Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
That would be the point. You have to chose, do you go purple, and be a free target while roaming around, or you go green, but then you don't get to temporarily go purple to have lighter death penalty when you chose so. You stay green, and if killed you die as green (even if you fought back you stay green).
The point of my suggestion would be a permanent color, until you change it in a city.
- you can't initiate attack against anyone
- you CAN defend yourself when attacked (but you remain green)
- if you win when attacked, you are still green, you get loot from enemy normally
- if you die, you die as green (even if you fought back) having green death penalty
- to change to purple you have to go to a city
2. You roam around as purple:
- you can initiate an attack against any player you see (and defend ofc.)
- if you win, you get loot based on if target was green or purple, also corruption based on who you kill (green or purple)
- if you die, you die as purple
- if you want to change to green you have to go to city
Also, again, I would be green 90% of the time because I don't go out specifically looking for PvP and have other things I like accomplishing. I am not going to flag purple and then be frustrated when I am engaged in PvP while trying to do other things.
I could be wrong, but it seems like a lot of people would flag green (some/most might even fight back). In the end this would punish PvP more than it would encourage it. I think so at least.
What I would like to avoid is player going around, and then choosing color based on target he meets.
If he meets weak target, he purples up and attacks. If he meets strong target he pussy's out and stays green, so attackers get corruption if they kill him.
I would like for players choice to mean something, so if you venture out in woods green, you do not just get to purple up and attack weak target when you see it. You are green, no attacking allowed.
On the other hand if you go out purple, then you don't get to pussy out and switch to green if you meet a group of players and they start moving towards you.
This "color changing" based on situation, just feels extremely lame to me. I would LOVE to make players not be able to do that somehow, while still keeping other things cool, and not broken by this.
With that ruleset, I would not play Ashes at all. It basically inherently punishes non-PvPers and casual PvPers.
I see your point and agree, being able to change on a whim could allow for nit picking your fights. Unfortunately I don't see a way of implementing that fairly. It is a good thought experiment.
I think perma-flag purple with long term cool down would be okay. Even perma-flag green with long term cool down, but if attacked (and then fighting back) the player should be able to "go purple." Just be forced back into green. This however does nothing for the greens and is clearly lopsided when compared to perma-flag purple.
While I will still be pissed if some player attacks me when I'm not in the mood, I currently at least have the option of "flagging" purple and discontinuing the fight so it can end as quickly as possible.
I get a lesser death penalty and my assailant gets an easy kill with no Corruption.
Which is much better than being stuck at green, maximum death penalty and my assailant gaining Corruption.
The PvP lovers would fight for the love of fighting... without gaining Corruption.
Which means the Corruption system would be completely broken.
People don't gain Corruption from caravan PvP combat.
I am casual PvP; not anti-PvP.
And, all I did was explain why the devs won't choose a mechanic that breaks their Corruption system.
The Corruption system is their vision for an alternative to manual flagging. They aren't going to undermine that.
The answer is: No. Because it would break the Corruption system.
That is not an anti-PvP answer.
That is a "The devs are not going to break their Corruption mechanic in order to implement a flagging system that is basically the same as EQ or WoW" answer.
Of course, former EQ devs will have already considered perma-flagging as an option.
And rejected it in favor of their Corruption system.
(The devs aren't going to include global fast travel as an option, either.) 😉
( they have a plan and are sticking to it. ) Um nooooo That is impossible to know that. Nether you nor I have no idea what is or what will be in the future. You see dedicated pvpers as ****.... lol ok then. I think you are severely misguided (also a tad odd) I personally have not gotten the feeling from other pvpers they are trying to " push" anything on you or anyone else. It is more about something for us that has very negligible effects on you. What I suggested in a previous discussions would not effect you at all or anyone like you. It simple just gives ppl who love to pvp to pvp freely and openly. Perhaps you are afraid this will somehow disrupt the corruption system. I am not sure how many times I can say it. Pvpers will be pvp and you will still have to protect your nodes, caravans, mats, and so on. The majority of the world will be based on that principle. Thats like suggesting arena would destroy the corruption system. Well we are having arena and no it wont, thats silly. People will still need what only the pvx world can provide,and also pvpers are pvpers so having something aside for us wont make a virtual dent in the open free world at all. Understand what has been said from me and other pvpers is simple something for us not something changing or taking away from you or the rest of the community. You are aware of it, its there but you can continue on in your world doing whatever it is you do. It is good to see threads about it, it shows people are very interested in this idea.it is good for the devs to see yes there is a viable audience who want it. Saying nothing is the worst thing you can do, and so far I have seen a large community very interested in the idea. Being the nature this team seems to be. it is quite possible way down the road they just might offer us something. I am not asking for a total revision at all ( nor do I want it) personally I am just asking to add something just for us in the future. I doubt you would be upset if they added a new dungeon or something to that magnitude. Having a open world island you never have to step foot on with no beneficial aspects of going to it, other than just to pvp wont hurt you farming on your land you know.
Personally I think the devs have done a great job accommodating PvP players for many of the same reasons you do; Castles, Sieges, Caravan runs, open battlefields. I don't see why they would need another reason to PvP. If the PvP community has to be given so many reasons to PvP maybe that community is not as big or as dedicated as some might have suggested.
I have only noticed a few 'dedicated' PvP players that voice their concern for more reasons to do it, and they dislike of corruption. I have noticed many PvP players indicate they want to give it a go as is and are interested in the meaningful PvP like; Castles, Sieges, and Caravans.
The devs may do something for you. They may incorporate something else for more dedicated PvPers.
Whatever they do is not going to break their Corruption system - as perma-flagging would inherently do.
The Corruption system is disabled for caravans and sieges.
If PvPers are fighting perma-flagged PvPers - then no one is gaining Corruption.
Which means there is no point in having the Corruption system in the first place. Especially because a key purpose of the Corruption system is to push non-PvPers to flag as combatants more frequently than they normally would.
I fail to understand why you would single me out as responding to "your suggestion" when I did not mention you or your suggestion and you are not the OP.
I haven't specifically addressed dedicated PvP battlegrounds because, while I am highly skeptical that the devs will introduce one since they never mention it as a PvP combat option, there is a small enough chance that they might that it's not worth arguing against.
In order for my statement to mean whole, I would have had to include a word like all or whole.
The fact that I did not is what makes my statement a generalization which inherently acknowledges exceptions.
Blindly sticking to own plan is not a good thing. So whoever glorifies a company firmly sticking to own plan and describes that as a good thing is very wrong.
Smart devs not only listen to community feedback, but modify their plans depending on the community feedback. Otherwise, what would be the point of feedback?
Again, the devs are highly unlikely to change their stance on flying and fast travel - regardless of player feedback. The same is true of manually perma-flagging for PvP.
Otherwise, the devs would just make a WoW clone.
I am not in anyway against the corruption system i just believe that in a game that is player driven content and economy the *current* (Alpha) implementation of the system leaves room for exploiting or griefing of people simply by remaining green.
I am still not sure why some PvP fans are under the impression there won't be enough PvP in a game that hasn't had the wide (non-NDA) testing that would tell otherwise. If during the Alphas PvP dwindles to only occasional sieges, caravan strikes, etc. then something should be done to allow for and encourage more. Until then, it seems like the PvP crowd is trying to add PvP where it might not be needed.
It's not only about progressing a node, it's a bout progressing yourself.
In a game with limited resources, if another player takes resources (even if player is from your node) this means you DON'T take resources, cause he already took them.
He gets cash for selling them and you don't. He buys better gear for himself, you don't.
That reason valid enough for you?
Other players are taking resources in a game with LIMITED resources. Who cares if they "want to" PvP or not? They are taking limited resources away from you, and you have a legit reason to attack them.
Them "not wanting" to PvP is their own problem. Well.. at least it should be THEIR own problem, but unfortunately Intrepid is making it YOUR problem by making you lose your stats and gear, for simply fighting for resources in resource limited game.
and THAT is as stupid as it gets.
The punishment for the aggressor might be steeper if the aggressor kills the victim after the victim refuses to fight back.
If the victim refuses to fight back, go find attack someone else and see if they are willing to fight back.
Alpha-0 doesn't have enough crafting to properly measure how well Corruption encourages greens to flag as combatant.
If I really wanted to steal resources without gaining Corruption, I would go raid a caravan, like an honorable bandit.