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.

Lets talk about the Elephant in the room(PvP), slowly creeping up on us

18911131422

Comments

  • @Gothix

    No guarantees

    ;)
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited April 2018
    Noaani said:

    it really goes down to how much, how fast does the corruption system can build up. How hard is it to remove it. 
    This is exactly as I have said several times in this thread.

    We do not know how severe the actual punishment for killing another player will be. We know the mechanics that will be in place, but if killing a single player results in a 0.01% stat drop and 0.01% chance that each item in your inventory could drop - that really isn't much of a penalty at all. On the other hand, if those 0.01% figures were both 10% instead, that would be a massive penalty and I'd be arguing along side everyone else that it needs to be toned back.

    What we do know is that Intrepid *WILL* keep this system balanced so that people will generate corruption. Intrepid don't want a game where there is no one attacking out in the open world - they just want to put a regulator on it so that they can stop it getting out of control.

    When players like PvP focused actually realize that Intrepid will modify these factors to maintain a given desired overall player behavior, one that sees enough people gaining corruption for Bounty Hunters to have something to do, they will stop arguing against the system and realize that they have a whole lot of freedom within it.
    Yes we do not know but here is what we do know. You lose your gear, your stats get weaker, and you are Bounty hunted with a clear ( bullseye mark on your head) something of that nature. While you are already weakened to begin with. If I die and lose something took me months and hours to finally get with zero chance to defend myself to boot. Noway in hell am I gonna pvp in open world. So based on those narratives alone it has me extremely apprehensive that the corruption won't be to severe. I am going to say 10 kills and then your screwed maybe less

    edit: I am
    doing this on a tiny screen at work and spell check is really annoying the piss out of me
  • @NTBRO @Noaani

    Guys, guys, you're both missing the point. It's not about whether or not it's OK to PK, and it never has been. This game allows PKing, although it punishes it. The punishment can be a bit of a pain, but it is in place for a reason.

    That reason is that players drop loot upon death. That is incentive, right there. If there weren't that incentive, PKing would probably have much less of a punishment. As it is, PKing takes hard-earned resources from players who put in the time to gather it.

    The loot is that player's reward. But to prevent the game from spiraling into an endless cycle of murder for resources, and discourages gathering, players need to be discouraged from PKing. Hence Corruption.

    It could have probably been done in other ways, and it's not nearly ready balance-wise. But it is functional, with the potential to be more or less fair.
  • Noaani said:

    it really goes down to how much, how fast does the corruption system can build up. How hard is it to remove it. 
    This is exactly as I have said several times in this thread.

    We do not know how severe the actual punishment for killing another player will be. We know the mechanics that will be in place, but if killing a single player results in a 0.01% stat drop and 0.01% chance that each item in your inventory could drop - that really isn't much of a penalty at all. On the other hand, if those 0.01% figures were both 10% instead, that would be a massive penalty and I'd be arguing along side everyone else that it needs to be toned back.

    What we do know is that Intrepid *WILL* keep this system balanced so that people will generate corruption. Intrepid don't want a game where there is no one attacking out in the open world - they just want to put a regulator on it so that they can stop it getting out of control.

    When players like PvP focused actually realize that Intrepid will modify these factors to maintain a given desired overall player behavior, one that sees enough people gaining corruption for Bounty Hunters to have something to do, they will stop arguing against the system and realize that they have a whole lot of freedom within it.
    Yes we do not know but here is what we do know. You lose your gear, your stats get weaker, and you are Bounty hunted with a clear ( bullseye mark on your head) something of that nature. While you are already weakened to begin with. If I die and lose something took me months and hours to finally get with zero chance to defend myself to boot. Noway in hell am I gonna pvp in open world. So based on those narratives alone it has me extremely apprehensive that the corruption won't be to severe. I am going to say 10 kills and then your screwed maybe less

    edit: I am
    doing this on a tiny screen at work and spell check is really annoying the piss out of me
    Don't forget, corruption only comes in to play if the other player doesn't fight back. If a player has a lot of resources on them - of course they will fight back.

    That said, if you kill another player who has been harvesting for a while and they drop their harvests, they lose something that took them time to gather. It stands to reason that a potential risk to that has to be something that costs you time.

    It also stands to reason that the attacker should be the player to have most risk of the two, as they are the one making the decision to interrupt other players.
  • Ok, after having read most of the thread, I am going to drop 2 cents. 

    first of all I agree that we need to see in the system in action before we can actually from a conclusion on wether it is too harsh or too mild. 

    Now my opinion on the topic of pvp and pve, just have variation. Have some nodes/areas which are strict and others which are lawless basically so no corruption. 
    It would make the world feel alive. While I am a player which will only attack other players with a reason, or when I am attacked myself. I would love to see things like bandit fortresses and lawless areas which are dangerous to travel through. 
    it could create cool situations like :

    "we could travel by taking the western path, but that will take ages" 
    "Or we could take the eastern path, a lot shorter but we will have to pass through the filled with bandits, better hire some mercenaries to help us out" 

    and que two different adventures, where in one players take a scenic route, and maybe meeting other traders, discovering cool points of interest, and enjoying a safe journey. 

    While the other is filled with danger, action and excitement, where players fend off a bandit attack, and fill their pockets with spoils, or barely escape an attack with their lives but still reach their destination.

    The corruption system should deter behavior of "lol lets shreck sum noobz". 
    However if the world is only rainbows and sunshine, it will get boring. 
    Not everyone will have the time to take part in the timed pvp events. And I completely understand the attraction and excitement of open world pvp. So just have some nodes/areas which are just that. PVE focused players won't have to interact with them. 

    The description of pvp on the website still says : 
    "Our PvP mechanics follow a flagging system, as well as static PvP zones at certain points of interest" 

    variation and balance is the key, some players will be outright murder hobo's, and leave them unchecked and it will become a disaster. Have the world filled with only carebears and it will become a snoozefest. 

    So I say give both players the opportunity to create awesome stories. Let the bandit players have their lawless zones and have the PvE centric players have their safe zones as well. 



  • Caravans should be happening all over the place quite frequently because caravans are necessary to help nodes grow to the next stage and create the buildings citizens want built.

    You might have to travel around in order to participate in village siege two or three times per week.

    But, if you really want to be able to fight other player characters every game session without gaining Corruption, seems like the best avenue is to join/create a war guild and declare war with other guilds.

  • Zartas said:
    The description of pvp on the website still says : 
    "Our PvP mechanics follow a flagging system, as well as static PvP zones at certain points of interest" 
    To be fair, you need to include the rest of the sentence: ; fight for control over cities, castles, caravans, or hunting grounds. 

    Really the only static PvP zone we've heard about are the castles. And there are only 5 castles per server so won't be per game session. Maybe that's what alts are??

    I'm not sure that nodes count as static - they seem more dynamic than static to me, but... I suppose that's a matter of perception.

    Caravans are mobile; not static.

    I don't know what "hunting grounds" are - arenas? Arenas probably count as a static PvP zones.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited April 2018
    Noaani said:

    Don't forget, corruption only comes in to play if the other player doesn't fight back. If a player has a lot of resources on them - of course they will fight back.


    Really?

    You said yourself you will do whatever necessary to show a player that you don't want to be PK'd even if it means you continually dying so he gets punished with corruption.

    And now you are contradicting yourself saying "of course players will fight back".


    Do I need to say anything more?
    (and of course Dygz liking both of those comments, lol).
  • Dygz said:
    Caravans should be happening all over the place quite frequently because caravans are necessary to help nodes grow to the next stage and create the buildings citizens want built.

    You might have to travel around in order to participate in village siege two or three times per week.

    But, if you really want to be able to fight other player characters every game session without gaining Corruption, seems like the best avenue is to join/create a war guild and declare war with other guilds.

    Maybe some people don't want to join a guild? maybe it does not fit their role playing then what? declaring guild wars, and all that jazz usually goes together, with set times and zones and whatever. Maybe some people are role playing a highwayman which lives of robbing unsuspecting travelers while avoiding the law. Some people might want to run in smaller groups and pvp. 

    I do not see a problem with having some areas being full pvp lawless areas where the corruption has no effect. Static arenas are completely different from open world PvP.
    Having a couple of areas that dedicated for open world pvp won't ruin the PvE experience, and in my opinion will add variation and life to the world. A world is always filled with beauty and danger, balance and all that yadda. Some areas are safe others might be 

    I guess there is not enough info on the static pvp zones so guess will we have to wait as development progresses. 
    Personally I do not mind the corruption system, if they add full pvp zones to the mix, I'm all for it. Having full on pvp zones, people will know what they are getting into, the corruption can still be in place in other zones to prevent  mass murdering without reason, I see it as good compromise. The murderhobos can go completely nuts if they want to, and the carebears won't be affected by it. 
      
    Spice it up, I don't think anyone here wants the game turn into a murderhobo paradise, but I also think going full carebear will turn it into a snoozefest. 
  • Gothix said:
    Noaani said:

    Don't forget, corruption only comes in to play if the other player doesn't fight back. If a player has a lot of resources on them - of course they will fight back.


    Really?

    You said yourself you will do whatever necessary to show a player that you don't want to be PK'd even if it means you continually dying so he gets punished with corruption.

    And now you are contradicting yourself saying "of course players will fight back".


    Do I need to say anything more?
    (and of course Dygz liking both of those comments, lol).
    Everything is obviously dependent on how many resources you have on you.

    Everything in the entire system - every decision every player makes - is dependent on variable factors. Some of these factors are known (the quality of my gear, what I stand to lose if I am killed in the encounter), some of them are unknown (the quality of your gear, what you stand to lose if you die).

    If I have an inventory full of resources and were able to head back to town to drop them off when someone attacks me, obviously the amount of resources I stand to lose would weigh heavily on any decision I (or anyone) makes at that point.

    That's kind of the point of the system.

    But still - even though I've said it several times in this thread - it is a totally new concept for a player that is attacked to actually have options in that situation, and options are good.

    Also, I never said anything about continually dying. Once, sure. But if I see that character again with corruption - it's on.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited April 2018
    Noaani said:
    Gothix said:
    Noaani said:

    Don't forget, corruption only comes in to play if the other player doesn't fight back. If a player has a lot of resources on them - of course they will fight back.


    Really?

    You said yourself you will do whatever necessary to show a player that you don't want to be PK'd even if it means you continually dying so he gets punished with corruption.

    And now you are contradicting yourself saying "of course players will fight back".


    Do I need to say anything more?
    (and of course Dygz liking both of those comments, lol).
    Everything is obviously dependent on how many resources you have on you.

    Everything in the entire system - every decision every player makes - is dependent on variable factors. Some of these factors are known (the quality of my gear, what I stand to lose if I am killed in the encounter), some of them are unknown (the quality of your gear, what you stand to lose if you die).

    If I have an inventory full of resources and were able to head back to town to drop them off when someone attacks me, obviously the amount of resources I stand to lose would weigh heavily on any decision I (or anyone) makes at that point.

    That's kind of the point of the system.

    But still - even though I've said it several times in this thread - it is a totally new concept for a player that is attacked to actually have options in that situation, and options are good.

    Also, I never said anything about continually dying. Once, sure. But if I see that character again with corruption - it's on.
    Sorry if I'm stocked I'm gonna take advantage of the system. I can always spend more time gathering, but while homeboy is gonna have to deal with corruption I'll hunt them down for a portion of my drops backs and a bounty. Ultimately they have (whatever multiplier they decide on) the exp debt I've aquired and I'm only out a small portion of resources. If someone else kills them all I'm out is some resources. 
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited April 2018

    Nether side is going to be happy 
    That's the way it should be, imo. If anyone ends up happy as a result, odds are the system favors them, and that's the last thing we want to see.

    But everyone should be able to more or less accept it. People will still undoubtedly complain, but hopefully the system will be in place to where none of the complaints are substantial enough to be much more than idle grumblings.

    As it stands, I agree the system needs work. If you're interested in delving further into its issues, I'd suggest flipping a few pages back into this discussion and reading some of the conversations that have already taken place. Redundancy in forums is the fastest way to kill a thread.

    In the end, all this talk really only makes me want to play the game even more.  :joy:

    - Sikuba

    Edit: inb4 realizing the thread brought me to the first page and I responded to a 3 day old comment. Still relevant, though. 
  • Yeah...
    No sympathy for the folk whining about how they don't like the four avenues of PvP combat where Corruption disabled, so it's not fair that they will be  penalized for the one path of PvP combat they do like.
  • Dygz said:
    Yeah...
    No sympathy for the folk whining about how they don't like the four avenues of PvP combat where Corruption disabled, so it's not fair that they will be  penalized for the one path of PvP combat they do like.
    Most if not all of those  4 methods of pvp you are talking about will be time/schedule based and or not guaranteed events....The caravans are a time based event, in which im not sure is even mandatory... i believe if a person or clan wants to take the long route but its much safer im sure that will be used 99% of the time... Castle events or sieges are also time based, not everyone can get in on those...

    Open world PvP especially small scale is what majority of PvP players experience in game...If you are dedicated and have a huge guild, yes you will be most likely participating in those, but if you are a solo player or have 1 other friend or dont have the time to get into a big engagement, open world PvP is for them, and boy will they be mad when they find out what happens when they do partake in it... especially if one of them loses part of their gear because not knowing how to get rid of corruption...

    The system is not balanced, its heavily green favored and that is the main topic here. The system is based too much on world wide application, meaning instead of taking things by category or by zone, its just across everyting, painting everyone with the same general broad brush yet singling out 1 specific group only for punishments.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited April 2018
    Dygz said:

    No sympathy for the folk whining 

    the folk whining

    whining

    Yeah, nothing past that needs to be read. Since the person who calls peoples opinions (any opinions, and in this case even even argumented opinions) whining can not be taken seriously by any measure.

    Nuff said.
  • Noaani said:
    Gothix said:
    Noaani said:

    Don't forget, corruption only comes in to play if the other player doesn't fight back. If a player has a lot of resources on them - of course they will fight back.


    Really?

    You said yourself you will do whatever necessary to show a player that you don't want to be PK'd even if it means you continually dying so he gets punished with corruption.

    And now you are contradicting yourself saying "of course players will fight back".


    Do I need to say anything more?
    (and of course Dygz liking both of those comments, lol).
    Everything is obviously dependent on how many resources you have on you.

    Everything in the entire system - every decision every player makes - is dependent on variable factors. Some of these factors are known (the quality of my gear, what I stand to lose if I am killed in the encounter), some of them are unknown (the quality of your gear, what you stand to lose if you die).

    If I have an inventory full of resources and were able to head back to town to drop them off when someone attacks me, obviously the amount of resources I stand to lose would weigh heavily on any decision I (or anyone) makes at that point.

    That's kind of the point of the system.

    But still - even though I've said it several times in this thread - it is a totally new concept for a player that is attacked to actually have options in that situation, and options are good.

    Also, I never said anything about continually dying. Once, sure. But if I see that character again with corruption - it's on.
    Sorry if I'm stocked I'm gonna take advantage of the system. I can always spend more time gathering, but while homeboy is gonna have to deal with corruption I'll hunt them down for a portion of my drops backs and a bounty. Ultimately they have (whatever multiplier they decide on) the exp debt I've aquired and I'm only out a small portion of resources. If someone else kills them all I'm out is some resources. 
    A perfectly valid way to go about things, if everything is in place.

    In order to get a bounty, you need to be a citizen of a military node with the right upgrade to allow you to flag as a bounty hunter. If that is the case, and you are close to your home node, it once again changes up enough to change the decision making process.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited April 2018
    Dygz said:
    Yeah...
    No sympathy for the folk whining about how they don't like the four avenues of PvP combat where Corruption disabled, so it's not fair that they will be  penalized for the one path of PvP combat they do like.
    How many times over has it been explained time and time again not only from me, but from others. Those  types of pvp events takes time, planning, guilds, more than one person and above all does not come close to real world pvp aspects. 

    Serious question you and people like you. Would it bother you to have some open lawless areas within the game? Not saying you have to go to it  in order to lvl or progress in the story.
    I am curious to know would that suffice if that could be a reality. 

    The reason there is so many pvpers are speaking out. Do not assume it is just aholes who want to grief ppl for kicks. I myself have explained it many times over what pvp is for me. I can stand to argue most pvpers are reasonable and have the same mindset as I do. But both sides have bad apples. I helped a guild ( not mine) out that had no tank online. I ran them through the raid it took hours. We get to the end and the lead kicks me off so I can't roll on the loot. So yes pvers can be  aholes too. I have many stories with pvers as I am sure you do with pvpers. I tend to find pvers are self righteous elitist pricks. Where as pvpers can be trolling lil dip shits.

    A lot of us pvpers are not exactly happy with pvp events that are essentially mini games. I can not express to you because you are not really a pvper whatbitbis to really have a true open world lawless land. I know to you that's nightmarish. All we ask is something for us that in noway will effect you.

    Do not give me a weak argument that it will somehow weaken the game. It utter bs and just a scape goat because you really just flat out don't want it. We are not 11 pages in on this topic. Still going  a year out before the game because we just want to argue. There is a serious audience who are hungry for this.


    Edit: to answer your question NO it's not enough, not even close. It is easy for you to sit there and speak on what's enough for something you have zero passion for. Like me saying a game where it's difficult to Pve functionally and I tell you heyyyyy you can craft and mine some ore so stop complaining. Look they even have fishing! Now get out there and have some fun!

  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited April 2018
    Dygz said:
    Yeah...
    No sympathy for the folk whining about how they don't like the four avenues of PvP combat where Corruption disabled, so it's not fair that they will be  penalized for the one path of PvP combat they do like.
    How many times over has it been explained time and time again not only from me, but from others. Those  types of pvp events takes time, planning, guilds, more than one person and above all does not come close to real world pvp aspects. 

    Serious question you and people like you. Would it bother you to have some open lawless areas within the game? Not saying you have to go to it  in order to lvl or progress in the story.
    I am curious to know would that suffice if that could be a reality. 

    I would have no arguments with a lawless/penalty-free zone, except for this one thing that has absolutely nothing to do with player convenience, or PvP vs PvE arguments.

    As @Noaani mentioned to me earlier in the thread, Corruption, besides being a Karma system to prevent PKing, is also integrated to be a part of the lore. People going Corrupt from killing others directly ties in to the world itself, so in order to have a penalty free zone, a justification needs to be made as to why killing players Corrupts the killers in one area and not the other.

    That would be the biggest logistical issue with a PvP zone. If it weren't tied into the lore this way, the easiest solution would be to allow free PvP in Military Zones. Would make sense, and would allow players to decide exactly how much of the world is free-for-all PvP. But the lore issue remains.

    Reworking the core ideas behind the game is a lot more challenging than coming up with a different system, which is why I stopped advocating for a rework a while back, and instead focused on what should be added/changed to make the current system functional.

    The key point is that Corruption is tied into the lore. Any fix you suggest must accommodate this change, and we simply do not have enough knowledge of the deeper lore in this world to do so.

    Any new thoughts from anyone with that in consideration? We've gotta try to keep the topic from moving in circles. Redundancy or stagnation of ideas is death.

    - Sikuba
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited April 2018
    Sikuba said:
    Dygz said:
    Yeah...
    No sympathy for the folk whining about how they don't like the four avenues of PvP combat where Corruption disabled, so it's not fair that they will be  penalized for the one path of PvP combat they do like.
    How many times over has it been explained time and time again not only from me, but from others. Those  types of pvp events takes time, planning, guilds, more than one person and above all does not come close to real world pvp aspects. 

    Serious question you and people like you. Would it bother you to have some open lawless areas within the game? Not saying you have to go to it  in order to lvl or progress in the story.
    I am curious to know would that suffice if that could be a reality. 

    The reason there is so many pvpers are speaking out. Do not assume it is just aholes who want to grief ppl for kicks. I myself have explained it many times over what pvp is for me. I can stand to argue most pvpers are reasonable and have the same mindset as I do. But both sides have bad apples. I helped a guild ( not mine) out that had no tank online. I ran them through the raid it took hours. We get to the end and the lead kicks me off so I can't roll on the loot. So yes pvers can be  aholes too. I have many stories with pvers as I am sure you do with pvpers. I tend to find pvers are self righteous elitist pricks. Where as pvpers can be trolling lil dip shits.

    A lot of us pvpers are not exactly happy with pvp events that are essentially mini games. I can not express to you because you are not really a pvper whatbitbis to really have a true open world lawless land. I know to you that's nightmarish. All we ask is something for us that in noway will effect you.

    Do not give me a weak argument that it will somehow weaken the game. It utter bs and just a scape goat because you really just flat out don't want it. We are not 11 pages in on this topic. Still going  a year out before the game because we just want to argue. There is a serious audience who are hungry for this.


    Edit: to answer your question NO it's not enough, not even close. It is easy for you to sit there and speak on what's enough for something you have zero passion for. Like me saying a game where it's difficult to Pve functionally and I tell you heyyyyy you can craft and mine some ore so stop complaining. Look they even have fishing! Now go have fun

    I would have no arguments with a lawless/penalty-free zone, except for this one thing that has absolutely nothing to do with player convenience, or PvP vs PvE arguments.

    As Noaani mentioned to me earlier in the thread, Corruption, besides being a Karma system to prevent PKing, is also integrated to be a part of the lore. People going Corrupt from killing others directly ties in to the world itself, so in order to have a penalty free zone, a justification needs to be made as to why killing players Corrupts the killers in one area and not the other.

    That would be the biggest logistical issue with a PvP zone. If it weren't tied into the lore this way, the easiest solution would be to allow free PvP in Military Zones. Would make sense, and would allow players to decide exactly how much of the world is free-for-all PvP. But the lore issue remains.

    Reworking the core ideas behind the game is a lot more challenging than coming up with a different system, which is why I stopped advocating for a rework a while back, and instead focused on what should be added/changed to make the current system functional.

    The key point is that Corruption is tied into the lore. Any fix you suggest must accommodate this change, and we simply do not have enough knowledge of the deeper lore in this world to do so.

    Any new thoughts from anyone with that in consideration? We've gotta try to keep the topic from moving in circles. Redundancy or stagnation of ideas is death.

    - Sikuba
    The topic has went well past redundancy at this point. I have had this exact same conversion before. ( lore is tied in with such and such therefor no Open world pvp can exsists) namely the game was The Secret World. There is the core principle of lore that must be adhered to. It is the very heart of that story.  Essentially the backbone of a game, movie and or book. ( trust me I know this more than you would know). However as a story developes unforeseen things take place in time. The story matures and I have to adapt for that change and it tends to be better than my original idea. So no matter what the lore might be in this game. It is extremely doable for a lawless land to exsists such as Tatooine. I can not imagine lore so stringent that it could not take place. If there such a thing, the game is characteristicly flawed before it even began.
  • @CopperRaven

    The point I was making is that we don't know enough about the lore to understand why Corruption is there in the first place, much less why it might not affect players in certain areas of the world. It's not even to the point where it's a matter of the flexibility or inflexibility of the system, rather a lack of information.

    Also, feel free to dispute this, but from what I'm seeing, many of the statements you made were extremely broad and heavily based on opinion as opposed to following a structured pattern of logic. Whether or not you can imagine a system being put in place that doesn't support your ideas doesn't mean it can't take place, nor does it mean it is flawed by design. You may think that I'm twisting your words on you, but if you go back to what you said, that's essentially what it translates to. However, I highly doubt that was your intent.

    I don't believe that the studio will be inflexible on any topic of change, at this point. We very much could see free-PK zones in the final product, but as it stands, the link between Corruption from PKing and the lore seems to be in the way of that, and I, at least, lack the information to say much otherwise. If anyone else has other information to share, I would be very interested to hear it. Or... well.. read it.

    I also believe that this thread has made progress on the topic, as opposed to miring itself in redundancy. Conversations like this may have happened before, but the same can be said about basically any issue humans encounter. But, just because someone has discussed it before, doesn't mean there isn't value in discussing it now. Nor does it mean that further progress cannot be made.

    Also, I just wanted to say that I mean no offense in anything that I post. I am here only for the sake and furthering of the discussion, so none of this was said with malicious intent.

    - Sikuba
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited April 2018
    Sikuba said:
    @CopperRaven

    The point I was making is that we don't know enough about the lore to understand why Corruption is there in the first place, much less why it might not affect players in certain areas of the world. It's not even to the point where it's a matter of the flexibility or inflexibility of the system, rather a lack of information.

    Also, feel free to dispute this, but from what I'm seeing, many of the statements you made were extremely broad and heavily based on opinion as opposed to following a structured pattern of logic. Whether or not you can imagine a system being put in place that doesn't support your ideas doesn't mean it can't take place, nor does it mean it is flawed by design. You may think that I'm twisting your words on you, but if you go back to what you said, that's essentially what it translates to. However, I highly doubt that was your intent.

    I don't believe that the studio will be inflexible on any topic of change, at this point. We very much could see free-PK zones in the final product, but as it stands, the link between Corruption from PKing and the lore seems to be in the way of that, and I, at least, lack the information to say much otherwise. If anyone else has other information to share, I would be very interested to hear it. Or... well.. read it.

    I also believe that this thread has made progress on the topic, as opposed to miring itself in redundancy. Conversations like this may have happened before, but the same can be said about basically any issue humans encounter. But, just because someone has discussed it before, doesn't mean there isn't value in discussing it now. Nor does it mean that further progress cannot be made.

    Also, I just wanted to say that I mean no offense in anything that I post. I am here only for the sake and furthering of the discussion, so none of this was said with malicious intent.

    - Sikuba
    Why thank you for your concern. I take no offense simply because I do not care what you  "think is or is not my intent". It's not overly complex to assume a game with pvp content means conflict. I do not have to know what the lore is in its context to know If A lawless land can exsists. A story is malleable and can easily have something in place now or later for such a place to exsists. Just as in what I produce is exactly the opposite with extreme conflict, war and so on. However within that realm placed exsist sides that remain nueteral. Any producer, director, writer, with an ounce of talent can make material or a scene that flows connectively. It just a meager amount  of imagination. So the argument ( we do not know yet) does not hold water. It would have to be someone extremely inept and or lazy writing when conflict in zones already exists in games. ( you can have seiges, attack caravans, but somehow we cannot figure away to tie in open world lawless land.) Just no that's it. Corruption can easily exsists but a story can evolve for a place where the rules of society do not apply. Your risk your reward you choose to come or not come.

    You are clearly a smart guy, but you are walking in a realm of my expertise. If they are that bad I will do it for free for them just so we can have it. Or perhaps my 10year Old niece can slap something together for them in within 10 mins while I warm up a turkey hot pocket.

    I agree we very well could see pk zones. It is a discussion perhaps said many times over and will continue to do so. My assertion is more directed at those who hide behind bs reasons to justify the unjustifiable. ( you can't have open world so and so cause reasons). If pvpers were to push something that can 
    1.  Directly harm the game 
    2.  Directly have a negative impact on
    pvers then I would understand 

     I would stand against the pvpers, and explain as to why we have so few true opennworld pvp gAmes to begin with. ((Which I already did in this thread)) All we ask is that we have something for us to enjoy w/o putting any duress or taking away from the game in any concept.

    The reasons against as to "why" we can not have the open world content. Had been like a child arguing with her parents on why a cookie dough diet is good for you. 

    I and many others have heard the same arguments over and over for years. I am well versed in the areas of this subject.

    Truth be told there is a massive ptsd triggering negative emotions when it comes to pvp with quite a lot of ppl. I get it, I understand completely. They have very valid reasons and concerns and yes it can destroy a game. So I have tried very hard to explain not all pvpers are trolls to ruin your gaming experience. To have a pvx game that allows for pvpers to have a small place in the world of free reighn. I do not want to effect your game play, no really I really do not want the experience of what I enjoy bring you misery. Open world pvp is a topic consentatly brought up for good reason. Stop with the reasons and all we ask is for just a tiny plot in your already massive world. 

    If you cant see the logic in that I question your sanity and would love for us to have a beer 
  • @CopperRaven
    First, let me just say that I fully believe PvP zones are functional, valid options for reducing the conflict between PvE and PVPers within a game. I loved roaming the Wilderness in Runescape. That said, they also conflict to an extent with a major ideal that the developers have expressed.

    Lore aside, the developers don't want to divide or separate the population according to PvE and PvPers, or any other difference of the sort. This is why PvP servers aren't an option, to them. They have made it a lot harder on themselves to balance these issues because of this stance. PvP zones contradict this ideal by corralling PKers and world PvPers into a separate area, away from the rest of the community.

    Intrepid is trying to make the best MMO ever, and part of that is making it so that the world is designed to support all players, everywhere. I agree that the Corruption system favors PvEers, and could definitely be further balanced. But at the same time, the incentive of loot drop from PKs is high enough that players must have a significant deterrent from farming PvEers to prevent abuse.

    Part of making the best MMO ever is to have every part be up to snuff. You have a very low appreciation for the work and effort that goes into tying together the many features of a complex game such as an MMO into a coherent story that contributes to the overall player experience. Expectations are enormous for the developers. BDO-quality lore and background isn't going to cut it. Reshaping or removing pieces of the story is a lot to expect from a developer when you don't know this size of a piece, or how it fits into the puzzle as a whole. It's hard.

    - Sikuba
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited April 2018
    Sikuba said:
    @CopperRaven
    First, let me just say that I fully believe PvP zones are functional, valid options for reducing the conflict between PvE and PVPers within a game. I loved roaming the Wilderness in Runescape. That said, they also conflict to an extent with a major ideal that the developers have expressed.

    Lore aside, the developers don't want to divide or separate the population according to PvE and PvPers, or any other difference of the sort. This is why PvP servers aren't an option, to them. They have made it a lot harder on themselves to balance these issues because of this stance. PvP zones contradict this ideal by corralling PKers and world PvPers into a separate area, away from the rest of the community.

    Intrepid is trying to make the best MMO ever, and part of that is making it so that the world is designed to support all players, everywhere. I agree that the Corruption system favors PvEers, and could definitely be further balanced. But at the same time, the incentive of loot drop from PKs is high enough that players must have a significant deterrent from farming PvEers to prevent abuse.

    Part of making the best MMO ever is to have every part be up to snuff. You have a very low appreciation for the work and effort that goes into tying together the many features of a complex game such as an MMO into a coherent story that contributes to the overall player experience. Expectations are enormous for the developers. BDO-quality lore and background isn't going to cut it. Reshaping or removing pieces of the story is a lot to expect from a developer when you don't know this size of a piece, or how it fits into the puzzle as a whole. It's hard.

    - Sikuba
    The contributing voice of reason, speaker of all. You seem to speak as if though you are in direct correlation with the Devs. There intent has been made clear which is self evident on the information we have. Keep in mind it is still limited information and as the say themselves ( subject to change). You may think certain events of information are enough for what's to come. But just like my own it is an opinion. 

    Aside from the balance in Pvx zones they can keep it as it as. The incentive being if there is a place that allows pvpers to really enjoy an open area content.

    As far as story and content what can be said I have not said already. Each department has its own categorical things they are proffeciant at. For example someone writing a story is not writing code for a horse to walk from A to B. Yes it's complex in tying in all together. But a story is a story and can assure you my own is far more complex. Anyone within that field can easily ( easily!) produce content that would fit right along with the lore at hand and even benefit it and make it richer. I do know how it works, exactly how it works. A story line has to be malleable period or it can not succeed. Most things you read have a main concept and ideas but change overtime as the story unfolds. As the story progresses and series continue on after it can be far removed from the initial intent. Sometimes it's worse most times it's better if you have the passion for it. You do not know me to proclaim I do not appreciate the complexity and involvement. My own work damn near killed me ( literally) putting all I had into a series I believe in. But to suggest as a writer or a producer can NOT deter from an idea and come up with something better is a complete falicy. 

    You are correct I do not know the size of the price and how it all fits together. Nether do they. What is now is not a what will be tomr., a week, or months from now. A story carries its self you just work from the core of it hand  and watch it evolve into something bigger than your self. 

    Yes they can can add a narrative that fits perfectly to have a rogue world that makes sense. Just have to be willing to put a little effort accomodate those who clearly want a lawless land. Again without negatively impacting pvers. Not the b.s reasons pvers give because they just do not want it. Hiding behind weak excuses because they have  little as much to do with pvp as possible 
     
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited April 2018
    @CopperRaven @Sikuba

    We actually have no reason at all to assume there won't be permanent, static portions of the world where corruption doesn't apply. We have no specific reason to assume they will be in the game, but we also have no specific reason to assume they won't.

    The question of lore is actually as valid as the question of function. Thing is, since corruption is already going to be suspended with caravans, sieges and guild wars, we know that the lore behind it has it's exceptions.

    Steven has history with Archeage (he still plays it, in fact). I have every expectation that there will be content in Ashes that functions in a manner similar to the Red Dragon or the Leviathan from AA. The only way to make this happen is to make the area around these otherwise PvE encounters free from corruption - turning them in to true PvX targets.

    We don't know for sure this will happen, but I personally have every expectation it will.

    However, it has very little relation to the bulk of the conversation in this thread that is to do with single player vs single player PvP mostly over resources.

    It is my belief that this situation is what corruption is specifically in the game to protect/prevent. It is my belief that Intrepid don't want basic resource gathering being a mostly PvP activity, or even PvP enabling activity.

    To me, it seems they want PvP to mostly occur over things that are of great actual, overall value - not over a patch of flowers.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited April 2018
    @Noaani
    Bring on those open world pvp zones, corruption won't have to be adjusted, PVE players won't be affected by it, and PVP players get the open world pvp they want. 
    The only possible downside I see is development time and resources.

    As for the resource gathering pvp, I personally would like to have it, however If they will put neat stuff to fight over and gather in those open pvp zones, I'm totally fine with it. If I would like to pve I can without interference and If I am in the mood for some roaming and instant pvp there is also the option for it.   
  • The corruption mechanic could have been very fun and interactive instead it's being used as a redundancy for what should be the main ganking and griefing deterrent.. Bounty. We are returning to a corrupt world what's to say it doesn't rub off on us. There could be so many different interactions with NPCs, towns, players, and the environment with a corruption scale but this isn't the thread for that...

    That being said there are a lot of us that enjoy open world pvp not calling for the system to be removed, we are simply pointing out a major flaw visible to us. A few minor tweaks is all the system really needs. 

    Any kind of pvp flags you as combatant (even if you attack a corrupt player.

    Personally I would like to see a short duration flag (10-30 seconds) for gathering out in the world. (gathering on your freehold would not flag you). Regardless of it being "just a patch of flowers" it's an item of conflict in a player driven economy where interdependence is required to obtain goods and services. If you can control a resource you can control its value.

    I saw someone suggest lawless areas which would fit into current game design (not necessarily the corruption mechanic but I touched on that earlier) not all of the world is going to be developed or civilized. 

    I'm all for harsh punishment of ganking and griefing but normal world pvp and conflict shouldn't also be stifled by the system. 


  • We can be pretty sure that there won't be static PvP zones other than castles and arenas since Stephen made it a point to define battlegrounds in Ashes as caravans, guild wars and sieges.

    Otherwise there would be no reason for Stephen to make that distinction when asked about battlegrounds.
  • Dygz said:
    We can be pretty sure that there won't be static PvP zones other than castles and arenas since Stephen made it a point to define battlegrounds in Ashes as caravans, guild wars and sieges.

    Otherwise there would be no reason for Stephen to make that distinction when asked about battlegrounds.
    Typically in MMOs battlegrounds are instanced zones with a specific objective that you queue for and teleport to when the instance is filled. Which would be a valid reason for Steven to make that distinction. 
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited April 2018
    Dygz said:
    We can be pretty sure that there won't be static PvP zones other than castles and arenas since Stephen made it a point to define battlegrounds in Ashes as caravans, guild wars and sieges.

    Otherwise there would be no reason for Stephen to make that distinction when asked about battlegrounds.
    When you read the text that the question is referring to, and then listen to the answer, it seems to me like Steven got somewhat confused (he didn't write the text the question is referring to), and started talking about his notion of battlegrounds - rather than hunting grounds that the question was asked about.

    How, if we look at the text the question was referring to...
    Our PvP mechanics follow a flagging system, as well as static PvP zones at certain points of interest; fight for control over cities, castles, caravans, or hunting grounds.
    and then we cross that with what Steven said...
    I see a castle sieges, node sieges, caravans, those are all what I see as the primary battleground systems in the open world
    it seems to me that there is a definite possibility for open world PvP battlegrounds (used in this context to refer to somewhere PvP takes place without corruption), that is neither node sieges, castle sieges or caravans.

     As I said earlier, there is no specific reason to assume that there will be areas where corruption doesn't exist, but as shown here, there is no specific reason to assume there won't be. And perhaps most importantly, as long as there is nothing in that specific area that someone not interested in PvP would want, what harm could it do?
Sign In or Register to comment.