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.

Military Metropolis - ability to set a LAW: everyone in zone is perma purple

2

Comments

  • i don't see why not as long as the complete opposite can be done as well (forcing a zone to be De-militarized.)
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited March 2018
    Telonius said:
    i don't see why not as long as the complete opposite can be done as well (forcing a zone to be De-militarized.)

    Law does not prevent people from doing anything, or force them into something. Entering military node would not force you to go attack people, you could still chose to go gather or role play. (I did not suggest the law that says that you must kill a person each 15 minutes or you get punished).

    Opposite of that in other type of node node (as your example), you would not be physically prevented from attacking people, you would just get punished more if you are caught as the law would be set to discourage it.


    Law does not mean that people will always follow it. It just adjusts the consequences for those people that break it and ARE CAUGHT.


    *** Problem is that corruption in Ashes punishes people even if they are not "caught" by automatically reducing their stats...

    *** Another problem is that corruption exists even for occasional attacks, and not only for "griefing" and "ganking". (Yeah, I know carebears have their own definition of griefing and ganking that includes even a single 1vs1 attack of their own level... that's another issue)
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited March 2018
    i think this idea overlooks a great many of the games other pvp functions and would make them useless. bounty and caravans being a few. If noones going red in said area, bounty system is ruined for that area. if the entire area is pvp no point in having a mobile pvp zone follow the caravan. 

    IMHO this is just a cry for people who cant handle a karma system.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited March 2018
    NoeSparks said:

    IMHO this is just a cry for people who cant handle a karma system.

    Noone should have to "handle" a system that automatically punishes you for PvP in a PvX game.


    (corruption - it shouldn't even exist in a true PvX title, but IF it HAS TO - should be limited solely to griefing / ganking - and every normal person (except crying carebears) knows what griefing and ganking is)
  • I think the intended venues for pvp (caravans, sieges, arena, etc) provide ample amounts of meaningful combat. We do not know the extent of the debuff for red players yet, so stating that your stats will get rekt to the point of being useless may be an overstatement. The flagging system is clearly intended to cut down on griefing/ganking, but not an outright ban of it. You can still attack anyone, it just seems that you have a problem with repercussions for your actions. If you want to pvp without the fear of going red there are venues where you can do so.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited March 2018
    it just seems that you have a problem with repercussions for your actions. 

    No, I have a problem of having repercussions even for occasional single attacks for resources, even when i'm not griefing and ganking. That's what I have problem with.


    Only an actual griefing and ganking should give you repercussions, that's what I'm trying to promote.

    MY other issue is with carebears trying to push their crazy idea where even a single attacks vs equal lvl players are considered GRIEFING if one player was green.
  • @Gothix

    "I only consider a PvP being "true PvP" when I am able to attack anyone without having this action automatically screw me, regardless of if I win or lose."

    "In game where even after victory you get screwed (simply because other player chose to remain green), THAT is not PvP, that is bullshit..."

    "As said earlier I can live with game helping against someone deliberatley following same target over prolonged period of time and griefing him for no useful purpose..."

    "(corruption - it shouldn't even exist in a true PvX title, but IF it HAS TO - should be limited solely to griefing / ganking - and every normal person (except crying carebears) knows what griefing and ganking is)"

    "No, I have a problem of having repercussions even for occasional single attacks for resources, even when i'm not griefing and ganking. That's what I have problem with."

    "Only an actual griefing and ganking should give you repercussions, that's what I'm trying to promote."

    So you want to attack ANYONE at ANYTIME, be it for resources, or for ganking/griefing? Ok so I want to kill you a few times for resources since I know you are a big gatherer. So I should not have some punishment for that because that is not ganking right?

    The corruption system seems pretty well balanced tbh. If you want to farm someone for resources then you have to be able to handle the fact the you are constantly ganking them.

    Now if you go and say I am a carebear, then have at, but I LOVE pvp. What I do not care for is ganking because my opponent should have a fair chance at winning, not this bullshit you spout about just attacking random people "because I feel like it." When you go full **** you should be punished, end of story.

    Ok gothix keep contrdicting yourself, PLEASE keep doing it. All I will do is keep coming back! :smile:
  • Gothix said:

    Only an actual griefing and ganking should give you repercussions, that's what I'm trying to promote.

    So outline a system that does that and allows for your perfect version of how open world pvp should be. I agree with you that fighting between equally leveled players is not considered griefing. The intended system seems to promote fighting back, its advantageous to die while flagged purple for the lessened chance at dropping loot. The reasons to remain green is mixed between punishment/reward, the reward being the person attacking will now be flagged red, but the punishment is a higher chance to drop loot. The attacker has chosen to attack, the defender ultimately makes the decision on how to respond.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited March 2018
    ^True, PvE players ARE punished for not engaging in PvP because they lose more resources, the whole reason they seem to be playing.

    @Gothix
    If you wanted to go PvP and suddenly were interrupted because a player came along and forced you to gather items (let's say for 3 minutes) whenever they wanted to would you still play that game?

    Since I can be forced to PvP in a PvX game it should be possible to force a player into PvE. That's the level of logic you are using.
    -By being able to force players to PvE in my node I am increasing my nodes XP level (part of the game).
    -By being able to force players to PvE in another node I am increasing the deficit of the resources in that node (part of the game).
    -By being able to force players to PvE I am, much in the same way PvP against greens work, forcing the player to "deal with the system" even if they don't want to.
    -Add corruption: if they are forced into PvE then the node receives less xp from their actions. I would also be labeled a "slave-driver" and thus incur the regular corruption as a PvP player would if they killed a green.

    Your logic makes that suggestion viable. I would be okay with that as well (the time frame would have to be adjusted to fit the length of time dealing with a typical PK encounter takes). Of course, penalties should be more for level discrepancy.

    Are there not any games right now that meet your prerequisites for PvP rules?
    Can you not play both this game and one of those games to get your fill?

    Oh, for those that feel the need to call some players carebears to prove their point. Way to use name calling to prove how right you are.

    I grew up watching the carebears, they taught us that violence and hate caused more problems than they ever saw*. Why is this a bad thing?
    *edit, should read solved
  • Ok gothix keep contrdicting yourself, PLEASE keep doing it. All I will do is keep coming back! :smile:

    If you see contradiction anywhere in my posts it just means you completely lack an ability to read with comprehension, since there are no contradictions at all.

    Therefore I can not discuss anything further with you, since your disability impairs you, anything further I would try to explain to you would also just go "down the drain".


    But... let me "try" to explain it to you on the most basic level:

    ***

    CORRUPTION: (I would rather not have it at all, but) YES i can support it IF it is ONLY applied in cases of GRIEFING and GANKING.


    1. GRIEFING: following someone around for longer period of time and killing him many times over for no other reason but just to make him suffer. (Killing someone few times for resources is NOT griefing, regardless of what color that person is).

    * Carebears consider even a single kill griefing (this is due to their ability to handle life not being on a level on normal person) but this is NOT what griefing is.

    2. Ganking: killing player several levels lower than you.

    * Carebears consider even a same level fights ganking (this is due to their ability to handle life not being on a level on normal person) but that is not what ganking is.

    ***

    Game that (in any way) punishes player conflict (exceptions being griefing and ganking) is really a PvE title, regardless of how developer will call it for purposes of marketing.


    ***


    That's it. Now feel free to continue write nonsense how I contradict myself, or whatever you want.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited March 2018
    @Cambiguous @Azathoth

    Losing few resources while dying green isn't even remotely comparable to having your gear (that you may have worked months for) destroyed...

    Current system is so much imbalanced that it is ridiculous. Corruption simply shouldn't exist (it can only be excused if griefing or ganking is involved).


    @Azathoth

    I AM forced to PvE. I am forced to gather, do dungeons etc, because if I don't I will completely lack the gear and be unable to play the game in any meaningful way. I am forced to PvE.

    So while being forced to PvE I am also punished for PvP (stat reduction if other player stays green).

    Forced to PvE + punished for PvP = that is PvX to you? (I probably shouldn't have even asked, cause you will just say "yes"... lol)



    Also to respond to your question with question @Azathoth, same question you asked me:

    Are there not any games right now that meet your prerequisites for being protected from PvP? Can you not play both this game and one of those games to get your fill?
  • @Gothix I am asking for you to outline the mechanics that you want implemented in your system of open world pvp. My understanding of your idea is that corruption(if it exists at all) is applied only to griefers/gankers, then how does the game determine when to apply corruption? Is it a kill counter and after they reach a certain number of kills on a player in a certain amount of time it is applied? I am asking you to explain your argument for a no corruption system, not statements like "only carebears complain". The intended corruption system mitigates ganking/griefing, but is not an outright ban on open world pvp. If you choose to attack, the consequences for doing so are chosen by the defending player, it is up to them to decide whether they fight back or not too, the attacker has already made their decision. 
    Gothix said:
    @Cambiguous @Azathoth

    Losing few resources while dying green isn't even remotely comparable to having your gear (that you may have worked months for) destroyed...

    Current system is so much imbalanced that it is ridiculous. Corruption simply shouldn't exist (it can only be excused if griefing or ganking is involved).

    http://www.aocwiki.net/PvP, I suggest you read up, there is more penalty than just losing a few resources, there is a death penalty as well.
  • If you wanted this to be a true discussion you would have actually made the poll valid
  • @Gothix
    I am forced to PvP, as much (if not more so) than you are *forced* to PvE.
    -If I am shipping my goods via caravan, I can PvP or lose it.
    -If I want to help my city survive a siege, I have to PvP.
    -If my city falls during a siege and I have a freehold I want to protect, I have to PvP.

    So, yeah, we both have to PvP and PvE to some extent. When I am out exploring and you attack me, you give me the option to PvP with you. If I choose to not take you up on that option, and you kill me, that's forced 'PvP' as you so adamantly call it.

    When you are dungeon crawling for gear that is on your time and no one is 'forcing' you to engage. Believe it or not, choosing to dungeon crawl to get better gear is an option. As is playing this game. Attacking someone and killing them if they don't want to fight back removes the option to not engage in PvP (as you call it) from them.

    Can you not see the difference there?
    In one case you are doing something to make your character better. You are doing it on a time frame you chose to do it in, and could decide to not do it.
    In the other case you are telling another player that if they don't fight back you are going to kill them anyways. Even if they try to walk away and don't want to, you are going to kill them.

    ...you really, honestly, see these things as equal?

    I don't need protection from PvP found in other games.
    I like what this game is doing and I actually support the corruption mechanic.
    I am not suggesting that Ashes should be changed to better fit PvE or PvP.

    Did you think I was trying to argue that I don't like where this game is heading?
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited March 2018
    Azathoth said:

    When you are dungeon crawling for gear that is on your time and no one is 'forcing' you to engage. Believe it or not, choosing to dungeon crawl to get better gear is an option. As is playing this game. Attacking someone and killing them if they don't want to fight back removes the option to not engage in PvP (as you call it) from them.

    Can you not see the difference there?

    Lol are you really saying I'm not forced to PvE cause I don't really have to play the game at all? And asking if I can't see the difference? xD I expected something better from you...

    So you are saying getting better gear and playing game is an option and I'm doing it on my terms:

    Well without gear I can not do anything really, so it is NOT an option. Getting gear is a MUST. So it's definitely not on my terms because I have to do it, weather I want it or not (if I want to play). -- Lol I could tell you that you don't have to play if you don't want to PvP if I wanted to use your own words now... --

    However (even without saying "you don't have to play) I could still say to you that leaving your freehold is done on your terms. If you stay inside no one will PvP you... Hell you can plant stuff and gather it there, you can craft there, you can RP in your tavern, play social games, even fish if you place it near sea, river or lake, and much more.

    You can do a hell of a lot PvE "succesfully" on your freehold (and not only yours) without being forced to PvP.

    I can't do any PvP "successfully" anywhere without being forced to do A LOT of PvE first for the gear, because I will suck and just lose every time. Hell I can't even reach max level without massive amount of PvE, let alone get any decent gear...


    AoC is currently 80% PvE + 20% PvP and even while massively more oriented towards PvE it still goes and punishes PvP, even that part of PvP that isn't griefing and ganking as long as someone choses to stay green.


    ------- THAT MY FRIEND IS NOT PvX. -- Current AoC PvX tag is only for marketing purposes. -------
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited March 2018
    @Gothix I am asking for you to outline the mechanics that you want implemented in your system of open world pvp. My understanding of your idea is that corruption(if it exists at all) is applied only to griefers/gankers, then how does the game determine when to apply corruption? Is it a kill counter and after they reach a certain number of kills on a player in a certain amount of time it is applied?

    http://www.aocwiki.net/PvP, I suggest you read up, there is more penalty than just losing a few resources, there is a death penalty as well.

    Determining griefing / ganking is easy.

    Ganking = you kill a player X levels below you (that didn't attack you first).

    Griefing = killing a player (that didn't drop resources) X times in Y time frame. And IS could make that killing the same target only gives you resources (if target has them) on first Z kills in W time period.



    And yes I know there is exp penalty, which is also meaningless compared to getting your gear destroyed. Also exp penalty is meaningless on max level, since you can't delevel.

    Also death penalty is 4x worse for corrupted players. So game MASSIVELY favors staying green over going red any way you look at it.

    Staying green should be equally bad as going red at least, with chance to drop gear while dying as green, equal death penalty as red when dying as green.
  • Gothix said:

    And yes I know there is exp penalty, which is also meaningless compared to getting your gear destroyed. Also exp penalty is meaningless on max level, since you can't delevel.

    The more corruption you gain, the less effective you become in PvP and there's going to be a certain period at which point you have gained enough corruption that you're going to be gearless and you're also going to have a massive reduction in your PvP efficacy
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited March 2018
    Yes I know.

    The point is, corruption shouldn't exist unless in cases of griefing and ganking.

    So if you go and kill 1 green guy, then go around more kill other green guy, then go more and kill 3rd, 4th, 50th green guy, but you killed each of them only once or twice for resources, you should still be on 0 corruption.

    Because you haven't griefed or ganked anyone. You was doing meaningful conflict for resources.


    That's how it should be if you want to call this game PvX.
    If not PvX is really only a marketing tag.
  • Wut
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited March 2018
    So lets clear this up.
    You dont suffer massive skill penalties except with 'repeated killing' of people who dont want to fight.
    You dont suffer loss of gear except with 'repeated killing' of people who dont want to fight.
    You dont suffer massive penalties except with 'repeated killing' of people who dont want to fight.

    The common them here is 'repeated killing'. Only those people that gank and grief others suffer serious penalties.

    Your only valid argument can be ....One kill or one kill per day shoudl not invoke a penalty of any kind. You have a quote system instead. Which sounds all fine and dandy on the surface in a single player game. But its not single player.

    Scenario. My ganking guild can kill 1 person/day without penalty and I have 500 members.
    Friend a - your turn to kill a newb.
    Friend b - your turn to kill a newb.
    Friend c - your turn to kill a newb.
    Friend d - your turn to kill a newb.
    Friend e - your turn to kill a newb.
    I can effectively have my guild murder a whole city ...every day.
    In effect, you made the corruption penalty exploitable and pointless.

    I intend to play the assassin and will happily suffer the corruption penalties because I have no intention of going on a murdering spree, but taking out targets of opportunity that have a critical impact on the game. Not innocents with next to no meaningful impact, except giving me a boner.
  • Unfortunately @Rune_Relic ganking guilds will be attempted and I am sure someone will figure it out.

    @Gothix I would never suggest someone not play, just making the case that playing is optional.

    My freehold becomes PvP when my node falls to a siege. During the time-frame after a siege staying inside and doing "PvP free PvE" does me no good.

    I said "better" gear, not any gear.
    Raiding caravans should be able to put enough coin in your pocket to buy better gear. Since most gear, as claimed so far, will be player crafted anyways this might be a decent option for you. I am under the impression there will be NPC caravans, so you should be able to do this earlier than later. If not, that's a PvP fail on IS.
    If raiding castles with your guild does not offer a monetary award or xp, I am sorry and I consider that a flaw.
    You should be able to generate enough wealth doing PvP to keep your purchased gear current. Again, if you can not, I consider that a flaw with a PvX game.
    However, killing greens versus killing players that fight back shouldn't be a major contribution to your wealth.

    I would also agree that right now I can do a lot of PvE stuff on my own terms, more than PvP. If what you want, only rules for gank/griefing, is applied then a lot more players that are PvP oriented will be preventing me from a lot more often from doing PvE.

    Where as doing PvE doesn't prevent you from PvP. Unless the population of PvP players will be so small as to make it difficult to find them. Using your numbers, Ashes being 80/20 PvE/PvP might be related to the players being 80/20 PvE/PvP. I don't know.

    If they are 50/50 just find someone that fights back, 1 in every 2.
    If the PvP community is so big they should have say over the corruption system (as in a majority of players) then there should be no problem finding someone.

    So far, your best argument imo, is stopping someone from resource gathering in your node if they claim citizenship to another (or guilds). Kill them, even if they are green, if the amount of resources they are gathering is that important you should risk it (risk vs. reward). They are.

    Ashes should be big enough, greens should be determined enough to avoid it happening again, that you could save your node the loss of resources for several hours or more. Imo, the only way around this would be declaring anyone with citizenship in a different node a "free-to-kill" avatar. This would lead to factions though and IS has said no inherent faction forced PvP (or have implied that).

    Sorry killing greens for corruption is detrimental to your play style. I do hope you enjoy the final product as much as I plan to.
  • No... dont think this is a good idea. 
  • I mean... as far as I read you can't even declare a guild war on who you want, but the other guild has to AGREE.

    This is clearly a PvE title with only optional PvP, I start to see this more and more as time goes by.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited March 2018
    I would love to see a law system in the game, I think it could be interesting and fun if done right.

    I'd like to see a system where if you are not contributing to the world/progression enough you suffer consequences. If you're a citizen in a city but you do nothing for that city then you should be exiled. It shouldn't just be someone benefiting from a city or a group of people while not giving equally back, or close to. 
  • Option C...
    Oh Yelllllll No!!
  • It would be kind of interesting to have a pvp based city and some towns within the node. I wouldn't have it node zone wide purple but having some outlaws ruling would be fascinating. Just as having stricter no PvP on certain aspects of a religious node if they so choose. Maybe having some trade towns if traders do decide to risk visiting. 

    but even if you were to gather all the resources in your node---I thought some resources would only be attainable within certain zones; therefore pushing for more trade? Or maybe I ate a bad batch of salad and dreamed that up. o.O

  • @Ezenkrul87  from what I have seen so far you only benefit IF you contribute in some way because most of the rewards are linked to contributing. At least, this is how I have comprehended the info we have so far. I am probably wrong and in that case fuck those lazy pricks
  • I'd vote no, but that option seems to have been overlooked.
  • I vote NO!
    This is a terrible idea.
  • If it screws with trade then no. If it has zero effect on trade then yes. 
Sign In or Register to comment.