalty. That might or might not be equivalent to a PvE death.
I consider PK versus a "green" (PKvG?) punishing because both parties will lose more than a PvP death or PvE death.
I guess I am considering PvE/PvP death the base line.
Then what is it? PvF - Player versus Furniture?
That was my intention to be pretty much the same as current. I think its pretty good the way it is but what i was proposing was to:
-Remove the exp debt gained while dying to PvP combat as a purple
-Add a stat debuff (health, damage, mana, gathering speed/quantity/quality, etc.) to any character with exp debt regardless of combat state (even if you die to PvE this would apply).
By adding those additional effects people will be motivated to remain in a purple state rather than green or red. As it stands the only downside of staying green is you drop a little more resources and take 2x exp debt, which lets face it at level cap that doesn't matter. It was already stated it wouldn't delevel you.
By adding a stat debuff (Minor) to the exp debt if you die while green until you clear the debt (2x a pve death exp debt) you will remain in the debuffed (Minor) state until its cleared. This would also apply to anyone who dies as Corrupt starting at twice the rate of a green death. So while you are corrupt you get the stacking stat debuff (Major) and will get a lesser stat debuff (Minor) after being killed as corrupt until your exp debt is cleared.
Which is why I have barely made comment in these threads that have raged for weeks. Steven has an idea of what pvp will be in his game, there will be a system put in place to bring his vision to life. Then we the community can provide constructive feedback on said system, getting into heated forum debates over the pvp flagging system when we truly don't know how it works to my way of thinking is kind of pointless.
But then I guess most of the post on this forum are pointless speculation at this point, but then what else is there to do when the game is in development.
I would not consider attacking and then killing an avatar that does not fight back PvP, since you're not "versus" a player, as it's just an avatar. PvA - player versus avatar? I really don't care about what it would be called, but PvF (player versus furniture) would be the equivalent I guess.
I thought PvP was suppose to be better and more challenging than PvE for those who prefer PvP. Fighting AI is different than fighting a real person. Real people are more random and adaptable and so forth.
I don't think you believe that attacking something that doesn't fight back is challenging, I think your skill set at these games is probably better than that (although I have never seen you play) based on your proclaimed enjoyment of PvP.
What's the risk of attacking someone who doesn't fight back? Corruption. Because an avatar just standing there while being attacked isn't going to cause your avatar any HP damage or be able to loot you when they die.
But, I like the way the system is heading as it has currently been described and would enjoy some iteration of this.
I have not, imo, read any comment in any of the conversations involving corruption for PK that convinces me it's not a good thing. To me, PK versus a non-combatant is not PvP.
I know others don't want corruption, some want it toned down, and I do understand open world PvP is an enjoyable playstyle, just not mine. I am going against my usual deterrents with Ashes, I am trying to adapt to the game as opposed to wishing the game would adapt to me.
I think killing greens is suppose to be in the game for meaningful conflict moments. For example; when someone decides that gaining corruption to safeguard or otherwise act in their characters best interest is the only way out.
I don't think corruption was added just to punish for no reason. Perhaps it is seen as murder and in Verra murder brings rot and corruption. IDK, but the more these threads roll on the more I really want to know. Yes, I know it could be years before we have a final answer, just part of the hype train for me. Also, I like the back-n-forth of the more civilized aspect of this topic, even if some/most of it is theory-craft.
This basically means that however long combatant state lasts, it matters for flagging for healing or buffing random people. You don't have to see them fighting or attacking, even if they flee after and are purple, healing them counts as healing a combatant, and thus makes you one.
"So this idea of being able to choose whether you are green or purple at any given time may be moot. You might be default green, unless in combat. Even PVE may turn you "purple", since the next comment was that buffing or healing someone in PVE would also change your "state" based on their "hate table.""
It would make the enemy that is attacking the healed/buffed character add you to their hate table, and if you did a sufficient degree of healing/buffing, you'll draw the enemy on to you (and temporarily off the previous target). It won't flag you as combatant if they weren't. And normal pve won't flag you, or them, as combatant.
So no, you won't turn purple just from fighting AI mobs, you won't turn purple just from healing someone fighting AI mobs, unless they were purple (or red) to start with. That was pretty clear to me.
That safety will not exist in Ashes by default. Compared to everyday life in society, there is no security guarantee unless the node you live in has an active group of PVPers who will come save you when PVPers from another node attempt to attack you. If the friendly PVPers of your node are so powerful that they dissuade others from invading your node in the future, then they've achieved deterrence against future threats and you'll get to enjoy your solo life. Read Leviathan by Hobbes, or War Making and State Making as Organized Crime by Charles Tilly to understand more.
Living in the world of Ashes will be no different from the state of nature described by Hobbes, and you need to discard what you perceive to be "normal" when it comes to understanding what this game will be about.
It was mainly pointing out the cold reality that like it or not, players will come under unprovoked aggression in the game, regardless of whether the corruption mechanic will come into play. Like it or not, that's part of human nature and it will manifest itself in a MMO whenever the opportunity presents itself.
I don't care what your personal opinions are, or what you're currently discussing. You presented your opinion as fact and I corrected you. That's all I came here to do.
I understand it dosen't feel great to be corrected but there's no need to get defensive, we're all friends here.
So... Why are you playing MMO's at all? You sound incredibly introverted and easily annoyed, which doesn't sound like a good fit for an MMO in the first place. I can understand your issues with EVE, that game is a mess, but attempting to dumb-down AoC because you don't believe "PK" is justifiable at all (this is an assumption from this and many other posts you've made.) unless done in a duel format is utter bullshit. If you don't like the idea of being attacked or "PK'ed", you shouldn't play this game, and remember it's still marketed as an open-world PvP game so expect it to happen. Overall I think far too many people here see any form of PvP outside of Sieges, Dueling or Guild Wars etc, as game breaking because it ruins their luxury time. I don't want PvP "griefing" to be incentivized at all, but I think the corruption system as it stands isn't going to do anything more than dumb the game down/burn the playerbase.
What are you talking about? you haven't even addressed my point, not once.
I get you're probably fuming but you're arguing for the sake of arguing, just chill out.
The corruption mechanic obviously has an impact on creating a safe environment for Ashes.
I don't care what your opinions are but I do care if you present them as fact, but thanks for nitpicking. You must be running out of things to argue about.
All I'm saying is you assumed to know what the world in Ashes is going to be like without providing any evidence to support your claims. You're just guessing and now you're getting mad someone called you out on it, It's either that or you get off on arguing.
Now here's my challenge to you, friend, instead of going through and magically finding something wrong with every word I say can you respond to the following only.
Do you think you were misrepresenting your opinion as fact?
Edit: If for some reason you want to keep this going I suggest we do it over DM, this is getting off topic.
Open World PvP - you in fact can attack anyone almost anywhere as far as I know.
Taking corruption for killing a player that doesn't fight back does not some how make this a non-Open World PvP. It's a deterrent, a deterrent only prevents you from doing something if you are deterred by it. Not everyone will be, so why relax the potential system to allow them more access?
Since the deterrent seems to be deterring players prior to release, I think it is working well. I am under the impression, by reading threads similar to this, many games already exist that are non-deterred Open World PvP. Why should this be another?
You was comparing Ashes to every day life on Earth, and he gave you a valid reason why you are wrong.
He does not assume anything. It is known that Verra is a world abandoned by thousands of years, world filled with chaos and corruption and no organized civilization.
You are going back through portal as PIONEER to a dangerous world full of unexpected. So you can definitely not compare it to Earth, and going to job.
You received a completely accurate response.
Solo play style is not opposed to pvp. You can solo play AND PvP in same time.
I think you have me confused with someone else, I wasn't comparing anything. That was another person.
Ah yes I see now, another person compared Ashes to life on Earth.
Alright, but he was still correct in claiming that you can not compare life on Earth with life on Verra.
This is one example, we just don't know what kinda of safety towns and the corruption system can actually provide people yet.
"That safety will not exist in Ashes by default."
Edit: It wasn't a big deal, I'm not sure why it had to be blown out of proportion.
Pooka's 1 gold is worth more than your one gold.
For the simple-minded, a tl;dr of my post.-
A large portion of the community believe that the people getting annoyed at the Corruption system are simply looking for ways to get free kills on other players, when that's incorrect 99% of the time.
Well, given the penalty for PKing, I assume I won't be killed 5 times just walking to the forest, unless my guild declared war on another guild who just happens to hang out in this area. You're free to always move in posses of 10 people, I'm going to fish and do my solo quests without a huge escort.
I can group when I want to do a dungeon, or a raid, or a gathering party and lots of gatherers I know happen to be on. But not every time I login and go to a city or a forest to do something soloable.
Maybe you're one of those who logs in, does the dungeon/raid, stays on for roughly 1 hour, then logs out. But I'm the kind who logs in, does 12 hours worth of stuff with random pauses where I want them (eat, bathroom breaks, naps - on my schedule), with varying content, but most of it soloable. And in the guilds I have been in, there wasn't others who did what I did (gather and craft intensively), and not much people outside peak times.
Gathering might be more risky in this game, for valuable resources, but I don't expect to never be able to gather because trolls hang around those spots 24/7, just waiting to PK. I think corruption would deter them most of the time (and yes, I won't fight back when solo, I will run or die). Not everything is super rare and thus worth PKing for.
Except most games are not solo-friendly. They're get-a-pick-up-group-from-party-finder friendly. But that's not solo. In FF14 I can walk around and do solo quests all I want, but if I want bis gear, I must raid. Or wait a couple months later towards the end of the patch cycle when its accessible through easy dungeons tokens, still not solo. Craft makes intermediary gear and costs an arm and a leg, and has RNG.
A good point of Ashes is that crafting is supposed to be on par with bis drops, so I won't have to do 25 or 40-man raids just to be able to get a bis piece. It might take work and time and (in-game) money, and finding buyers or sellers, but that's fine with me.