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

1131416181922

Comments

  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited April 2018
    Dygz said:
    Ferryman said:
    Zartas said:

    as I said already two times, lawless zones would not hurt pve players nor the corruption system, while providing more hardcore orientated players the option for full on open world pvp.

    It depends. These lawless zones will not hurt PvE players as long you cant get any benefits from lawless areas. If those zones have better resources, mobs with better loot drops or those can be used as shortcut, then those will hurt majority of the playerbase. Then the game has changed to cater hardcore PvP players. I am not saying this was your intend, but in no time someone will suggest this.  ;)
    The typical complaints I hear about zones like this is that casual PvPers and non-PvPers typically love to explore.

    My Bartle score is:
    Explorer 87%; Socializer 73% ; Achiever 47%; Killer 0%
    The first thing I do in a game is uncover as much of the fog of war/mini-map as possible before getting insta-killed by a mob.

    Explorers are going to want to explore the lawless zone and will not agree that exploring the lawless zone equals consent for PvP combat. So, there will be unrest in the community that I think Steven hopes to avoid.

    Also, to be fair, there would have to be a lawful zone where PvP combat is impossible.
    Which would segregate the population in a manner I think Steven wants to avoid.

    The whole intention of a lawless is to provide unrestricted pvp combat, that is the whole point of it. I can imagine that a few strictly non pvp  hardcore completionists, will find it annoying. However if they are really intent on having a 100% explored world, they can still probably achieve that by :

    - stealthing through the lawless zones
    - exploring off peak hours
    - rushing through them
    - hiring some muscle

    A couple of ways in which the player for that small hardcore non pvp completionists group to explore the zones without having to engage in pvp. Besides that I think having a small amount of these kind of zones will suffice.

    Additionally this is a PVX game, sooner or later you will run into PVP. Just like sooner or later you will run into PvE. 

    And why would there have to be a lawful zone? 
  • Corruption systempng

    The current system from aoc wiki.
    The problem with seeing PK as negative behaviour is that without it that way im sure griefers will find a way to grief. They understand that the system is harsh but depending on how easy it is to gain corruption or how much you get per kill, i'm hoping that the system works well for most people. The devs are aware of this issue and if it doesn't work, they will try something else, but there can never be a perfect system.


    Someone will always be unhappy, Steven is very open to the community and understands that there may be some things that everyone does not like. But thats just life no one agrees on everything. The goal here will be to make this system work for as many people as possible. Feedback from the community will be much more valuable when the time comes for all of us to test it ourselves.
  • Gothix said:
    Rodzor said:
    If you can not handle being corrupted dont PK without them being flagged, is this so hard to understand LOL

    Actually no, instead I will try to provide feedback to developers about what are the failings of the system (as I see it) while game is in pre-alpha, and hope they will fix the system to be more balanced.

    If, by the time the game is released, the system is still not to my liking, I will simply not play the game.


    And if developers actually want for PvPers to play their game, they will not make the system so much inbalanced in favor of people that just want to avoid PvP.
    Wow you must be an elite PvPer. Do you not know the difference between PKing and PvPing? Also there will be plently of PvP activities/arenas for you to participate in. There is no way there will ever be open PvP w/o punishment in any MMORPG, if that happens the game will die real quick friend.
  • The Game is balanced 50/50 and if some of you would exaclly do a bit more research and maybe idk rewatch some of the livestreams where this was the topic this whole post wouldnt even be here :) #meaningfulconflict. 
  • @gothix if some green fucker is harassing me ill either 1. Mute him or 2. Kill him. Now i know youre thinking "you wont kill him cuz corruption". thats like saying i wont beat someone up cuz its against the law. If the mans fucking with me, 7 times out of ten i will kill him. 

    Also about the self policing, i don't understand why you can't see that this is impossible. What youre proposing is playing hockey or soccer without a referee. Theres still rules in the game but no one to enforce them. Can you imagine the chaos? There would be offsides all the time and fouling/fighting without consequence. If i want to see that i watch UFC not saturday night live hockey


  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited April 2018
    Zartas said:
    The whole intention of a lawless is to provide unrestricted pvp combat, that is the whole point of it. I can imagine that a few strictly non pvp  hardcore completionists, will find it annoying. However if they are really intent on having a 100% explored world, they can still probably achieve that by :

    - stealthing through the lawless zones
    - exploring off peak hours
    - rushing through them
    - hiring some muscle

    A couple of ways in which the player for that small hardcore non pvp completionists group to explore the zones without having to engage in pvp. Besides that I think having a small amount of these kind of zones will suffice.

    Additionally this is a PVX game, sooner or later you will run into PVP. Just like sooner or later you will run into PvE. 

    And why would there have to be a lawful zone? 
    I'm a casual PvPer, so I can't really defend the non-PvPer position here.
    I'm just reporting what I've encountered in previous discussions.
    I would just Stealth through the zone and not worry about other players trying to attack me. And, yeah, I am casual challenge/hardcore time, so I have the option to play during off-peak hours whereas casual challenge/casual time players may not have that luxury.

    Non-PvPers typically do not want to participate in PvP combat in any way.
    It's like asking a pacifist to have his friend take his place in battle.

    But, again, if there are lawless zones with free-for-all PvP combat, fairness and balance means there would have to be lawful zones where PvP is impossible.

    I'm probably OK with lawless zones if Steven is OK with lawless zones, but I doubt Steven will be OK with it.
    Especially since he wants PvP combat to be more meaningful than just free-for-all.
  • Dygz said:
    phatcat09 said:
    Humor me if you will, and let's assume it is possible. What means do you think at minimum would required for such a feat?
    It's not really possible.
    And, "self-policing" doesn't really solve the issue. It just adds more PvP combat to a MMORPG already overly saturated with PvP combat .
    Relatively few casual PvPers and non-Pvpers would be playing the game, so "self-policing" wouldn't really be necessary.
    It would just be a free-for all murderbox for hardcore PvPers.
    What exactly comes to your mind when I say policing?
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited April 2018
    The typical example of self-policing is having hardcore PvPers act as bodyguards for casual PvPers and non-PvPers... or as bounty hunters/revenge squads.

  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited April 2018
    Dygz said:
    The typical example of self-policing is having hardcore PvPers act as bodyguards for casual PvPers and non-PvPers... or as bounty hunters/revenge squads.

    Presume that there is a means through non-pvp and not through an external pressure to self-police. Would that in your mind be permissible? 
  • I can't presume the unimaginable.
    You'd have to provide some examples of non-PvP combat methods of self-policing for me to assess whether they seem credible.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited April 2018
    Dygz said:
    I can't presume the unimaginable.
    You'd have to provide some examples of non-PvP combat methods of self-policing for me to assess whether they seem credible.
    Mind you when I say self-policing I mean it from the context of "keeping interaction within the game world" rather than through an external system like corruption, i.e DM enforced policing.

    I think a part of the answer resides in supplying players with a much stronger means to deny PK; however, this would require a fundamental rewrite in the approach to combat in general that is admittedly absurd sounding on the surface. Ultimately what makes PK so frustrating is the feeling of hopelessness and loss. It feels unfair, and when it's unfair of course it's not fun. Supplying players with better means of denying PK is a way of allowing self-policing without sacrificing what I see as authenticity (edit: or encouraging pvp) . This alone is not enough, but it's one thing that can be done to instill confidence in players and simultaneously decrease the reward to habitual griefers.
  • So I am casually reading through the posts. Expecting to read something something ( pvp is cancer) something something. But then that moment came where all of humanity was lost. Where someone argued having a lawless land even if it does nothing negligible at all to pvers ( zero) because they can't explore. Please for just a moment can we take that in as pvers and pvpers alike. ( long silence as taps plays in the background). Thank you self entitled person you have showed me there is no limit to absurdity.

    Above all I actually agreed with Dygz on a topic. A small part of me died just a little bit.



  • phatcat09 said:
    Dygz said:
    The typical example of self-policing is having hardcore PvPers act as bodyguards for casual PvPers and non-PvPers... or as bounty hunters/revenge squads.

    Presume that there is a means through non-pvp and not through an external pressure to self-police. Would that in your mind be permissible? 
    Take any group of 10,000 people and put them together for 6 months.

    Before long, everyone is connected by no more than 2 degrees of separation. At this stage, any self-policing system for players becomes redundant, as people will judge each other on personality, reputation and associates rather than on actions and deeds.

    Rather than asking players to imagine a system, how about trying to come up with something to get around that?
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited April 2018
    Noaani said:
    phatcat09 said:
    Dygz said:
    The typical example of self-policing is having hardcore PvPers act as bodyguards for casual PvPers and non-PvPers... or as bounty hunters/revenge squads.

    Presume that there is a means through non-pvp and not through an external pressure to self-police. Would that in your mind be permissible? 
    Take any group of 10,000 people and put them together for 6 months.

    Before long, everyone is connected by no more than 2 degrees of separation. At this stage, any self-policing system for players becomes redundant, as people will judge each other on personality, reputation and associates rather than on actions and deeds.

    Rather than asking players to imagine a system, how about trying to come up with something to get around that?
    A few things I would implement. A max default kill limit. I attack someone and the number of times I can kill has a minimum of two or three. Once that limit is reached I can no longer kill that person and it resets within 24 hrs ( or less if they choose). Also everyone has an option to choose the number of times they can be kill above 2 or 3 to infinite. Essentially they won't grey out or however method is incorporated. 

    This in effect permits open world pvp while limiting the greifing. 
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited April 2018
    I'd also like to add whatever they choose as far as limitations can not be reset until every 48hrs. This will prevent ppl from abusing the system and jumping around as they pick and choose. So if you plan on farming tomr. You better be sure you go by the default. However you can can go up anytime you want.  It's locked in for 48 hrs for the time that was set

    edit: it's also joint account associated. Meaning you can't just log onto another avatar and continue killing. But each avatar of your own can be set differently. So if you had a crafting/ farmer avatar you can just keep him set to the default. But if you have that all out pvper side of you then switch to him and set it to infinite times you can be killed. 
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited April 2018
    Btw I did not come up with this off the top of my head. I have thought what system could be in place that gives both sides limitations yet openess at the sametime. The decision is ultimately in your hands how you want to go about it. Pvers will have to contend a player can kill them two or three times by the same player. Pvpers will have to contend with the fact they are denyied the ability to kill without limitations. It's not perfect I know but it's the best balance I could come up with. I have further details if anyone is interested on how it works and the what ifs. I gave a short version
  • Dygz said:
    I'm a casual PvPer, so I can't really defend the non-PvPer position here.
    I'm just reporting what I've encountered in previous discussions.
    I would just Stealth through the zone and not worry about other players trying to attack me. And, yeah, I am casual challenge/hardcore time, so I have the option to play during off-peak hours whereas casual challenge/casual time players may not have that luxury.

    Non-PvPers typically do not want to participate in PvP combat in any way.
    It's like asking a pacifist to have his friend take his place in battle.

    But, again, if there are lawless zones with free-for-all PvP combat, fairness and balance means there would have to be lawful zones where PvP is impossible.

    I'm probably OK with lawless zones if Steven is OK with lawless zones, but I doubt Steven will be OK with it.
    Especially since he wants PvP combat to be more meaningful than just free-for-all.

    I can argue the same for the strict PvP people, they will be at some point forced to to do PvE, be it dungeons or quests. However if someone started arguing that he does not want to do dungeons to get item X or whatever, because they only wanted to do PvP, I would say the same thing I would tell a strict PvE player who does not want to do PvP : "this is a PvX game sooner or later you will run into PvP/PvE. 

    Additionally meaningful conflict will still remain, in all the other zones. Like a said a few zones will suffice, or better said a small percentage of the total world map will suffice. 

    And why would the "fairness and balance" argument require to have a lawful strict non pvp zones? Since freeholds and node cities will already probably be safe zones. 
    Also the corruption systems is still in place in all the other zones to protect players.

    Only a small percentage would be lawless zones, the world is not always a safe space, And it would spice up the world. 
    Personally I would even say give those zones small plots of land where bandit forts can be build, that would open up to some cool interactions as well. 

  • -Insert Wall of Text-


  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited April 2018

    I think the developers are going to implement whatever they see fit and only change it after they are completely sure it doesn't work how they wanted it. I'm pretty sure they are not going to change anything based on this discussion. I'm confident that they are aware of all of our concerns/ideas/etc, especially since this a sensitive subject with so many different interpretations.

    In other words, this discussion is kind of a waste of time. Everything that had to be said was said.
    Yeah, studios are like nowdays. They just implement their pointless/bad/unwanted/unneded/**** ideas, and even if most players tell them that it will be bad, they not really care.
    And ofc after it ends up failure they wonder what could be the reason...



    Noaani said:
    lexmax said:
    Steven did a Podcast interview today and discussed this very subject.

    https://www.twitch.tv/videos/252860173?t=49m23s
    "Now, with regards to griefing - you're not going to see griefing in the game very often. And that's because our flagging system, the corruption mechanics, are based around disincentive-izing a griefer, or PK'er - but still offering the opportunity should the occasion arise where the benefits outweigh the risk, you have the ability to do so.

    Now, corruption, if you gain corruption, which is killing  a non-combatant - a player which is not fighting back, basically - if you gain that corruption, your world has changed. It's not going to be a very beneficial place to be. You going to have the potential of losing your gear, your combat efficacy decreases based on the amount of corruption you accrue. So, it is a comfortable balance between player agency - and griefing removing player agency from players."

    Personally, I think that speaks for itself.

    Steven is perfectly aware of this thread. But more importantly he already knows the different perspectives in regards to PvP - there is nothing in this thread that is new.

    So knowing all of the perspectives present, the above seems to be his his opinion.
    Which translates into:
    "We don't prevent players from griefing, but we also destroy world PvP too."

    The coruptio nsystem wouldn't do shit again griefers. They will not going to care, as griefers have a dedicated charater for that purpose anyway.
    But the ones wanted to do world PvP goign to get punished, causing world PvP to be nonexistent.
    So great system /jk

  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited April 2018
    We are in the age of Battle Royal games.... Let the PvPers do some PvP... Can't we just start a fund for an instance with rainbows and panda bears? I'd pitch in to that fund if it gave me freedom in an MMORPG again...
  • Zartas said:
    Dygz said:
    I'm a casual PvPer, so I can't really defend the non-PvPer position here.
    I'm just reporting what I've encountered in previous discussions.
    I would just Stealth through the zone and not worry about other players trying to attack me. And, yeah, I am casual challenge/hardcore time, so I have the option to play during off-peak hours whereas casual challenge/casual time players may not have that luxury.

    Non-PvPers typically do not want to participate in PvP combat in any way.
    It's like asking a pacifist to have his friend take his place in battle.

    But, again, if there are lawless zones with free-for-all PvP combat, fairness and balance means there would have to be lawful zones where PvP is impossible.

    I'm probably OK with lawless zones if Steven is OK with lawless zones, but I doubt Steven will be OK with it.
    Especially since he wants PvP combat to be more meaningful than just free-for-all.

    I can argue the same for the strict PvP people, they will be at some point forced to to do PvE, be it dungeons or quests. However if someone started arguing that he does not want to do dungeons to get item X or whatever, because they only wanted to do PvP, I would say the same thing I would tell a strict PvE player who does not want to do PvP : "this is a PvX game sooner or later you will run into PvP/PvE. 

    Even in hardcore PvP mmorpgs' the combat progression and money collection are totally (or at least mainly) implemented around PvE. So PvE content is automatically part of every players' gaming experience. If PvE content is not needed by players at all, then the game does not need to be mmorpg either. It can just be PvP battleground game. So i cant see a single point how your argument could be valid. 

    And generally the PvX is too often used wrong way with PvP context. There is specific definition what PvX means in Ashes. PvP part is made around meaningful conflict. Meaning castle and city sieges, guild wars, caravans and open world PvP with corruption system. And on top of that there is arena as a bonus PvP feature. PvE is the same usual stuff with dungeons, world bosses, quests and raids giving anything so special other than node system.

    That much this game is PvX. No more.
  • MADE said:

    I think the developers are going to implement whatever they see fit and only change it after they are completely sure it doesn't work how they wanted it. I'm pretty sure they are not going to change anything based on this discussion. I'm confident that they are aware of all of our concerns/ideas/etc, especially since this a sensitive subject with so many different interpretations.

    In other words, this discussion is kind of a waste of time. Everything that had to be said was said.
    Yeah, studios are like nowdays. They just implement their pointless/bad/unwanted/unneded/**** ideas, and even if most players tell them that it will be bad, they not really care.
    And ofc after it ends up failure they wonder what could be the reason...



    Noaani said:
    lexmax said:
    Steven did a Podcast interview today and discussed this very subject.

    https://www.twitch.tv/videos/252860173?t=49m23s
    "Now, with regards to griefing - you're not going to see griefing in the game very often. And that's because our flagging system, the corruption mechanics, are based around disincentive-izing a griefer, or PK'er - but still offering the opportunity should the occasion arise where the benefits outweigh the risk, you have the ability to do so.

    Now, corruption, if you gain corruption, which is killing  a non-combatant - a player which is not fighting back, basically - if you gain that corruption, your world has changed. It's not going to be a very beneficial place to be. You going to have the potential of losing your gear, your combat efficacy decreases based on the amount of corruption you accrue. So, it is a comfortable balance between player agency - and griefing removing player agency from players."

    Personally, I think that speaks for itself.

    Steven is perfectly aware of this thread. But more importantly he already knows the different perspectives in regards to PvP - there is nothing in this thread that is new.

    So knowing all of the perspectives present, the above seems to be his his opinion.
    Which translates into:
    "We don't prevent players from griefing, but we also destroy world PvP too."

    The coruptio nsystem wouldn't do shit again griefers. They will not going to care, as griefers have a dedicated charater for that purpose anyway.
    But the ones wanted to do world PvP goign to get punished, causing world PvP to be nonexistent.
    So great system /jk

    How would an alt work that is there just for griefing?

    After a 20 or so kills, you would have so much corruption you wouldn't be able to deal any damage at all to an equal level player, and if you get killed you stand to lose your gear.

    It's not like you can just log over to your main and wait for the corruption to go away, because it doesn't.

    I'm sure there will be a few people that try to make such alts, but right now I can't think of a logical way for make it happen without putting in far more effort than it is worth.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited April 2018
    Again...
    If I enjoyed griefing, I would make an army of zombie alts who prey on newbie characters. I am a hardcore time player, so I wouldn't mind spending time leveling alts to level 5 or 6 in order to prey on level 1s or 2s.
    The goal would be to kill as many greens as possible and to gain as much stat decay and Corruption as possible until the zombie utterly collapses or is destroyed by bounty hunters.
    If I didn't care about pissing off newbies, that would be tons of fun from an RP perspective.


  • Dygz said:
    Again...
    If I enjoyed griefing, I would make an army of zombie alts who prey on newbie characters. I am a hardcore time player, so I wouldn't mind spending time leveling alts to level 5 or 6 in order to prey on level 1s or 2s.
    The goal would be to kill as many greens as possible and to gain as much stat decay and Corruption as possible until the zombie utterly collapses or is destroyed by bounty hunters.
    If I didn't care about pissing off newbies, that would be tons of fun from an RP perspective.


    Which the whole point of the system is no one would do this. Even if someone did this, they would get bored and leave. If you did this, i would make a newbie in that starting area and run it into you until you were useless. 

    I like how you could do the opposite of this and help players but you would never do that.
  • Dygz said:
    Again...
    If I enjoyed griefing, I would make an army of zombie alts who prey on newbie characters. I am a hardcore time player, so I wouldn't mind spending time leveling alts to level 5 or 6 in order to prey on level 1s or 2s.
    The goal would be to kill as many greens as possible and to gain as much stat decay and Corruption as possible until the zombie utterly collapses or is destroyed by bounty hunters.
    If I didn't care about pissing off newbies, that would be tons of fun from an RP perspective.


    I don't see this as being overly viable.

    First of all, at that low a level it's not like the you are interrupting the player and his progression. All you are doing is teaching the player about PvP mechanics, and giving them a target to come back to half an hour later.
  • That's assuming the players will be interested in PvP mechanics.
    Also, I could be interrupting Level 20 Artisans who are only Level 1 Adventurers.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited April 2018
    Dygz said:
    That's assuming the players will be interested in PvP mechanics.
    Also, I could be interrupting Level 20 Artisans who are only Level 1 Adventurers.
    You don't need to be interested in PvP to take a few minutes to extract revenge.

    As to the artisan comment - I seriously doubt there will be gatherer artisans that don't level up their adventuring class as well. It makes no sense to do that - especially considering the fact that Intrepid are adding monsters in to the game disguised as harvestables.

    Non-gatherer artisans would have no real need to be out of a city.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited April 2018
    Yea....it's a dangerous world and as a gatherer, i don't think you are going to want to go out into it unprepared to fight. Especially when you consider the death penalty.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited April 2018
    Noaani said:
    Dygz said:
    That's assuming the players will be interested in PvP mechanics.
    Also, I could be interrupting Level 20 Artisans who are only Level 1 Adventurers.
    You don't need to be interested in PvP to take a few minutes to extract revenge.

    As to the artisan comment - I seriously doubt there will be gatherer artisans that don't level up their adventuring class as well. It makes no sense to do that - especially considering the fact that Intrepid are adding monsters in to the game disguised as harvestables.

    Non-gatherer artisans would have no real need to be out of a city.
    You need to have sufficent levels in Adventurer to do so.
    But, revenge against zombie alts is a great deal of the fun of having zombies.

    One of the co-hosts of The Ashen Forge will basically be only focusing on being a Farmer.
    What makes sense to a top end raider and what makes sense to a dedicated artisan is probably two very different things. So...
    I'm not at all convinced by your assertion - of course.
  • Yea....it's a dangerous world and as a gatherer, i don't think you are going to want to go out into it up prepared to fight. Especially when you consider the death penalty.
    Well I will be right at home then ^^
Sign In or Register to comment.