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

11618202122

Comments

  • I think the only change to the pvp system it seems we may have is that self-defense is punished. There should be no penalty for fighting back after being attacked, but I'm okay with the rest of it.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited April 2018
    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. 

    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.
    Dygz said:
    I would simply would not play an MMORPG that locked me as combatant for 48 hours or even 45 minutes.
    This was a mix for both worlds pvpers and pvers. It was about as close to limited to open as I could get. However you are more for the pve and little bit pvp and away from open world. So of course you would not play the game, I would not expect you too.
    I am for having control over what I do each game session, so I am not going to play a game where I'm locked into only doing one thing for 48 hours.
    And I'm not agreeable with other players deciding what I do in a game even I'm not in the mood to participate.

    I play games where I have the choice to participate in PvP combat or not at any given moment.
    Because I'm likely only going to be interested in PvP combat for an hour max per day.
    Yes.

    But it's not just a PvP thing.
    I also wouldn't play a game that locked me into crafting for 48 hours or locked me into just gathering for 48 hours or that locked me into just PvE combat for 48 hours.
  • TimmyS7F said:
    I think the only change to the pvp system it seems we may have is that self-defense is punished. There should be no penalty for fighting back after being attacked, but I'm okay with the rest of it.
    How are you punished for fighting back? If you fight back you suffer half the death penalty.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited April 2018
    phatcat09 said:
    phatcat09 said:
    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
    When you start to introduce arbitrary limitations to correct a problem, then I think a problem isn't being properly addressed. This seems more like a band-aid, rather than a holistic solution.

    Arbitrary limitations, while efficient, have 2 major negative effects.

    1. They slow down play.
    2. They feel forced. 

    This ultimately impacts peoples enjoyment levels if they feel stunted in their ability to choose. Additionally arbitrary limitations have the capacity to be very indiscriminate in their reach, negatively impacting those who are playing 'fairly' so to speak.

    An approach that appears more organic would be less frustrating to deal with. Not to say I don't see the merit of a system that you suggested, it's just a personal opinion of mine that arbitrary limitations of any kind are best avoided. 
    Well a few things Im inclined to mention. Seeing how tonight I was just going to read and not respond directly until I got home. 

    I had responded directly to a question on a solution. More often people will wish and want for things l, but never really offering a resolve or a how to. So I stood up to the challenge and offered my advice. 

    If you continued reading further this was far from arbitrary. You also got a very short abbreviated version and I clearly stated I will clear up any questions you may have. Being a pvper for many years and coming across this same problem within a cross between the pve and pvp worlds. I wanted to devise a simple
    yet and effective solution. 

    You can say corruption system is arbitrary. I can as easily give the conditions I have some sort of name too, with lore backing. But my intent was not to go into the exact nuisances of every little detail.

    it also does not effect a route you choose because you can have different avatars for different reasons of gameplay. If you decided one day to switch one gameplay to another on a different charecter you can. But there has to be a balance between the when and how often. If it's to small well ppl can exploit the system far to often. If it's to long well ppl will be turned off by it.

    last but not least this has been tested in real world gameplay. My friend has worked on a design of a game ( has 130k gear peices no joke). It's a d&d game designed to go into Our real world ( well pc real world) gameplay. I am behind the pvp aspect of it. This worked like a charm, but it was tested with 12 ppl. There is only so many willing to get involved. I do feel strongly it could work l, but again you only have the short version. 

    I feel it is is a good balance between both very different worlds of gameplay. While offering limitations and freedom for both sides.

    one things for sure at least has a solution rather than arguing about more problems.


    A mandatory waiting period between when you can take actions is an artificial limitation. I think I'm being rather considerate of your idea having said your idea isn't wrong just that it feels in my opinion as an arbitrary limitation. I even gave reasons to why I don't like these artificial limitations you suggest. So perhaps you can respond to those?
    You think attacking someone and losing stats is not? Somehow magically my arms get heavier so I hit less and I bleed like a hemophiliac when hit. Apparently I forget how to fasten my armor to because now it just falls right off. Then there is the flagging system to boot....... Nothing artificial about that at all. I know I sound snarky, but I mean thats the very definition of what artificial is.

    Its the idea you have to sale. For example corruption is tied into the lore. But at the end of the day it is coding with 1's and 0's. You attack subject A within so many levels and points are acquired against subject B that will accumulate negatively.

    So the concept would not be 48 hrs nor would it be EXACTLY 48 hrs. I time frame with a reason aka ( lore) would be injected. Even within that time frame ( just like corruption) you could influence it "within reason" based on doing certain criteria. You can make a concept of a planet with Two moons aligned and give a story as to how the influence characters. A path beholden to truth and destiny and judgement befallen to those who seek a different future. The edge of sanity is but a whispers way of death and it is only you who can change what will become.

    Now this is off the top of my head with no real thought. But I would NEVER ever make something so bland and generic without differing odds and twists and will have reason.

    So I gave about as basic bland of a concept to get the overall idea. What I do in real life has story that goes well beyond anything Ashes will have.




    You're obviously very passionate about your idea so I want to reassure you that I in no way think you and your friends idea is impractical; however, no matter what way you dress up your idea, through lore or otherwise, your idea is still inherently an artificial limitation. I apologize if I've misinterpreted the previously mentioned limitations your system imposes, but your exact words were "A max default kill limit.", which is inherently artificial. To reiterate my primary concerns because you haven't responded to them.

    Your idea:
    1. Slows down gameplay
    2. Feels forced

    I'm not going to peddle a specific alternative as superior. I'm not attempting to disprove your idea, but I am going to point out that your idea conflicts with my interest, which is to avoid artificial limitations for previously discussed reasons.
  • If only 20 mins is your limit, then whats the point of even having a flagging option to begin with.
    The way flagging typically works is that you remain flagged for PvP combat for about 20-30 minutes after you stop fighting so that you can't just kill someone and then immediately become immune to PvP combat.

    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 is kinda bizarre for the people who don't like PvP combat.
    It is way too PvP-centric. Especially for a PvX game.
    It doesn't really limit griefing. It lets a PKer grief each non-PvPer twice.
    Corruption at least penalizes the griefer after the first attack. And the girefer is free to continue griefing if they wish, but their death penalty will also increase as they rack up their Corruption Score.

    Open World PvP simply means that PvP occurs in the open world rather than in an instance.
    Sandbox games have minimal dev restrictions, so FFA PvP combat tends to be possible and popular in those MMORPGs.
    But, Ashes is a Themebox with restricted PvP combat.

    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.
    Wow!! I thought you couldn't get any worse than locking a character for 48 hours.
    You want to lock the account for 48 hours??!!!
    I am suddenly ecstatic that you are not a game designer!!!
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited April 2018
    Dygz said:
    If only 20 mins is your limit, then whats the point of even having a flagging option to begin with.
    The way flagging typically works is that you remain flagged for PvP combat for about 20-30 minutes after you stop fighting so that you can't just kill someone and then immediately become immune to PvP combat.

    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 is kinda bizarre for the people who don't like PvP combat.
    It is way too PvP-centric. Especially for a PvX game.
    It doesn't really limit griefing. It lets a PKer grief each non-PvPer twice.
    Corruption at least penalizes the griefer after the first attack. And the girefer is free to continue griefing if they wish, but their death penalty will also increase as they rack up their Corruption Score.

    Open World PvP simply means that PvP occurs in the open world rather than in an instance.
    Sandbox games have minimal dev restrictions, so FFA PvP combat tends to be possible and popular in those MMORPGs.
    But, Ashes is a Themebox with restricted PvP combat.

    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.
    Wow!! I thought you couldn't get any worse than locking a character for 48 hours.
    You want to lock the account for 48 hours??!!!
    I am suddenly ecstatic that you are not a game designer!!!
    That's why they would play a pve game. How else can you incorporate true Open world
    pvp without being penalized like the corruption system doing the very thing pvpers typical do in a Open world. So now it's greifing even if your killed 2 times. How about one time, Hkw else can pvpers well pvp if even two is to much. I bet you will probably can get jumped even more on Ashes. My ideas was not to make it a typical Pvx that's 90 percent pve but more 50/50 as close as possible.
    I am still loling  being jumped two times is greiveing I mean why even play Pvx cause it's gonna happen a smite more than two times. Heck I may dedicate my points just to use them all on you. ( wait for that moment you have cargo too). 

    Your account for that "avatar" it's not as if you can't have multiple. It's common for ppl to have an avatar or two dedicated to a specific task. Where as you can remain default for the rest of your life if you choose. You act as if you would have to switch. Even if you did you'd just use a guy more apt for pvp.

    Hate to break it to you but I am working on just that. The pvp aspect of it he the rest is whatever they want. It's a table top we are
    comverting to be playable as a mmorpg. It's a green light but the main guy has yet to start a kickstarter. I am to busy with my job and the future of my yt channel to care for now. But it's possible will have to see what he decides. 

    you dont have to play it. 

    As far as the time limit I thought you were referring to something the else entirely



  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited April 2018
    Again...!!! All open world PvP means is that PvP takes place in the open world rather than in an instance. Open world PvP is not interchangeable with free-for-all PvP!!
    True open world PvP just means that PvP combat is not in an instance!!
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited April 2018
    It is griefing if you kill a non-combatant once. Yes.
    Which is why people gain Corruption after killing one non-combatant.

    Ashes will not be 90% PvE. 
    Ashes has many opportunities for PvP combat: caravans; castle sieges; node sieges; guild wars, arenas and monster coin events.
    You can whine that that is insufficient all you want - you can't change reality.

    In addition to all of the above opportunities for PvP combat without the risk of Corruption, people can attack non-combatants and risk gaining Corruption.
    What you really mean is that Corruption-based PvP combat is likely to be less than 10% of the game.

    If I get jumped and choose not to fight, my killer will eventually get a much higher death penalty than I will, so even though I'm being inconvenienced with loss of time and xp debt and resources... my attacker will eventually be even more inconvenienced by their death penalty once they are killed.

    You could try to jump me. You'd have to find me and catch me first. Which probably won't be very easy.

    It is common to have multiple alts. It's not common to have multiple accounts.
    More importantly it's absurd to punish an alt for the actions of other characters.
    Ashes is an RPG. 
    It's like saying all of the characters on my account should count as mayor of a node if one of them is the mayor of a node. Or that all of the characters on my account should be Level 50 automatically once one of the characters on that account reaches Level 50.

  • phatcat09 said:
    phatcat09 said:
    phatcat09 said:
    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
    When you start to introduce arbitrary limitations to correct a problem, then I think a problem isn't being properly addressed. This seems more like a band-aid, rather than a holistic solution.

    Arbitrary limitations, while efficient, have 2 major negative effects.

    1. They slow down play.
    2. They feel forced. 

    This ultimately impacts peoples enjoyment levels if they feel stunted in their ability to choose. Additionally arbitrary limitations have the capacity to be very indiscriminate in their reach, negatively impacting those who are playing 'fairly' so to speak.

    An approach that appears more organic would be less frustrating to deal with. Not to say I don't see the merit of a system that you suggested, it's just a personal opinion of mine that arbitrary limitations of any kind are best avoided. 
    Well a few things Im inclined to mention. Seeing how tonight I was just going to read and not respond directly until I got home. 

    I had responded directly to a question on a solution. More often people will wish and want for things l, but never really offering a resolve or a how to. So I stood up to the challenge and offered my advice. 

    If you continued reading further this was far from arbitrary. You also got a very short abbreviated version and I clearly stated I will clear up any questions you may have. Being a pvper for many years and coming across this same problem within a cross between the pve and pvp worlds. I wanted to devise a simple
    yet and effective solution. 

    You can say corruption system is arbitrary. I can as easily give the conditions I have some sort of name too, with lore backing. But my intent was not to go into the exact nuisances of every little detail.

    it also does not effect a route you choose because you can have different avatars for different reasons of gameplay. If you decided one day to switch one gameplay to another on a different charecter you can. But there has to be a balance between the when and how often. If it's to small well ppl can exploit the system far to often. If it's to long well ppl will be turned off by it.

    last but not least this has been tested in real world gameplay. My friend has worked on a design of a game ( has 130k gear peices no joke). It's a d&d game designed to go into Our real world ( well pc real world) gameplay. I am behind the pvp aspect of it. This worked like a charm, but it was tested with 12 ppl. There is only so many willing to get involved. I do feel strongly it could work l, but again you only have the short version. 

    I feel it is is a good balance between both very different worlds of gameplay. While offering limitations and freedom for both sides.

    one things for sure at least has a solution rather than arguing about more problems.


    A mandatory waiting period between when you can take actions is an artificial limitation. I think I'm being rather considerate of your idea having said your idea isn't wrong just that it feels in my opinion as an arbitrary limitation. I even gave reasons to why I don't like these artificial limitations you suggest. So perhaps you can respond to those?
    You think attacking someone and losing stats is not? Somehow magically my arms get heavier so I hit less and I bleed like a hemophiliac when hit. Apparently I forget how to fasten my armor to because now it just falls right off. Then there is the flagging system to boot....... Nothing artificial about that at all. I know I sound snarky, but I mean thats the very definition of what artificial is.

    Its the idea you have to sale. For example corruption is tied into the lore. But at the end of the day it is coding with 1's and 0's. You attack subject A within so many levels and points are acquired against subject B that will accumulate negatively.

    So the concept would not be 48 hrs nor would it be EXACTLY 48 hrs. I time frame with a reason aka ( lore) would be injected. Even within that time frame ( just like corruption) you could influence it "within reason" based on doing certain criteria. You can make a concept of a planet with Two moons aligned and give a story as to how the influence characters. A path beholden to truth and destiny and judgement befallen to those who seek a different future. The edge of sanity is but a whispers way of death and it is only you who can change what will become.

    Now this is off the top of my head with no real thought. But I would NEVER ever make something so bland and generic without differing odds and twists and will have reason.

    So I gave about as basic bland of a concept to get the overall idea. What I do in real life has story that goes well beyond anything Ashes will have.




    You're obviously very passionate about your idea so I want to reassure you that I in no way think you and your friends idea is impractical; however, no matter what way you dress up your idea, through lore or otherwise, your idea is still inherently an artificial limitation. I apologize if I've misinterpreted the previously mentioned limitations your system imposes, but your exact words were "A max default kill limit.", which is inherently artificial. To reiterate my primary concerns because you haven't responded to them.

    Your idea:
    1. Slows down gameplay
    2. Feels forced

    I'm not going to peddle a specific alternative as superior. I'm not attempting to disprove your idea, but I am going to point out that your idea conflicts with my interest, which is to avoid artificial limitations for previously discussed reasons.

    phatcat09 said:
    phatcat09 said:
    phatcat09 said:
    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
    When you start to introduce arbitrary limitations to correct a problem, then I think a problem isn't being properly addressed. This seems more like a band-aid, rather than a holistic solution.

    Arbitrary limitations, while efficient, have 2 major negative effects.

    1. They slow down play.
    2. They feel forced. 

    This ultimately impacts peoples enjoyment levels if they feel stunted in their ability to choose. Additionally arbitrary limitations have the capacity to be very indiscriminate in their reach, negatively impacting those who are playing 'fairly' so to speak.

    An approach that appears more organic would be less frustrating to deal with. Not to say I don't see the merit of a system that you suggested, it's just a personal opinion of mine that arbitrary limitations of any kind are best avoided. 
    Well a few things Im inclined to mention. Seeing how tonight I was just going to read and not respond directly until I got home. 

    I had responded directly to a question on a solution. More often people will wish and want for things l, but never really offering a resolve or a how to. So I stood up to the challenge and offered my advice. 

    If you continued reading further this was far from arbitrary. You also got a very short abbreviated version and I clearly stated I will clear up any questions you may have. Being a pvper for many years and coming across this same problem within a cross between the pve and pvp worlds. I wanted to devise a simple
    yet and effective solution. 

    You can say corruption system is arbitrary. I can as easily give the conditions I have some sort of name too, with lore backing. But my intent was not to go into the exact nuisances of every little detail.

    it also does not effect a route you choose because you can have different avatars for different reasons of gameplay. If you decided one day to switch one gameplay to another on a different charecter you can. But there has to be a balance between the when and how often. If it's to small well ppl can exploit the system far to often. If it's to long well ppl will be turned off by it.

    last but not least this has been tested in real world gameplay. My friend has worked on a design of a game ( has 130k gear peices no joke). It's a d&d game designed to go into Our real world ( well pc real world) gameplay. I am behind the pvp aspect of it. This worked like a charm, but it was tested with 12 ppl. There is only so many willing to get involved. I do feel strongly it could work l, but again you only have the short version. 

    I feel it is is a good balance between both very different worlds of gameplay. While offering limitations and freedom for both sides.

    one things for sure at least has a solution rather than arguing about more problems.


    A mandatory waiting period between when you can take actions is an artificial limitation. I think I'm being rather considerate of your idea having said your idea isn't wrong just that it feels in my opinion as an arbitrary limitation. I even gave reasons to why I don't like these artificial limitations you suggest. So perhaps you can respond to those?
    You think attacking someone and losing stats is not? Somehow magically my arms get heavier so I hit less and I bleed like a hemophiliac when hit. Apparently I forget how to fasten my armor to because now it just falls right off. Then there is the flagging system to boot....... Nothing artificial about that at all. I know I sound snarky, but I mean thats the very definition of what artificial is.

    Its the idea you have to sale. For example corruption is tied into the lore. But at the end of the day it is coding with 1's and 0's. You attack subject A within so many levels and points are acquired against subject B that will accumulate negatively.

    So the concept would not be 48 hrs nor would it be EXACTLY 48 hrs. I time frame with a reason aka ( lore) would be injected. Even within that time frame ( just like corruption) you could influence it "within reason" based on doing certain criteria. You can make a concept of a planet with Two moons aligned and give a story as to how the influence characters. A path beholden to truth and destiny and judgement befallen to those who seek a different future. The edge of sanity is but a whispers way of death and it is only you who can change what will become.

    Now this is off the top of my head with no real thought. But I would NEVER ever make something so bland and generic without differing odds and twists and will have reason.

    So I gave about as basic bland of a concept to get the overall idea. What I do in real life has story that goes well beyond anything Ashes will have.




    You're obviously very passionate about your idea so I want to reassure you that I in no way think you and your friends idea is impractical; however, no matter what way you dress up your idea, through lore or otherwise, your idea is still inherently an artificial limitation. I apologize if I've misinterpreted the previously mentioned limitations your system imposes, but your exact words were "A max default kill limit.", which is inherently artificial. To reiterate my primary concerns because you haven't responded to them.

    Your idea:
    1. Slows down gameplay
    2. Feels forced

    I'm not going to peddle a specific alternative as superior. I'm not attempting to disprove your idea, but I am going to point out that your idea conflicts with my interest, which is to avoid artificial limitations for previously discussed reasons.
    Well it is all artificial as I suggested with the limitations of the corruption system.  Anything that imposes artificial negative effects be it getting weaker because you attacked said person who was such and such lvl. You can slap lore To about anything and at least make it sound plausible. At the end of the day the system in play so far in Ashes feels far more forced and limiting. ( pvp wise)
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited April 2018
    Dygz said:
    Again...!!! All open world PvP means is that PvP takes place in the open world rather than in an instance. Open world PvP is not interchangeable with free-for-all PvP!!
    True open world PvP just means that PvP combat is not in an instance!!
    I have no idea what sjw guideline hand book you are following. Or what variant version of instance you are speaking of. In mmo games, an instance is a special area, typically a dungeon, that generates a new copy of the location for each group, or for certain number of players, that enters the area. You also have housing instances and so on. Yes open world pvp is free for all typically. Do I now need to site games that were. Can not even begin to imagine the amount of ppl I killed in Age of Conan and AA. It was clearly free for all for me and many others ( because it was open world pvp). You can label how you wanted but you were still dead at the end of the day. So we are clear you are arguing about a concept for a game someone asked me about. Like you are literally botherd for something you never have to endure. You're arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.
  • Gaining Corruption for killing non-combatants fits well with the lore of the gods and the Corruption that inflicts Verra.
    How artificial a mechanic feels is a matter of story-telling.

    Easy enough for a lawless zone to be the patron region of a Trickster god--
    If Steven wanted a lawless zone in the game.
    But, he probably doesn't, since the whole point of the Corruption mechanic is to minimize that form of PvP combat in the game.

  • CopperRaven said:
    Hkw else can pvpers well pvp if even two is to much.  

    There is a really simple way to accomidate this.

    Put in specific PvP elements to the game, and tell PvP'ers that this is where they should be focusing their time.

    A game designer should always try to make a game where players are not forced in to something they don't want to do. If you want a game with PvP, you have to try and get all PvP players to only PvP against other players that want to PvP.

    Giving PvP'ers an incentive to attacking a player without cause is poor game design, giving them a reason to not want to attack is good game design - as long as there are times when that PvP player can meet up with other PvP players to PvP.
  • Noaani said:
    CopperRaven said:
    Hkw else can pvpers well pvp if even two is to much.  

    There is a really simple way to accomidate this.

    Put in specific PvP elements to the game, and tell PvP'ers that this is where they should be focusing their time.

    A game designer should always try to make a game where players are not forced in to something they don't want to do. If you want a game with PvP, you have to try and get all PvP players to only PvP against other players that want to PvP.

    Giving PvP'ers an incentive to attacking a player without cause is poor game design, giving them a reason to not want to attack is good game design - as long as there are times when that PvP player can meet up with other PvP players to PvP.
    I am not opposed to this but really I am getting into a debate over something that's not a reality. A question was asked and I simple gave my answer. Factions have often been a reason for war aka pvp. Based upon the war torn history. So if I saw a red So to speak well that was enough incentive for me to kill. I am not speaking in terms I just killed everyone. Heck I couldn't even stomach the idea of killing my own despite me wanting so badly to be a pirate 
  • Dygz said:
    Gaining Corruption for killing non-combatants fits well with the lore of the gods and the Corruption that inflicts Verra.
    How artificial a mechanic feels is a matter of story-telling.

    Easy enough for a lawless zone to be the patron region of a Trickster god--
    If Steven wanted a lawless zone in the game.
    But, he probably doesn't, since the whole point of the Corruption mechanic is to minimize that form of PvP combat in the game.

    Ok? ...... Or perhaps he will see a there can be a need for a specific area of lawlessness for a community ( clearly ) not exactly happy about the corruption system in play. Or maybe he won't based on what you said. We don't know really.  It I feel in my opinion as a former AA player he would. 

    Have we reached a point we got nothing left substantial to debate over. I can fix that with a new thread you know.
    So far I have debated over a system that does not exists. Not even going to happen in the is game,  all over a question I was asked. Now we are back to Steven may or probably, perhaps. 


    Gonna work on a thread in my head now and see wth happens
  • Noaani said:
    CopperRaven said:
    Hkw else can pvpers well pvp if even two is to much.  

    There is a really simple way to accomidate this.

    Put in specific PvP elements to the game, and tell PvP'ers that this is where they should be focusing their time.

    A game designer should always try to make a game where players are not forced in to something they don't want to do. If you want a game with PvP, you have to try and get all PvP players to only PvP against other players that want to PvP.

    Giving PvP'ers an incentive to attacking a player without cause is poor game design, giving them a reason to not want to attack is good game design - as long as there are times when that PvP player can meet up with other PvP players to PvP.
    I am not opposed to this but really I am getting into a debate over something that's not a reality. A question was asked and I simple gave my answer. Factions have often been a reason for war aka pvp. Based upon the war torn history. So if I saw a red So to speak well that was enough incentive for me to kill. I am not speaking in terms I just killed everyone. Heck I couldn't even stomach the idea of killing my own despite me wanting so badly to be a pirate 
    While this works with the lore of a game like WoW (Warhammer lore at it's heart, effectively) where two sides have been at each other for ever, AoC is more a game about exploration (or re-exploration).

    People didn't leave their life behind to go to a new world to just kill people. They (our characters) go to explore, to build. It honestly doesn't fit the lore of the game to even have murder-hobos in Verra.

    I mean, sure, once we get to Verra we form our own factions and use them as a means to want to kill each other, but it doesn't make much sense that someone would leave their entire life behind and go through a portal literally into the unknown just to be opportunistic degenerates (lore perspective, not talking about players).
  • Noaani said:
    Noaani said:
    CopperRaven said:
    Hkw else can pvpers well pvp if even two is to much.  

    There is a really simple way to accomidate this.

    Put in specific PvP elements to the game, and tell PvP'ers that this is where they should be focusing their time.

    A game designer should always try to make a game where players are not forced in to something they don't want to do. If you want a game with PvP, you have to try and get all PvP players to only PvP against other players that want to PvP.

    Giving PvP'ers an incentive to attacking a player without cause is poor game design, giving them a reason to not want to attack is good game design - as long as there are times when that PvP player can meet up with other PvP players to PvP.
    I am not opposed to this but really I am getting into a debate over something that's not a reality. A question was asked and I simple gave my answer. Factions have often been a reason for war aka pvp. Based upon the war torn history. So if I saw a red So to speak well that was enough incentive for me to kill. I am not speaking in terms I just killed everyone. Heck I couldn't even stomach the idea of killing my own despite me wanting so badly to be a pirate 
    While this works with the lore of a game like WoW (Warhammer lore at it's heart, effectively) where two sides have been at each other for ever, AoC is more a game about exploration (or re-exploration).

    People didn't leave their life behind to go to a new world to just kill people. They (our characters) go to explore, to build. It honestly doesn't fit the lore of the game to even have murder-hobos in Verra.

    I mean, sure, once we get to Verra we form our own factions and use them as a means to want to kill each other, but it doesn't make much sense that someone would leave their entire life behind and go through a portal literally into the unknown just to be opportunistic degenerates (lore perspective, not talking about players).
    I will just say uh huh.... I mean I could counter it but the topic we have been on is really not worth it. Clearly I do not mind a good back and forth. But to each his own when it comes to this. Even as I write this a counter argument  has developed. But I feel I am going in Dygz territory and arguing just because  I can. So I won't agree or disagree. But I do have a thread I am eager to post. Hope to see you there 
  • Noaani said:
    MADE said:

    Well you can kill your alt with your main to get rid of corruption, so?
    Althrough you didn't even need a alt for it, as your friend can do it either.
    But having a alt hides your main's name from the victims, and it can have less valuable gear too, with griefing focused build.

    It deepends on system. Assuming you hunt very low level ones, you probably can kill them with very high amount of corruption, so unless there's a level where you have like 100% dmg reduction, maybe a perma corrup alt will work too for griefing.
    Othervise you just farm your alt for like a hour every week to get rid of it, or just afk naked, so the bountyhunters farm down your corruption while they getting rewarded for it...

    The system is full of loopholes, and it only punishes the actual PvP players.

    In the end, the low lvl/casual players game will be ruined as long as there are no PvP off areas, and so does the outdor PvP players game as long there will be corruption.
    And the griefers will be the less affected by a system that deseigned agains them...

    Most (sucesful) mmorpgs uses the PvP off / PvP on areas/servers for a reason.... As there are no better system. It not realistic, but neither do corruption and other systemls like that are.
    Of everything I have seen from Intrepid so far, the one thing that stands out the most to me was during PAX East, when asked what they learned from previous MMO's, specifically Archeage and BDO, Stevens answer was quite telling.

     I'll just answer my top 3.

    One: Listening to the community and being real time in changes. I'm not talking about the creative vision of the project, I'm talking about specific practices that people don't like.

    Two: We want progression to matter and we don't want to undermine that progression by offering a cash shop that's going to give these pay to win / gimmicks towards monetization. In an MMORPG, economy is extremely important, especially for us, that matters.

    Third: The last thing, we want players to be fulfilled in what they do. We don't want the rug to be pulled out from under them later on by some major change that's going to trivialize the amount of time they put into the game. 

    Knowing full well that Steven has considerably more experience in Archeage than BDO as a player, each of these three things instantly translated to a controversy from AA to me.

    I'll only focus on the one that is relevant to this discussion though, which is the first one.

    In Archeage, people used to use vehicles to block bridges. This prevented people from being able to do trade runs (caravans) effectively - and in some cases, at all. Some people would park their vehicles on bridges and afk - sometimes for days at a time.

    Trion was asked to put a stop to this, as it is unintended gameplay and causing a serious negative impact on players experience of the game. Rather than doing anything about it, they called it "emergent gameplay" and said it is fine.

    This one statement from Trion cost them five figures worth of subs in less than a week.

    While the story absolutely carries on from there, the basics of it were that Trion refused to act in the best interests of the bulk of their players, and as a result lost enough players for the game to never actually recover from that point. When they did eventually act, they didn't change anything in the game (not immediately, at least), all they did was say that players blocking bridges would be despawned and their vehicles blown up (they could be repaired).

    This was a controversy that I have no doubt Steven was at least watching - if not actively involved in from a player perspective (as I were).

    Right, back to the point at hand.

    Stevens comments that I quoted above tell me that in such a situation, he plans on being far more responsive to actions players are taking, and ways players are getting around the systems in undesired ways.

    As players find loopholes in the systems of the game, and these loopholes are bought to Intrepids attention, they will make a call on whether they think that is acceptable gameplay or not. If they think it is acceptable, then they need do nothing about it. If they deem it unacceptable, they will do something about it.

    Every system has it's flaws. Asking Intrepid to develop one without flaws is pointless.

    Judge Intrepid on how they deal with these flaws as they are exposed.
    lol
    So instead of making a house fireproof in the first place, they wants to extinguish the fire fast?

    It's easy to promise, that they will be responsive, nearly all game maker studio promised it, most multiple times, but in reality, it never happens.
    You are dumb if you blindly believe in what they say. While physically it's easy to change things in games, and most change can be done in minutes, the company's forced protocols and the lack of intrest not going to let it happen. They just put it in a TODO lsit, and after loots of meetings, they release a patch within a month or two...

    Also wtf is the being "responsive" instead of using our brain in the first place? Your example is a good example agains this mentality.

    Who would've thought that if they give collision to a player controllable object then they will exploit it?
    Anyone with comonsense, or gaming experience...
    And some developer was dumb enought to put it into the game, lol...

    In wow, there are no collision in most thing. The reason isn't the lack os support, the engine support objects with collisions, but cause the fact that players will exploit it, and it's already proven everytime that something ends up accidentally having collision.

    If there are something that can be exploited, you can be 100% sure that someone at some point will exploit it.

    btw you can't even be responsive here. That's not something that everoyne would see. If someone finds out a way to get rid of corruption, he won't going to brag about it. He will silently exploit it, so it won't really be know until the point that half of playerbase will exploit it...




  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited April 2018
    Factions have often been a reason for war aka pvp. Based upon the war torn history. So if I saw a red So to speak well that was enough incentive for me to kill. I am not speaking in terms I just killed everyone.
    Right.
    That is great MOBA and MMOFPS game design.
    It is exceedingly poor RPG design. Which is why Steven has mechanics to greatly reduce that style of PvP combat in Ashes.

    Ashes will have many forms of PvP combat where PvPers can kill individual player characters multiple times in the span of an hour without risking Corruption.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited April 2018
    Dygz said: Right.
    That is great MOBA and MMOFPS game design.
    It is exceedingly poor RPG design. Which is why Steven has mechanics to greatly reduce that style of PvP combat in Ashes.

    Ashes will have many forms of PvP combat where PvPers can kill individual player characters multiple times in the span of an hour without risking Corruption.


    It's  a poor design according to who, you? Well of course it is to you, but do not pretend it does not exists. In fact Archeage was one of the few that would had succeeded had it not been for the Archeum, p2w, land grabbing,add in the slot machine Tactics. I can name a slew of reasons, but the Pvp side of it was not a blip on the radar comparative as far as complaints..

    Many forms of Pvp. Yes most to which takes a team of people time and planning. But you know that already. I can break each one down categorically for you as others have as I have already. Saying it over and over makes it true and full filling for us pvpers. Yet here we are not stoked about the corruption system for Aoc I wonder why that is....... Ohhh I know because we want to gank aka grief people, has nothing at all what we have tried to explain to you.

    Now have I seen pvp kill a community you bet I have. But there are games that existed and exists where open world pvp was not the primary factor of a game dying.

  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited April 2018
    MADE said:

    lol
    So instead of making a house fireproof in the first place, they wants to extinguish the fire fast?

    Not quite how I would put it.

    Using fire as an analogy, I'd say they are going to make the house as good as they can, up to general  fire resistant standards, but when some player-arsonist comes along with a tank full of gas and sets it on fire, rather than looking at it saying "but we made it to fire resistant standards" like other MMO developers do, they will instead simply put the fire out.

    People will always find a way to exploit a systems.

    ALWAYS.

    The system in question here (corruption) is actually fairly well designed when you consider the intent behind it - and the fact that us players can already point to a few possible exploits does not change the fact that it is a fairly well designed system.

    I agree, it is an easy promise. Thing is, it is events exactly like the one described (actually, in part, that exact event from what I understand) that has caused Steven to start Intrepid in the first place. That is the reason I (right now) believe Intrepid when they say that when I don't believe other studios.

    Other studios aren't started by someone sick of other game studios and the way they treat their games and players. Intrepid is.

    MADE said:

    Who would've thought that if they give collision to a player controllable object then they will exploit it?
    Anyone with comonsense, or gaming experience...
    And some developer was dumb enought to put it into the game, lol...

    Funny thing about this... Archeage had Korean servers, Russian servers, Chinese servers and Japanese servers, as well as the Trion run NA/EU servers.

    Blocking was only ever an issue on NA/EU servers (actually, I believe it was only ever a real issue on NA servers). Every other region was just looking at us going "wtf are you guys doing?"

    So when the second smallest of five regions is the only one that has a specific issue with people exploiting a given system, it is fairly easy it is not an oversight of the developers, bu ta warped mindset of the players of that region.

    Take that as you will.

    The game needed collision as it was a vital part of both naval combat (items were designed around ramming other ships) and sieges.

    On that note, expect collision in AoC.

    Edit:

    MADE said:

    btw you can't even be responsive here. That's not something that everoyne would see. If someone finds out a way to get rid of corruption, he won't going to brag about it. He will silently exploit it, so it won't really be know until the point that half of playerbase will exploit it...
    This depends entirely on what logs Intrepid keep, and the systems they have in place.

    If they have a system to warn them when someone has corruption removed from them by being killed by the same player three times in a row (a system we will never know about, and they would never discuss), then these players will find themselves being caught out quite often - without even knowing why.

    It is really easy to always assume the worst.

    You should try not doing it some time.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited April 2018
    It's a poor design according to who, you? Well of course it is to you, but do not pretend it does not exists. In fact Archeage was one of the few that would had succeeded had it not been for the Archeum, p2w, land grabbing,add in the slot machine Tactics. I can name a slew of reasons, but the Pvp side of it was not a blip on the radar comparative as far as complaints..

    Many forms of Pvp. Yes most to which takes a team of people time and planning. But you know that already. I can break each one down categorically for you as others have as I have already. Saying it over and over makes it true and full filling for us pvpers. Yet here we are not stoked about the corruption system for Aoc I wonder why that is....... Ohhh I know because we want to gank aka grief people, has nothing at all what we have tried to explain to you.

    Now have I seen pvp kill a community you bet I have. But there are games that existed and exists where open world pvp was not the primary factor of a game dying.

    It's poor RPG design according to Steven.
    Which is why he has implemented the Corruption mechanic into his game design and has chosen to punish the PKing of non-combatants.
    Just because features exist in a video game does not mean the features are not poor design for an RPG.

    It does not take a team or a huge amount of time or planning in order to participate in caravans, node sieges, guild wars, monster coin attacks, castle sieges and arenas. If your goal is to always win those events - yes, that will take coordination with other players and planning.
    If your goal is just to kill individual player characters without gaining Corruption, you can easily do that solo, without any planning.
    If you are in a guild war, that means you can just hang out near enemy territory and ambush people from the opposing guild whenever you wish.
    If you join a guild that participates in castle sieges, that means you can attack or defend the caravans needed to build up the fortifications for the defense villages. Which happens several times per week. In addition to ambushing any of the members of the enemy guild.
    You can do any of that solo. You don't have to rely on a team to help you. If all you want to do is kill other player characters without gaining Corruption. And you don't have to plan any of that in advance.

    What you want to do is be able to log in and engage in free-for-all combat with other players whenever you wish without a penalty like Corruption.
    As if Ashes of Creation were a MOBA or MMOFPS.
    Ashes of Creation is not that kind of game - but there are many viable avenues for PvP combat where the Corruption mechanic is disabled.

    And....I'm done discussing this with you.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited April 2018
    nagash said:
    Im more into puns and sarcastic humour myself but this one I had to post as this is 18 pages of nonsense and it must end 
    Yep... basically everyone here agrees to disagree.... And it's impossible to find a common ground because we don't know how it "feels" in the game. Maybe some people will change their opinion about the system and/or find new ideas that could improve their experience without affecting others'.

    But, at the end of the day, it's Steven's game to make and his choices to implement. If he decides on a 100% PVE game, then that's what's going to be. I just want something fun and complex that doesn't become stale in 2-3 years.

    We just don't know. I also think this is a very controversial subject to discuss, but I wish the AoC team would clarify some aspects... or at least their intentions. Here, on the forums, in a special thread. I'm not asking for extreme details, but for a deeper explanation of their intentions (at this time). I'm not the kind of guy to be sweetened due to charismatic talking and such, yet I do understand that they may not have the full picture on what they want yet.

    All I'm asking for is more specifics/details, as soon as they have them.

    PS: damn I wish I could play the alpha 0... :disappointed::cry:
  • Hardcore PvPers, casual PvPers and non-PvPers are highly unlikely to agree on what mechanics should be in a game where everyone is playing on the same server.

    The common ground should be on what the actual mechanics in the game design are.
    And common ground should be on how those mechanics function based on the info shared in the game design.

    We can't know what flaws there will be until we actually play them.

    Everyone would love more details.
    We got quite a few tasty tidbits -especially regarding castle sieges- this past weekend in From the Ashes Ep 42.
  • In the end, we all want the game to be great and that's all that matters ^^
  • Crusader2010 said: 
    nagash said:
    Im more into puns and sarcastic humour myself but this one I had to post as this is 18 pages of nonsense and it must end 
    Yep... basically everyone here agrees to disagree.... And it's impossible to find a common ground because we don't know how it "feels" in the game. Maybe some people will change their opinion about the system and/or find new ideas that could improve their experience without affecting others'.

    But, at the end of the day, it's Steven's game to make and his choices to implement. If he decides on a 100% PVE game, then that's what's going to be. I just want something fun and complex that doesn't become stale in 2-3 years.

    We just don't know. I also think this is a very controversial subject to discuss, but I wish the AoC team would clarify some aspects... or at least their intentions. Here, on the forums, in a special thread. I'm not asking for extreme details, but for a deeper explanation of their intentions (at this time). I'm not the kind of guy to be sweetened due to charismatic talking and such, yet I do understand that they may not have the full picture on what they want yet.

    All I'm asking for is more specifics/details, as soon as they have them.

    PS: damn I wish I could play the alpha 0... :disappointed::cry:
    How dare you be reasonable and patient in this thread. Get out!

  • Dygz said:
    It's a poor design according to who, you? Well of course it is to you, but do not pretend it does not exists. In fact Archeage was one of the few that would had succeeded had it not been for the Archeum, p2w, land grabbing,add in the slot machine Tactics. I can name a slew of reasons, but the Pvp side of it was not a blip on the radar comparative as far as complaints..

    Many forms of Pvp. Yes most to which takes a team of people time and planning. But you know that already. I can break each one down categorically for you as others have as I have already. Saying it over and over makes it true and full filling for us pvpers. Yet here we are not stoked about the corruption system for Aoc I wonder why that is....... Ohhh I know because we want to gank aka grief people, has nothing at all what we have tried to explain to you.

    Now have I seen pvp kill a community you bet I have. But there are games that existed and exists where open world pvp was not the primary factor of a game dying.

    It's poor RPG design according to Steven.
    Which is why he has implemented the Corruption mechanic into his game design and has chosen to punish the PKing of non-combatants.
    Just because features exist in a video game does not mean the features are not poor design for an RPG.

    It does not take a team or a huge amount of time or planning in order to participate in caravans, node sieges, guild wars, monster coin attacks, castle sieges and arenas. If your goal is to always win those events - yes, that will take coordination with other players and planning.
    If your goal is just to kill individual player characters without gaining Corruption, you can easily do that solo, without any planning.
    If you are in a guild war, that means you can just hang out near enemy territory and ambush people from the opposing guild whenever you wish.
    If you join a guild that participates in castle sieges, that means you can attack or defend the caravans needed to build up the fortifications for the defense villages. Which happens several times per week. In addition to ambushing any of the members of the enemy guild.
    You can do any of that solo. You don't have to rely on a team to help you. If all you want to do is kill other player characters without gaining Corruption. And you don't have to plan any of that in advance.

    What you want to do is be able to log in and engage in free-for-all combat with other players whenever you wish without a penalty like Corruption.
    As if Ashes of Creation were a MOBA or MMOFPS.
    Ashes of Creation is not that kind of game - but there are many viable avenues for PvP combat where the Corruption mechanic is disabled.

    And....I'm done discussing this with you.
    I had pretty much destroyed this conversation this morning. Ether we had a glitch or the moderator removed what I had said. Your post was gone too. 

    far to lazy to systematically categorically  deal down each individual point again. ( specially on a phone). So I will sum it up to something abit smaller. It may seemingly be enough to you but for me and others it's not.( For good reason)  No point in explaining it because you want to live in your bubble and give me the ( well Steven said so and so) don't care what Steve said it's irrelevant what he said. We have a voice and in order for something to change you can't sit silently like a good lil boy. My request is reasonable and outside the means of corruption system. Note does it mean he won't incorporate something because we are still aways out. 




  • Althor said:
    Crusader2010 said: 
    nagash said:
    Im more into puns and sarcastic humour myself but this one I had to post as this is 18 pages of nonsense and it must end 
    Yep... basically everyone here agrees to disagree.... And it's impossible to find a common ground because we don't know how it "feels" in the game. Maybe some people will change their opinion about the system and/or find new ideas that could improve their experience without affecting others'.

    But, at the end of the day, it's Steven's game to make and his choices to implement. If he decides on a 100% PVE game, then that's what's going to be. I just want something fun and complex that doesn't become stale in 2-3 years.

    We just don't know. I also think this is a very controversial subject to discuss, but I wish the AoC team would clarify some aspects... or at least their intentions. Here, on the forums, in a special thread. I'm not asking for extreme details, but for a deeper explanation of their intentions (at this time). I'm not the kind of guy to be sweetened due to charismatic talking and such, yet I do understand that they may not have the full picture on what they want yet.

    All I'm asking for is more specifics/details, as soon as they have them.

    PS: damn I wish I could play the alpha 0... :disappointed::cry:
    How dare you be reasonable and patient in this thread. Get out!

    Sadly that tends to be the mentality these days.
  • @Dygz @CopperRaven

    I've lost track, are you guys still talking about adding an area shere corruption is removed?

    If so, surely the idea that Steven thinks it is bad game design is immediately disproven by the fact that corruption is removed around caravans. If an area is given something Steven considers a valid PvP target, I'm sure corruption will be removed from the area.

    That said, I don't see it being removed from just some general part of the world for no specific reason other than catering to PvP players.
  • The kind of battlegrounds you are describing is something that Steven has seemingly made a point a to clarify Ashes doesn't have in its game design.

    But, yeah, such a location would have to be objective-based with clear victory/surrender conditions, rather than simply an ongoing FFA lawless zone, requiring planning in a manner that CopperRaven rejects.
Sign In or Register to comment.